Wikipedia:Quick guide to reviewing new articles: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:10, 5 April 2023

Latest revision as of 06:33, 17 April 2023

(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 20:

'''[[WP:R|Redirect]]''' – articles that don't meet notability guidelines but are mentioned or discussed in another article, conversion to redirect is a valid alternative to deletion. This can be done as a [[WP:BOLD|bold edit]] without prior discussion, but if disputed should be discussed further and eventually taken to AfD if no consensus can be found. If the article has relevant information cited to reliable sources, it may be appropriate to merge content.

'''[[WP:Draftify|Draftify]]''' – sending articles to draftspace is an option that should be used only for suspected [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]], if you yourself are planning on improving the article, or if the article is for a future event and is likely to eventually be notable. An additional reason to use draftify is if content in the article can be repurposed for a different article about a notable subject (e.g. a non-notable author's biography may have content that could be used for an article about their notable debut novel){{efn|This is not the full remit of uses of the draftify tool as laid out [[WP:NPPDRAFT|in the NPP tutorial]]. In the interest of steering new page reviewers clear of disputes with other editors, this guide includes a very sparing list of use-cases for draftification, as the process's usage in other contexts can be controversial.}}

==General advice for evaluating sources==

Line 41:

===Biographies===

{{see also|WP:NBIO}}

Biographies of living people are one of the most problem-rife types of new articles due to people attempting to use the site as an outlet for self-promotion. A dead giveaway for likely COI is an infobox photo that looks like a glossy [[:File:Michelle Borromeo Actor Headshots 30.jpg|professional headshot]] instead of a more candid photo, ''especially'' if the headshot is attributed to the editor that wrote the article as "own work", which suggests that either the editor met the subject in person or filed the image permissions incorrectly for an image that they were given (provided that a reverse-image search confirms that the image is not available elsewhere onlinieonline). When dealing with potentially-promotional articles about subjects that are notable, be sure to check for additional sources online, as a draft written by a paid editor may intentionally skip over significant controversies or scandals involving the subject. Accurately updating the article may in some cases be a more fitting punishment for would-be promotionalists than deleting it.

Biographies for long-dead figures are much less likely to be created for promotional reasons. Notability guidelines are often relaxed for historical figures for whom there may be few surviving sources despite having clear claims to importance.

Line 98:

====Ethnic groups====

Most ethnic groups that are verifiably distinct subjects are notable, but poorly sourced articles on these subjects may be better off merged into a higher-level article, if one is available. Immigrant groups in a specific region (e.g. [[Italians in the United States]]) are less likely to meet GNG just by virtue of existing, but can often be merged or at least redirected to higher-level articles on immigration or diaspora grops (e.g. [[Immigration to Japan]], [[Greek diaspora]] instead of [[Ukrainian immigration to Japan]], [[Greeks in Ho Chi Minh City]]) Academic sources are strongly preferred, but some non-academic publications may be usable, and are likely to indicate that additional, more reliable coverage exists. Potentially contentious claims should be referred to OR, FRINGE, or RS noticeboards as needed.

====Medicine====

Line 120:

*[[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects|The new pages patrol guide to reviewing redirects]]

*[[WT:NPR|The new page reviewer noticeboard]]

== Notes ==

{{Notelist}}