Wikipedia:Quick guide to reviewing new articles: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
add language advice |
→Ethnic groups: better examples |
||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Supplement|pages=WP:New pages patrol|shortcut=WP:
This page contains short guides and advice for reviewing various types of articles as part of [[WP:NPP|new pages patrol]]. Where the main instructions page focuses on a mechanical view of how to process an article, this page summarizes key things to look out for on specific types of articles, as well as resources and likely outcomes.
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 32:
===Inaccessible and non-English sources===
{{See also|Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers with language specialties}}
Remember that when evaluating articles, [[WP:NEXIST|notability is based on the possibility of the existence of coverage in reliable sources]]. If a notability judgment comes down to whether or not an inaccessible or unreadable source contains significant coverage of a subject, make an educated guess as to whether the source is likely to contain such coverage, based on its title and publication details. If need be, it is reasonable to ask the editor that added the sources to provide samples or translations of the content, although this may potentially be non-trivial effort for the other editor. The extent to which you require the other editor to provide verifiable scans, as opposed to mere transcriptions should be based on standard [[WP:AGF|AGF]] principles.
For most languages other than English that you're likely to come across in article submissions, Google Translate is sufficient for assessing whether a reference has significant coverage of a subject and verifying important claims. It may be insufficient for assessing the reliability of a source, and it may also be difficult to search for additional coverage of a subject in a language that you lack proficiency in. Consider leaving articles in unfamiliar languages to editors that are more proficient, although at a certain point our team of reviewers only has so many language proficiencies and you may need to make decisions about such articles with incomplete information. Editors interested in spending a significant amount of time reviewing pages may want to consider studying additional languages. Even minimal proficiency in a language can be extremely helpful. In the case of languages that use other alphabets, it can be useful even just to learn how to phonetically read the alphabet so that you can identify names.
==Subject-specific guides==▼
===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 online). 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.
For biographical subjects that do not meet notability guidelines but who are associated with a notable creative work or company, redirecting to the notable article may be preferable to deletion.
===Companies and organizations===
{{See also|WP:NORG}}
Companies and organizations are subject to some of the most stringent notability guidelines on Wikipedia due to the subject matter's propensity for hiring [[WP:PAID|paid editors]] and self-promotion in other publications. General interest and business magazines are the most likely reliable sources to find, but occasionally academic coverage will be available as well. Many trade magazines are not reliable, and even the reliable ones usually also publish content sponsored by subjects. Bare bones reports about the buying and selling of assets do not comprise significant coverage, even if published in a reliable source. While many publicly-traded companies are notable, simply being publicly traded is insufficient for establishing notability.
===Educational institutions===
{{see also|WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES}}
====Schools====
Educational institutions below the university level are expected to meet [[WP:GNG]]. When not notable, schools are generally redirected to their local school district or parent organization if a private institution with no clear governing district if such articles exist. School districts are almost guaranteed to be notable. Carefully check articles about private schools for promotional content. Bear in mind that articles for schools will often be edited by children, and thus may be full of vandalism or poorly written content. There was a general consensus that high schools were presumed notable, although this consensus was overturned in a 2017 RfC. Hunting down articles that were created under the old consensus is a less productive use of your time than reviewing newly created articles.
Local newspapers are the most likely sources to cover schools, although larger publications may also cover particularly notable schools.
====Universities====
Virtually all accredited universities are notable. Colleges or other institutions within a university may be notable, but notability should not be assumed even for institutes at prestigious universities (although many will be). When not notable, content can often be merged into the article of the university.
University-level student publications are often not considered reliable sources, but may be considered marginally reliable for information about student groups.
===Food===
Academic journals, newspapers and magazines may have reliable coverage of food. While some recipe books may include information about recipes, bare recipe instructions are primary (and often self-published) and thus don't contribute toward notability. Food articles often contain original research, and claims about a recipe's origins may be contentious; depending on the author, a cook book may be able to provide reliable information about ingredients or variations, but not necessarily its history. When evaluating articles about dishes, make sure to search for any listed synonyms, likely misspellings, or non-English names to verify that we don't already have an article about the subject. Similarly, the article may have been created at a title that is not actually the most [[WP:COMMONNAME|common name]] used by reliable sources, in which case it should be moved. In some cases, information about non-notable or borderline-notable foods may be better integrated into a broader article about a type of food or a national cuisine. Consequently, it's rarely appropriate to delete a food article outright.
National or ethnic cuisine articles, such as [[Mexican cuisine]] or [[Jewish cuisine]], are almost always notable, although they may be poorly sourced, non-neutral, or far from complete
▲==Subject-specific guides==
===Geography===
{{see also|WP:NGEO}}
Line 73 ⟶ 84:
Music-related topics see a fair amount of paid editing, as well as editing by fans. Non-neutral language and excessively long quotes are common problems for articles about this topic.
====
{{see also|WP:NALBUM|WP:NSONG}}
The bread and butter of reliable coverage for songs and albums are
Albums that have not been released yet are very rarely notable, although if a release is days away for a major recording artist and has already generated anticipatory coverage in major music publications it's often not worth the hassle of redirecting or deleting. Songs are virtually never notable in advance of their release, and redirects from speculative songtitles to albums or artists should not be created.
===Science===
{{see also|WP:NASTRO}}
When evaluating the notability of a scientific concept, the main thing is to check that papers have been published on the subject by scientists working independently of each other: cross check the full authors list of cited papers. Google Scholar is a good place to search for coverage. Many papers will be paywalled, and in some cases you may have to make educated guesses based only on a paper's title and abstract.
====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====
Medical claims in articles are subject to some of the strictest sourcing requirements, which are detailed at [[WP:MEDRS]].
===Sports===
{{see also|WP:NSPORTS}}
====Sports biographies====
Following the removal of appearance-based SNG criteria for sports biographies, subjects of such articles are expected to demonstrably meet GNG. Winning or medalling in top-level tournaments is still considered a valid SNG for these topics. Given that the prior SNGs conferring notability to nearly all fully-professional players were in force for many years, it is advised to move slowly when nominating such articles for deletion, starting with {{t|notability}} tags and nominating towards AfD if no improvement follows the tagging.
====Seasons and tournaments====
Sports seasons are nominally subject to GNG, but enforcement is fairly lax as information in the articles is usually trivially verifiable and neutral. This is particularly true for league-level articles, assuming that the league is fully professional or in the [[National Collegiate Athletic Association|NCAA]].
Tournament events may be covered by [[WP:SIZESPLIT]] even when not strictly notable.
====Rivalries====
Sports rivalry articles are very often full of original research. Make sure that there are reliable sources that cover the rivalry itself, beyond simply confirming that the teams played each other.
==See also==
*[[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects|The new pages patrol guide to reviewing redirects]]
*[[WT:NPR|The new page reviewer noticeboard]]
== Notes ==
{{Notelist}}
| |||