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

Revision as of 03:05, 18 May 2020

Latest revision as of 06:33, 17 April 2023

(24 intermediate revisions by 4 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 32:

===Inaccessible and non-English sources===

{{See also|Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers with language specialties}}

{{shortcut|WP:NPPLANG}}

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.

====Composition of language proficiencies across the top 30 most active reviewers in 2019====

Counts are based on information on editor's talkpages and likely under represent actual counts. As relatively little proficiency is required to help out with new page reviewing, even level-1 proficiencies were counted.

{{col-begin}}

{{col-1-of-4}}

*Spanish 6

*French 5

*German 4

*Italian 3

{{col-2-of-4}}

*Hebrew 2

*Japanese 2

*Portuguese 2

*Russian 2

{{col-3-of-4}}

*Turkish 2

*Arabic 1

*Chinese 1

*Dutch 1

{{col-3-of-4}}

*Sinhala 1

*Tamil 1

*Vietnamese 1

*Yiddish 1

{{col-end}}

==Subject-specific guides==

Line 66 ⟶ 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 [https[://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=professonal+headshot&atb=v79-1&iax=images&ia=imagesFile: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, especially for historical figures that made significant accomplishments despite beinghaving adverselyclear affectedclaims byto systemic biasimportance.

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===

Line 96 ⟶ 87:

{{see also|WP:NALBUM|WP:NSONG}}

The bread and butter of reliable coverage for songs and albums are albumcritical reviews. When assessing notability, be careful to check that the reviews are not paid placements or self-published. The subject-specific notability guides for these subjects specifies that charting is a likely indicator of notability: in practice, unless there are several reasons to suspect that significant coverage does not exist of an album or song that has charted, an article about an album that has charted is extremely unlikely to be found not notable at AfD. Note that even RS sometimes run short pieces that are more of a promotional piece than a real review; such pieces should be assessed for their depth of coverage, and are marginally more acceptable for songs than for albums. You should also be mindful of [[WP:BIAS|systemic bias]] when evaluating music coverage.

Songs that are not notable should be pointed to albums, and albums that are not notable should be converted to redirects pointing to either the recording artist, or if applicable, a discography page for the recording artist. Songs should only be pointed to the recording artist if they are mentioned in the article and no album article is available. If the conversion to redirect is contested, AfD is an appropriate forum to resolve the matter.

Line 107 ⟶ 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====

Medical claims in articles are subject to some of the strictest sourcing requirements, which are detailed at [[WP:MEDRS]]. The[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine]], the [[WP:NORN|original research notice board]], or andthe [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] may be useful if you feel like you're out of your depth when evaluating a medical article.

===Sports===

Line 117 ⟶ 107:

====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.

Most of the criteria at NSPORTS provide clear pass-fail criteria that can be evaluated even by editors unfamiliar with a given sport. While many of the criteria require verifying specific leagues that a subject has played in, this is generally information that is readily available on the Wikipedia articles for teams and leagues. A small amount of these guidelines, such as cricket and motorsports, do assume some level of familiarity with the sport: don't feel obligated to review these articles if you aren't sure you understand the criteria. Association football biographies are by far the most common, and [[WP:NFOOTY]], the relevant SNG has an accompanying list that allows any editor to easily verify whether a subject meets the guideline, regardless of how much they know about football. The extent to which it tracks with [[WP:GNG]] (as all SNGs should, in theory) is a perennial debate, but articles that meet NFOOTY are fiercely defended at AfD regardless of the level of sourcing, so there's not much of a reason to nominate them.

Head coaches for a given sport are generally covered by any SNG. Many sports have multiple tiers of coaches: read SNGs carefully to determine whether a given type of coach is covered by the guideline.

====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 or that it was an important occasion.

==See also==

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

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

== Notes ==

{{Notelist}}