Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

< Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Page Curation/Introduction)
Latest comment: 1 day ago by Bunnypranav in topic Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Including emojis in G15
Learn more about this page
TutorialDiscussionNew page feed
Reviewers
Curation tool
Suggestions		Coordination
NPP backlog
Articles
18761 ↑566
Oldest article
4 years old
Redirects
34501
Oldest redirect
5 months old
Article reviews
2213
Redirect reviews
4922
  • There is a very large articles backlog
  • The articles backlog is growing rapidly (↑462 since last week)
  • There is a very large redirects backlog
Shortcut

NPP backlog

edit
 
NPP unreviewed article statistics as of August 25, 2025

ToneCheck community consultation/QA session

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi hi, the team behind Tone Check, a feature that will use AI prompt people adding promotional, derogatory, or otherwise subjective language to consider "neutralizing" the tone of what they are writing while they are in the editor, will be hosting a community consultation tomorrow on the Wikimedia Discord voice channels from 16:00 UTC to 17:00 UTC. Folks interested in listening in joining in, asking questions should join the Wikimedia Discord server and subscribe to this event Sohom (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Non English page title

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What do I do with non English titles again like this? 总理 ? Govvy (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would probably turn that into a redirect to Prime minister, with {{R from alternative language}}. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ooh, this one's complicated. There are several layers here:
  1. Generally, redirects from non-English terms are allowed and usually kept at RfD if the language has a close connection to the subject. See WP:RFOREIGN; also recently discussed at the Village Pump. My rule of thumb for DAB pages is if an entry would be a valid redirect target, it's a valid DAB entry, so foreign-language DAB titles are also OK. You can find examples of such pages kept at AfD in the DSDAB archives.
  2. In this case, though, the DAB page is not needed, since as SunloungerFrog points out this term simply means "prime minister", which as a general concept has no special connection to the Chinese, Korean, or Japanese languages. (It is especially odd to list the Hangul "총리" here since it could refer either just to the two Korean PMs or all of the world's PMs; it can't logically refer to the five listed here but no more.) So if any of these DAB entries were redirects, they would likely violate RFOREIGN and be deleted. Only specific terms like 中国总理 ('Chinese Prime Minister') or 国务院总理 ('State Council Prime Minister') would be valid foreign-language redirects. Thus, as an NPPer, you would be justified in AfDing this DAB page.
  3. However, this DAB is incomplete. It is missing historical uses of "总理", such as the Zongli Yamen of the Qing dynasty. Chinese/Sinosphere terms for "prime minister" are highly varied, often interchangeable, and go back in various iterations for over two thousand years, a topic which we cover in Grand chancellor (China); that position was at times also referred to as "总理". So perhaps that is the best redirect target here, or perhaps we do need a DAB page. Obviously you're not expected to know all of Chinese history as a New Page Patroller, so you're allowed to kick this to AfD, where these points would've been raised by people like me who watch the deletion sorting lists.
Apologies for my long-winded answer. I'll try to deal with this tomorrow, if I don't forget. Next time you see a Chinese-character DAB you could post at WikiProject China, Korea, or Japan, or simply ask at my user talk page. This goes for anyone else here, too – I rather enjoy dealing with Chinese-character DABs and wouldn't mind if folks pointed out all the new ones in the NPP feed to me. Toadspike [Talk] 20:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, okay I leave it alone for you, I am going to bed in a bit, got to get up far too early tomorrow. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

DKOldies G4?

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, could an admin compare the content of DKOldies against that which was deleted at AfD a couple of years ago to see if it is G4-eligible? Thanks. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Things change. DKOldies is now notable and has many news coverage about it compared to battle for dream island. SatellaN64 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
SatellaN64 is the author, with 112 edits, so I'd still like an admin to check please. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd just G4 it. If G4 is declined I'd start a fresh AfD. I don't see anything significant has happened since 2023 (the last AfD) to make the company notable. --John B123 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Note that SatellaN64, the article creator, was just blocked as a sockpuppet. λ NegativeMP1 01:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

AFCH tags

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey folks, as of a few days ago edits made with AFCH will now have an AFCH tag to show that it was made with the tool. From now on, if you see a draft "reviewed" with the old "(AFCH)" link in the edit summary itself it is NOT a review from an actual reviewer (and should be scrutinised as such). As the "balance" to our AFC "check" I thought yall would want to know. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any chance someone's written up an edit filter to catch those edit-summary ones? -- asilvering (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
In the last three days? Unlikely. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Patrolling in non-mainspace

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Patrolling in non-mainspace is a waste of time. The "mark this page as patrolled" button is distracting and creates the false sense that non-mainspace patrolling is a worthwhile activity which results in a better Wikipedia.

I've personally used CSS to hide the button; if there is a software change which can disable the link, that would be great. If nothing else, adding .patrollink {display: none;} to MediaWiki:Group-patroller.css (unless that breaks stuff?). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am opposed to hiding it. Many users, including myself, rely on this button to patrol articles because the curation toolbar often loads slowly. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Untested, but something like this should hide the button everywhere except mainspace:
body:not(.ns-0) .patrollink {
    display: none;
}
–Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Patrol Request

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, could someone look at Protective Allied Army of the Law? Nothing is cited and I can't find any English language sources. Pksois23 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is a notable subject, but a very preemptively published article. See es:Ejército Aliado Protector de la Ley. The references in the eswiki article are annoyingly unformatted but searching the titles does come up with results that support the text. I'll expand this a bit. It also looks like the page creator is working on it right now. -- Reconrabbit 13:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
You could also draw it to the attention of the WikiProjects mentioned on the article's talk page, which would attract more attention than here, I think. Good luck!Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago10 comments3 people in discussion

The documentation for the Curation Toolbar makes reference to the ability to restore a reviewed page back to the new pages feed, something that I would like to do to an article. But I don't see the link it refers to in the sidebar. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

On which article? – DreamRimmer ■ 15:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
White Flight in Gary. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
If I am understanding your request, all you need do is "unreview" it by clicking off the green check in the toolbar. This marks it as unreviewed, so it should show up in the feed as an unreviewed article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The toolbar isn't there, ostensibly because the page must be in the NPF for the toolbar to load. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
When I go to the article, the toolbar is there for me. Even after being reviewed, the toolbar stays available for a period of time. I will boldly unreview the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
A potential problem may be that you are the author, not the reviewer.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
That is weird, because I did not author it. I moved the article (or a version of it) to draftspace, and then a new mainspace article was created. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
When you moved to draft, it created the redirect which is authored by you. The "true" article author then proceeded to continue authoring the mainspace article rather than the draft. A good solution would be to update the draft article with the current version of mainspace, then re-ask for deletion, and leave a note on the author's talk to incubate in draft.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah-ha! Thank you for figuring that out. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RFC: New CSD for unreviewed LLM content

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RFC: New CSD for unreviewed LLM content. Ca talk to me! 17:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Noorullah21 wheel warring

edit
Latest comment: 27 days ago11 comments4 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Battle+of+Manupur

Noorullah21, who has both autopatrolled and NPP rights, has marked their own article as reviewed twice after two different new page reviewers marked it as unreviewed. The first time was a believable misunderstanding of the process. The second time is egregious misconduct and cause to remove autopatrolled, new page reviewer, or both. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that since the speedy nom was declined, it was fine to do so. [1] It seems that it was not, so I apologize for that. Noorullah (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
An article being NPP-acceptable it a much higher standard than not being speedy deletable and hence a speedy deletion being declined does not make the implication you want it to make. As a new page reviewer you should know this, and the fact that you don't is very concerning. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
You shouldn’t even mark your created article as reviewed. It goes against the Wikipedia spirit at best; you’re autopatrolled, your created article was unreviewed by a reviewer, it must have had problems that need fix, marking it as reviewed back is two-sided unethical; first your own article, and second you’re autopatrolled and it was unreviewed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The user who unreviewed it put it up for nom due to the fact that it might've been similar to it's former article when it was deleted? I tried to inquire with them about this but no response. [2] ... and the nom was declined because there was no such issue relating to that. [3] But yes, I do recognize that doing it back was not the correct decision to make there. Noorullah (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
This all looks blown way out of proportion. Non-admin perms don't come under WP:WHEEL. It's, I guess, log-warring, with the proper analog to it being run-of-the-mill edit-warring. At best, it's people getting a bit silly with their buttons instead of starting a discussion. Let's break it down:
1. Noorullah recreated a previously deleted article. It's advisable to write a draft first and go to deletion review if one expects controversy but one is not disallowed from recreating directly if one wishes, esp. an autopatrolled editor. Plus, one is advised to not bother deletion review unnecessarily.
2. Pppery unreviews the article. But they haven't nominated it for deletion or started a discussion, not on Noor's talk, not on the article's talk. It would be entirely unreasonable to fault Noor for not respecting that.
3. Noor marks the article reviewed. Entirely understandable, reasonable even, per 2. Except, Noor is recreating a previously deleted article, so they should expect controversy, invite scrutiny and facilitate review, which they've comprehensively failed to do.
4. Slatersteven CSDs the article and marks it as unreviewed. Also reasonable. If they think the article deserves deletion, they would want it to remain unreviewed in case CSD is declined and they are not able to get back to the article to follow it up. Reasonable as it was, that's still just one reviewer using their judgement. It's neither an office action, nor consensus enforcement.
5. Speedy is declined by an admin, and Noor marks the article reviewed again. Again perfectly understandable since no one has talked to them or started a discussion anywhere. If they had done it soon as Slater left, one could question their motive. But they contested deletion on the talk page, waited for an admin to decline CSD and at that point understandably thought the matter was resolved.
So, here's the sanctions I'd support.
;Editors reminded
  1. Reviewers, please communicate, and no review-warring.
  2. Noor, when you are recreating a previously deleted article, don't use your advanced perms to avoid scrutiny.
—Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did explain why I unreviewed at User_talk:Pppery#Unreview?. So Noorulah21 must have known that new page reviewers thought it should go through the queue, and thus their unreview was inappropriate. I can believe you for the first action, but not the second one. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As it reads, they would have to be forgiven for thinking you wanted review, not reviewers, to which they raised the point that that's in conflict with the fact that they are autopatrolled and as such already trusted to produce satisfactory articles without review. Then it just ends there. Anyway, as I noted, they waited for CSD to be declined, so I don't question their good faith.
They kinda had a point. At the end of the day, they're an editor who's trusted to start new articles, and they've done so. So, the choice is to either take it AFD or leave it alone, what are the actual odds, left in the queue, it gets reviewed by someone more familiar with the issues than you and more thorough? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I really didn't want to make it seem like I did this in bad faith or anything by re-reviewing it after the CSD nom was denied. I thought it'd be perfectly okay to do so, especially as an autopatrolled (Pppery has now added further additions to AP to clarify for the future [4]) It wasn't and I apologize for that as I've stated.
I'd like to point out that the draft was partially reviewed by other editors (and Administrators if that matters), and a built consensus to use that draft for the page see relevant discussion here for the redirect undeletion request; Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 15#Battle of Manupur (1748)
Nonetheless, I hope I can be forgiven and this moves on, and I understand the mistakes made here by me. Noorullah (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Beyond this, is there anyone who can take a look at the article and review it on whether it can pass or not?
I don't think there are a lot of military history NPP reviewers, and I'm afraid it might just be stuck in queue purgatory. Noorullah (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The article will be reviewed when someone gets to it. The NPP process should reject out-of-hand requests for specific articles to be reviewed out of the normal sequence, as that's unfair to everyone else. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What to do with a mess?

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I recently ran across Cezmi Akdis. He definitely passes WP:NPROF, but before a few edits I made there was a host of "awards" all sourced to a non-existent page. There remain many claims in the page all sourced to some self-published CV. The page is clearly too established for draftification; I cannot justify AfD so what? I have cleaned some and tagged, I could be harsher and delete more but I am reluctant. It is not my fields so I don't know enough to judge if all the awards are notable. Any suggestions? Feel free to be bold with the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If the non-existent page is the EAACI one, it's available from archive.org. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and deleted the uncited awards. They seemed a bit excessive and WP:NOTRESUME. If you want to be strict, insisting that the award have a blue wikilinked article is a good way to filter out less important awards. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I added the award from Wayback which was not in fact one on the page, go figure! I am not happy with a self-published CV as a source for other awards. I may later remove the unsourced editor positions etc, he has enough without them. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

New page reviewers blocked

edit
Latest comment: 21 days ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Heads up that Cinder painter and Old-AgedKid, both of which had NPP rights, were blocked as UPE socks. I'm in the process of adding the about 1000 articles (combined) that they patrolled back to the queue. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pppery - I'm a little puzzled by this, as a newbie to NPP. A page I created Pleasant Valley, Pembrokeshire has been unreviewed as a result of this sock issue. Is un-reviewing an inevitable consequence, as (in this case) the article was created by an experienced creator (me) and so was autopatrolled. Sorry if I am misunderstanding this. Finally, can I mark the article myself as reviewed? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Tony Holkham, assuming you have the right article, for our purposes, you did not "create" it, you "expanded" it. You are not "autopatrolled", so the article was not "autopatrolled". These words are part of our technical jargon, so should not be used informally to mean other things.
Admins have the option to mass undo reviews of editors who are later found out to have been untrustworthy. As a new new page reviewer who is not autopatrolled, it would be best if you review articles created by others and wait for your own articles (including ones that you significantly expanded soon after creation) to be reviewed by someone else. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Usedtobecool - Thank you for that advice. I mistakenly believed I had created the article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I marked it reviewed, FWIW! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Newbie here...) I noticed that ToadetteEdit is another example of a banned NPP. I've unreviewed (and tagged for notability) the articles I first spotted because they were part of a group (in Category:Itel smartphones) that appeared to be mainly promotional, but I haven't looked at TE's other contributions. If a NPP is blocked/banned, would all their reviews normally be unreviewed or is it a case-by-case basis as any individual issues come to light? --Northernhenge (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Edits by socks of blocked users are eligible to be reverted on sight in order to disincentivize sockpuppetry, and reviews by those later found to be UPEs need to be mass-undone because there may be no way to determine which reviews were subject to a conflict of interest. AFAIK sockpuppetry and UPE were not issues with Toadette. I always thought there were CIR issues in their editing, particularly around mastery of English, but I don't know to what extent that affected their new page reviewing. Regardless, I'd suggest unreviewing on a case-by-case basis, not mass unreviewing, unless evidence emerges that Toadette was making significant errors or is found to meet conditions for mass unreviewing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

NPP review help with Jeff Firewalker Schmitt

edit
Latest comment: 22 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page Jeff Firewalker Schmitt claims that he is

"an American scientist, educator, folk healer, ceremonialist, and musician.[1][2][3][4] His career spans over forty years and has made contributions in medical research, molecular biophysics, education, native healing and music.[1][3][5] He creates bridges of understanding between native mysticism and contemporary Western thought and science"

Most of the page is about him as a scientist, and does not come close to passing WP:NPROF -- that is where I mainly review. I have never reviewed on WP:NMUSIC and I am not comfortable starting now. I would like an opinion from a NPP who is comfortable with musicians. If he is a fail there, then please AfD (their was a prior, declined CSD A7). If he passes on music then please do whatever edits are needed for that and I will clean the academic stuff. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's much hope for notability as a musician here so you're probably clear to AfD this one. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Redirect to WikiBooks

edit
Latest comment: 22 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am new to this - does a redirect (e.g. Belfast Bomber) to WikiBooks need to be reviewed? I don't see anything untoward in the page's history. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the redirect needs reviewing the same as any other. The criteria for this would be satisfying Template:Wikibooks redirect's instructions that "This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikibooks and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form." It seems more appropriate to add info on this cocktail to Irish car bomb (cocktail) as a variation of that drink and then set the redirect to target that article, rather than forcing the reader off enwiki, but I will leave that to your judgement. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ViridianPenguin - thanks for that. There are a number of other NPP cocktails redirected to WikiBooks, so I will take each on its own merits. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Specific actions for really old stuff in New pages feed-Bleeding Brain, Teknekt

edit
Latest comment: 21 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Fellows, New to the NPP, checking out the Oldest backlogs in the New pages feed to help as recommended from the basic tutorials, Unsure what to do about these examples of old pages. they seem to have been converted to Wikibooks, are these resolved then? or should we take any action at all in these cases? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teknekt

Much appreciate any advice! Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lorraine Crane, ref the page history, each has been converted earlier this week from an ancient generic Redirect to a much better WP:SOFTREDIRECT; such a conversion of a redirect puts it back into the back of the queue because of how long ago they were created. If such a conversion is sane and non-controversial, just approve (I've done that for these). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi! much thanks for the prompt response, will take note and look into it. Lorraine Crane (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

COI tags while reviewing

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello NPP community, I've a few questions:

  • Is it mandatory to add reasoning on the talk page if I suspect that a user who created an article may have a COI or be involved in undisclosed paid editing, and I add tags like COI, UPE? I've read WP:DRIVEBYTAG, which recommends adding reasoning on the talk page, but this is not part of our policies and guidelines. I understand that it is good practice to provide a reason on the talk page (much like when we review an article and some NPP editors leave comments), but in some cases, where WP:BEANS are involved or evidence is private, I think it may be better not to post anything on the talkpage. To be honest, in practice, I have seen only a limited number of editors follow this advice and reasoning on the talkpage. Could you please clarify if it is mandatory to add reasoning?
  • Can I add the [paid contributions] to a draft to make the paid status clear to AfC reviewers, or do I still need to give reasoning on the talk page? Some paid editors disclose their status in an edit summary, and in such cases it may not be obvious to reviewers (as in this example). I suppose this template's only purpose is to make that disclosure visible.

I will follow the advice given here. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Full disclosure: I mostly do AfC, not NPP.)
  1. I don’t think the COI tag requires an explanation, but I believe it can be removed at any time without reason if none is provided (from Template:COI).
  2. As an AfC reviewer, I would be totally ok if you did that, but if it was clearly declared elsewhere I don’t see why you wouldn’t include a note like “declared on my user’s talk page” or something :).
GoldRomean (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@GoldRomean, I know @Gheus was referring to their tagging COI as part of NPP, not an editor stating that they had a COI. (Your typo correction indicates that you realised this.)
To me, tagging with COI without explanation is not as severe as calling someone a sock, but is not polite/WP:5P4. My opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
+1 (and typo, fixed!) GoldRomean (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sasol Birds of Southern Africa

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I have moved the article: Sasol Birds of Southern Africa from the main space to the draft space here. The issues are that no acceptable citations are used to support the topic of the article; I cannot find reliable sources and only primary sources for WP:BEFORE; and I suspect this is an attempt to promote this publication. It is a field guide that seems to be produced by Sasol Limited, which is "an integrated energy and chemical company based in Sandton, South Africa."

Although the Wikipedia article says, in so many words, that this is or was a very popular guide for birding, I cannot verify these claims with reliable independent sources. Also, I notified the creator of this article of problems with this article on July 4, 2025 here. So, that was ten days ago. Just wanted to let everybody here know because I used WP:Twinkle to send this to draft space, rather than our NPP tools. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

One more thing - I also tagged the article for notability [5] on July 4th, which the article's creator removed that same day [6], while adding more unacceptable sources. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Steve Quinn, I don't think you did anything wrong.The page is pure promo/advertising which fails WP:NBOOKS. Rewritten with reviews and independent WP:SIGCOV and paying attention to WP concensus it might pass. I will trust your BEFORE. If the editor moves it to main then AfD.
N.B., I added some tags, as I felt a third opinion was worth it. Perhaps overkill on the tags... Ldm1954 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ldm1954, after taking a look at the article again, I agree that it is pure promo at this point. Especially, when taking into account the sources used by this Wikipedia article. I think all the sources link to web pages that merely promote this field guide, including an unacceptable YouTube page.
At the same time, I feel the same way - if this could be rewritten with reviews and independent SIGCOV it could pass. I get the sense that this is a quality publication, but so far I am unable to find sources that would allow this to pass. I am hoping that at some point sources can be found. As an aside, your tagging this article is appropriate and not overkill. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
LDM1954 and others: in a quirky manner Google provided a link to reviews for this publication. I found three reviews, but I am not sure if these are acceptable sources for Wikipedia. I am opening a discussion on the talk page of the article to get some opinions on these sources. Everyone is welcome to this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The discussion is here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Page needing review

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

John Ferry is a page written by a brand new editor, overwriting an existing dab page. It was reverted twice, but it looks to me as if the article belongs at the base name, and I've created the missing hatnotes to the two people who were on the dab page. So far so good.

But I'm not sure the page ought to exist, as his notability seems uncertain: a lot of refs, one exhibit in RA Summer Exhibition 2025, but the only article about him as a person is a 2018 review on his own web page by artist Karen Strang on whom we have no article. Is there a way to get it added to the NPP feed so that a reviewer can check it over? PamD 14:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added it. Because it was created some time ago it may not be reviewed that quickly -- I won't, it is in one if my many areas of incompetence. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Backlog drive in September

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The next regularly scheduled backlog drive is coming up. The only place I have seen anyone mention it so far is on the New pages patrol Discord server. Around now seems like a good time to send out notifications or at least turn Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/September 2025 into a blue link. -- Reconrabbit 16:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the preference of the NPP folks, an articles-only drive or a combination of redirects and articles? cc @Hey man im josh, @Novem Linguae – DreamRimmer ■ 16:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I lean towards article only backlog drives since the article queue is more important, and we haven't had success in getting it to zero for years. However, playing devil's advocate, the argument for article+redirect backlog drives is that some reviewers enjoy them more. I'd prefer article-only, but happy to go with the consensus. Some stats in case folks want to alternate or something: the last 5 backlog drives (in order from most recent to less recent) have been article-only, article+redirect, article+redirect, article-only, article-only (Source: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives#Past drives) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have gone ahead with an articles-only drive. The drive page has been created, and I will send a mass message shortly. This time, we do not have much time to wait for more comments to decide the drive preference, so I will make sure to start a thread a month before the next drive so that everyone can share what they prefer. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
 
  • On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Including emojis in G15

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Including emojis in G15. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers&oldid=1308324046"