Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New page reviewer

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
Please read the guidelines for granting this right before making a request.

User:IgnatiusofLondon

I was a new page reviewer until earlier this month. As my curation log suggests, while this wasn't the focus of my wikiediting, I occasionally dipped into the backlog to review new articles, a fair few of which I draftified or sent to AfD (so they weren't all easy!). I think my reviews were adequately accurate to demonstrate my suitability for the permission, and I'd like to continue helping to reduce the backlog as my wikiediting time allows. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Red-tailed hawk, who first offered me trial permissions. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IgnatiusofLondon: I'm afraid your draftify log raises several questions:
  1. User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold was technically outside of WP:NPPHOUR, but from the edit summary and placeholder sections it should have been pretty clear that the creator was still working on it (see WP:DONTDRAFTIFY#5). Wouldn't an {{unsourced}} tag have been sufficient?
  2. Draft:Belarus–Maldives relations has 21 inline citations for less than 50 characters of prose and two tables, yet you draftified it as "needing more sources". On the creator's talk page you specified that what was missing sources discussing and explaining the international relations between Belarus and the Maldives, not simply side-by-side fact profiles about the countries' basic information. What is the policy basis for excluding an article lacking such sources from mainspace?
  3. Draft:Battle of Orurillo was also draftified for lacking sources. Why was the {{unreferenced}} tag, already added by another reviewer, not sufficient? Did you note that there is a Spanish article on the same battle that does cite sources?
  4. Also on Draft:Battle of Orurillo, this is a clear attempt to revert your draftification. Why did you move it back to draftspace, instead of mainspace?
  5. Did you not notice that Draft:Recapture of Fort Vaux had previously been moved to mainspace by the creator, and was thus ineligible for draftification per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY#6?
  6. Draft:Recapture of Fort Vaux is a lengthy article, apparently translated or adapted from fr:Reprise du fort de Vaux, with 121 inline citations. The reasons you gave for draftifying it include an essay-like tone, overuse of primary sources, and possibility of a merge. Why could these issues not be addressed in mainspace?
I do appreciate that you took the time to leave specific feedback for the creators of each of these articles, rather than only relying on the script's canned reasons, but I'm worried that you are applying a significantly higher standard to new articles in mainspace than the community expects from new page patrol, and would appreciate it if you could reflect on your approach before any extension of the NPR right. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joe, thanks for taking the time to offer such detailed and thorough feedback. I really appreciate the time and care you took to compile this report.
  1. At the time of my review, User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold provided little prose not already sufficiently covered in Gold, and as a recent AfC review suggested, it seems implausible that the topic will be better addressed as a standalone article. In my view, the appropriate action for this article would have been not to draftify, but to redirect to Gold. The editor, however, was part of a wikied course, which left me to believe that draftification was the best option so that the editor could continue to work on it for their assignment. Keeping the article in mainspace with an unsourced tag seemed an unsuitable outcome given that the topic is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.
  2. The policy basis for draftifying Belarus–Maldives relations is that the article did not present sources demonstrating the topic's notability. Moreover, the article fundamentally did not address the topic suggested by its title, and a direct side-by-side comparison of two arbitrarily-chosen countries seems outside Wikipedia's scope, making a page move unsatisfactory. The best option, in my judgment, was draftification to allow editors time to provide sources demonstrating the topic's notability, which I could not uncover from an online search.
  3. Looking back, this draftification was a mistake. I am sceptical of other-language Wikipedias, and I have previous experience specific to the Spanish-language Wikipedia's much less stringent standards of sourcing. This scepticism probably clouded my judgment, and I admit that an unsourced tag would have been the correct course of action for this article.
  4. You're quite right that this revert was a mistake, and I should have let another reviewer deal with it.
  5. I didn't notice this, and likely assumed that the script would have notified me. The article was indeed ineligible for draftification.
  6. The citations are primary: the article was quite evidently the result of a very bright editor's diligent research into an encounter in the Battle of Verdun. The article made clear that its intention was to promote knowledge and interest in this encounter. While my advice to the editor mostly concerned the tone of the article, I should have emphasised more greatly the final point in my comments, which was that by relying on primary sources, the article did not establish the topic's notability [separate to the battle], which led me to conclude that draftification was the appropriate outcome.
I agree that I have been hasty to draftify articles, and, as you say, hold articles in the new page feed to a higher standard than the process expects. With this in mind, I'd like to withdraw my request until I have matured a little more in my Wikipedia journey. Once again, Joe, I'm very grateful for your feedback, and if you have any further comments on the above, I would be delighted to continue this opportunity to learn and grow. Thank you! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marking  Request withdrawn for the bot. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToadetteEdit

Trial ends June 16, and backlog drive is nearly over. I am reapplying early since some requests may not be answered after two weeks from now. I would like to review more pages and hopefully clear down the backlog. I have reviewed more than 100 articles so far and only very few were unreviewed. Please consider my reviews and AfDs before processing my application. ToadetteEdit! 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 18:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PK-WIKI

Experienced editor wanting to contribute to the new page backlog. I was recently granted a trial and did review some pages during that time, but I believe the trial has now expired. Requesting permanent New Page Reviewer permission based on those reviews and my experience in page creations and deletion discussions. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PK-WIKI: As far as I can tell you only reviewed two articles during your last trial. I don't mean to be rude—every review helps—but how do you expect us to make a judgement based on that? I can grant you a third trial, but are you honestly going to use it? – Joe (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A third trial would be appreciated. Part of the problem is that I apply for the permission, wait X days for it to be approved, don't notice it's approved as I'm busy doing other things. Then the moment I wanted to review has now passed and the trial eventually expires. I will hopefully do enough to have it set permanently this time... PK-WIKI (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for a further three month trial. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flemmish Nietzsche

I've been going through the new pages feed for a while now without the right, to clean up new pages and nominate for CSD those pages that fall under the criteria, (at least 50 by now, weird how the log is a red link) and I've also participated in AfD and other deletion venues as well. The reviewer right should help when going through the new pages feed as I have been doing to better help misguided editors and to more efficiently go through new articles, and of course reduce the almost 10000-tall backlog that still wasn't gotten rid of in the May backlog drive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your CSD and PROD logs are red because you have to opt-in to them in your Twinkle preferences. It'd be helpful if you did this because then we can see what proportion of your nominations are acted on. However, I can see from your deleted contributions log that you are an active CSD nominator, so no problems there.
On the other hand, you don't have a lot of experience with AfD, AfC, or page creation. Part of the reason we look for experience in those areas is to see how you interact with other editors, which is a very important part of NPP given that it is often the first or only time new editors interact with the wider community. CSD patrolling is not a good substitute there because it is quite mechanical in nature and doesn't require a lot of communication. And looking at your draftify log I'm afraid I do have some concerns on that score. In particular, I cannot imagine a scenario where it is appropriate to mass draftify four articles by one editor and not leave more than a templated message explaining why. One of these was also not eligible for draftification because it had already been moved into mainspace from a sandbox (plus technically already draftified once, under a different title).
Considered together, thank you for volunteering, but I'm afraid I'm not comfortable granting new page patrolling right now. If you're still interested, I would recommend spending some time at AfC, where you will have the opportunity to show that you can interact positively with new editors and review their work in a encouraging way, then perhaps re-requesting in a few months. You should also make sure you're familiar with the guidance on draftspace in WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:DRAFTIFY. Marking  Not done for the bot. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers. About the JCO Global Oncology article, does WP:DRAFTNO#6 really apply if the creator of the article moved into mainspace? If a recently autoconfirmed user creates an obviously needing-draftifying article (in this case it had grammar problems, only referenced itself properly, and had ref numberings [1] without any actual refs for them) but simply moves if from their sandbox to mainspace, does justifiably moving it back out of mainspace constitute "edit warring" as said in DRAFTNO#6? It's not a problem now specifically with that article though as Randykitty significantly cleaned it up, but I feel this should be an IAR excuse.
I also have had a lot of experience with newer editors when CSD patrolling (through deletion contestions and various other discussions) but those of course have been deleted. I'll try to do some AfC work soon. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Your opinion that an article does not belong in mainspace does not trump the creator's clearly-expressed opinion that it does. Regardless of the state of the article, when two people disagree the next step is to seek a consensus. This isn't just a procedural rule but an important principle across the project and especially at NPP; see WP:NPPCON.
Also note that neither problems of grammar or reference formatting are good reasons to move a page to draftspace, because they are easily fixed in mainspace (as Randy has just demonstrated). – Joe (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what a consensus is by now, but I'll those things in mind, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:75DD

I've been active in the NPP BACKLOG and the NEW PAGE FEED and I noticed that the Backlog keep increasing every single day, I really wish to help reduce it even though I can't do it all, and each time I'm here I promise to dedicate my time to the New page feeds and also stick to the policies. Thanks in advance. 75DD (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You do not meet the minimum edit requirements specified in WP:NPPCRITERIA. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I'll request when I meet it. 75DD (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raintheone

Hello there. I am a long standing user with a good handle on guidelines and policy. I have taken part in AFDs, more recently improving articles to standards which resulted in them being kept. Elsewhere I have improved new articles that on first glance do not meet GNG but looking BEFORE I have found sources for improvement. So I think I am fair with new content. I also create many new articles, which are now automatically accepted but not everyone has this luxury. I recently became aware of this backlog and I would like to help. Rain the 1 21:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Madeforall1

Hello, I’ve been an editor for 2 years and I’ve worked on different articles and have also been able to review some articles, I will love to be granted this right so I can reduce back logs and make things easier for other reviewers, can I be granted one month trial? Madeforall1 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrigadierG

Was granted a 2 month trial which expires on the 26th of June, hope I'm not jumping the gun by submitting this now (but I'm liable to forget and be surprised later). Submitted 78 reviews during the recent backlog drive and am enjoying the methodical rhythm of AFD + NPP. Would like permanent access. BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 00:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer&oldid=1228396100"