This is an archive of past discussions with User:John B123. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@John B123, Can you elaborate on why this might not be notable? As someone who has access to South Asian TV channels and print media, the news is flooded with this for the last few days, so I looked up and there wasn't an article about it, hence I created one. In any case, if you could express your concerns, I would attempt to fix them. Tame (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Tame. Around 500,000 people are murdered every year. Most of these are reported in the media. Whilst every one of these are sad occurrences, we don't have an article for each. If the the victim is notable then we generally have an article on them and the murder is included in that article. For other murders, they normally only have an article is there's something that makes the murder itself notable. Per WP:SUSTAINED, Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@John B123, Yeah I'm aware of that rule. But the victim was a model and actress, and has been the subject of coverage even before her death regarding her acting. For instance, (to find out I filtered Google search's date range from 2010-2021), this article from Feb 2017 on major Bengali newspaper Daily Inqilab. And literally every single of the articles post her death more or less mentions her acting and modeling works.-- Tame (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@John B123, Although as you being the more experienced editor/reviewer, if you really feel she isn't notable, I'm willing to tag it for deletion. Tame (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I made the comments above based on the fact there was no article for her. Looking at this article for example, it may be that sufficient evidence could be found to show notability under WP:NACTOR. My concern when tagging was that as the article stands it doesn't show notability, rather than it defiantly wasn't (in which case I would have nominated it for deletion). It might be worth you getting a second opinion on this. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I hope all is well on your end! I noticed you placed a notability tag on Monique Ryan, which I had accepted through AfC earlier. As her h-index demonstrates on her Google Scholar, she would be a definite pass of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in my book, and many an editor who review academics would agree that would be the case, I believe. As noted in WP:PROF, " failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this WP:NPROF guideline.". Generally, I would say having over 100 citations in 5 peer-reviewed scientific journals is a pass, and this case it's over 20 publications, including 10 with over 200 citations, and 1 with 1000+. Please let me know if you feel comfortable with myself removing the tag based on this message. Thank you! nearlyevil66515:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi nearlyevil. As the lead of the article is Monique Marie Ryan is an Australian pediatric neurologist and independent politician, I just looked at notability in terms of her being a doctor, for which there are no SNGs, and a politician, where she fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. I didn't look at notability as an academic. I've no objection to the tag being removed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello John,
Thank you for your message ! I do not hide from you that I am a little disappointed... Couldn't there be a way to find a solution? Your advice will be precious... You will have understood it: I am not English and rather specialized in rugby for 10 years on Wiki. France !
To read to you.
Best regards.
MENUISERIE91 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey John B123, this is Derivator2017 here, I guess you're familiar with me. Thanks for reviewing my recent article, just here to say that I really a appreciate you for reviewing my articles. It's always a pleasure to have your articles reviewed by a veteran editor. However, it apparently seems like not everyone enjoys seeing me on this platform. I have recently created an article, Yara International School and it was placed on AfD for the third time by the same editor under the pretext of notability, despite me providing around 70 references this time and out of which 3 to 4 sources clearly make the article eligible for existence. Kindly review my article and place your opinion in the deletion discussion page. Warm regards. Derivator2017 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, you tagged the article History of the University of Southern California for deletion. Is the copyright issue from me blatantly copying the entire history section of the main article, University of Southern California, or is it because the person who wrote the history section of USC plagiarized from another source, thus me and whoever wrote USC’s history section are bth guilty of plaigiarism. As far as I know there aren’t any rules against copying from another editor on Wikipedia. LMK if there are.
PS I looked into the source I supposedly plagiarized from, and that source is a Wikipedia mirror, copying its contents from USC’s main wikipedia page. Would it be possible for you to remove the speedy deletion tag? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLGDatBoi1738 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
-MLGDatBoi1738 1/26/22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLGDatBoi1738 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I intend on greatly expanding the article ASAP. Made the new article as I thought the summary on the main USC article was way too short for a university of that age. -MLGDatBoi1738
As in just wiping out that whole thing and leave just a link to the History page? Sorry, I’ve been on here for less than a week so IDK how things work; mainly using other university articles as inspiration. I guess I can add back a summary when the History page is finished. -MLGDatBoi1738
From what you say on here you are or were a new page reviewer with over 175K edits. Why are you questioning notability? Particularly when it's not hard to show you that you aren't right?Justanother2 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi John - hope you are well. Apologies for those tags - I thought two articles on the same topic created at different times (with different names) got tagged for merging? I'm not 100% ofay in this area, hence the mistake. Thanks! LugnutsFire Walk with Me18:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to address this discussion. I want to apologize to all the Wikipedia users, if NABC Framework article looks promotional, it may be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. However, I strongly believe ( Need, Approach, Benefits, and Competition (NABC)) framework deserves a respectful place in Wikipedia since it has been recognized by leaders from various industries and a simple google search shows its prevalence. I am adding references from the academic and scientific world below to support my argument as it is a widely accepted practice that has shaped a lot of innovations. None of the references was used in the original article and I am sharing them to reflect the method's wide acceptance.
NABC framework has been instrumental in developing technologies such as Siri (now used by Apple), HDTV and robotics surgeries systems for creating value proposition framework. It is as powerful as Business Model Canvas and I strongly believe more people should have awareness of this methodology as it is well recognized by the scientific and academic community.
If you believe, this sounds like an advertisement, I am more than happy to rewrite the article. However, I sincerely request you to consider this article beyond the tonality. After considering the sources mentioned below, if you believe this article should not be on Wikipedia, I can rewrite and touch base with you before creating a new page and seek your valuable input.
References
Redvall E.N. (2018) Reaching Young Audiences Through Research: Using the NABC Method to Create the Norwegian Web Teenage Drama SKAM/Shame. In: Thornley D. (eds) True Event Adaptation. Palgrave Studies in Adaptation and Visual Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97322-7_8
Evelina Thiger, Lotta Woxblom & Anders Roos (2017) Empathic design for wood product innovation based on genuine customer needs – A test application on Swedish builders, Wood Material Science & Engineering, 12:3, 118-128, DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2015.1056226 https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2015.1056226
P. Rathod, V. Julkunen, T. Kaisti and J. Nissilä, "Automatic acceptance testing of the web application security with ITU-T X.805 framework," 2015 Second International Conference on Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Social Media (CSCESM), 2015, pp. 103-108, doi: 10.1109/CSCESM.2015.7331876. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7331876
Hi Vaibhav155, I'm well thanks, hope you are too. As it stands the article reads like a press release. I'm happy to move it to draftspace where you can work on it to rewrite it in a more encyclopaedic tone if you wish. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi John B123, thanks for replying promptly. Yes, that sounds great. I will be happy to rework this article. I just want to confirm if the sources mentioned are notable and support this article?
I understand your concern on this page. However, I am making efforts to give it the ideal outlook.
However, if there is any information you deem to remove to give it the ideal outlook that will be appreciated.
Meanwhile, kindly remove the mark for deletion you have put on it.
Thank you. Ojifo's Raphael (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ojifo's Raphael. The whole article reads like a press release or a cv and needs to be re-written in a more encyclopaedic tone. I can move it to draft where you can work on it without interference if you prefer. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Linda Binson, the page Snoochie Shy is protected so only admins can create it, which I'm not. Redirects are normally only created if there is a mention in the target article, ie Snoochie Shy needs to be mentioned in BBC Radio 1Xtra to justify the redirect. There is a draft article at Draft:Snoochie Shy if you wanted to work on it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
RamazanvAras
I hope you don't delete the page. I worked on it for quite a while. It is pretty standard biography stuff that I gathered for Ramazan. He is a
respected scholar and I think he deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WithAngelica (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi WithAngelica. I've tagged Saroja Sirisena for the improvements needed for the article. I've also resolved most of the issues to show you what is expected in articles. (see page history for what I have done). Hope this helps. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.
Hello! What's refimproves you want for this article? All necessary information provided by necessary refs, also I create Links block: it confirms information without refs. Some info doesn't need for confirmation, because easy for checking (it'r rule of Wikipedia), rest info with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Эдуард91 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kubinka station was established in 1870 — info about it presents in ref, which below in the text. 1 ref for 2 sentences.
The station has a two-storey station building. — it's easy-to-check fact, moreover it's presents on photos.
Kubinka station provides connections in three directions: Belorussky suburban railway line, Greater Ring of the Moscow Railway and a special railway line to the Patriot Park. — it presents on turntables in "Links" block.
List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by historical population
Where do you think that there is a need for more sources in the article "Critique of work".
It would be great to get your input since you seem to see something which I don't. Or you might just be keen on general improvement, which you're very welcome to contribute. : ) Thanks.
I've added more sources now, and hope that you feel that it's enough, otherwise you're very welcome to put the template back in place, or add sources which you deem good.
That's great to hear.
Thank you very much for paying attention to this since it improved the article. Any contributions are very welcome in the future.
Hi, John B123
I think you tagged this entry as a stub. I made some improvements: added more information and cited new sources.
Do you think the tag still applies?
Thank you for your help!
--Sirionnd1118 (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm DMC511. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 2022 Purdue Boilermakers football team, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
This is regarding Data Dynamic page and as i am new here dint know about this way of discussing. Kindly help me understand why was it not reverted? how can i fix the page for it to be published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikramFenix29 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi John B123, just wanted to thank you for the review of the Red Bull Racing RB18 page. Also wanted to ask, did you mark the page as "patrolled" so that the the page can be eligible for indexing by search engines? It's hidden on Google and not showing up! Thanks F1V8V10V6! 08:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I made that article from the corresponding article in the 1900 Dictionary of National Biography (1), which is in the public domain, and I included full attribution indicating that the source being copied was in the public domain. Why did you summarily delete it without AfDing? Now I have to start it again from scratch... Ficaia (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
You clearly didn't do the slightest bit of research before launching the nukes as my article was copy edited entirely from the DNB article, which is a fairly standard way of starting new articles unless I'm mistaken. I didn't copy anything from a copyrighted source. I did include an external link to a family blog post. Perhaps that needed to be removed. But I sourced nothing from it. Ficaia (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
As a new editor, the fact that a veteran editor like you just relied on an automated tool to destroy 3 hours of my work does irk me. I think that's understandable. The only secondary source I actually referenced in the article was the DNB article, which you clearly didn't look at. I included that family history page as an external link because it contained 2 photos of the subject and some genealogical info, but the entire text of the wiki article was copied from the DNB article. No info was copied from the copyright web page. The web page itself copies info from the DNB article. Ficaia (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Ficaia FWIW, copy violations are almost always a death sentence. Even imagined ones. E.g., see the DYK for Bill Smith (fell runner). It's nothing personal. If you want a copy of the deleted article, ask an admininistrator to userfy it to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you put a banner on the top of the Quianu Robinson article that says it requires more citations for verification. Is this for the piece of the article that describes his time in office, the reference to Conrad Hilton, or the anecdote at the bottom explaining that he was in the Knights of Columbus? Any clarification would be appreciated. Frost.xyz (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Frost.xyz, per WP:VERIFY, everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable ... must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material therefore all three need a reference. If there is a source that supports all three then it only needs adding at the end of the paragraph. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just a little update, I completed citing the article and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to remove the citation banner at the top. Frost.xyz (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi TSventon. Any issues will be resolved by those experienced in copyright, or the article deleted even. Marking it as unpatrolled would only cause other NPP reviewers to look at it unnecessarily as there is nothing they could do while the investigation is in progress. You could compare it with articles that are nominated for AfD, that are always marked as reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Checking copyright against foreign language sources is probably beyond the remit of NPP. Unless you are fluent in multiple languages you'd need to use machine translations which may be sufficiently different from the original to make foreign language text searches of reduced value. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Please see Draft:Caroline Henry - de-enabled from mainspace some months ago. Looks like the 'new' version has been copy-pasted from the draft. This wikilawyering of allegedly-non-notable public servants who are publicly-elected is one area that WP gets wrong, IMO, particularly where there is an established sequence of elected incumbents (you'll perhaps remember Andy Abrahams). rgds, --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rocknrollmancer, hope all is well with you. Thanks for finding that. I did ponder over this one at the time (although I didn't realise about the draft), and my thoughts were that a PCC would be a 'higher' position than say a mayor. I've redirected the article to the draft. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Hamza Ebrahim, that looks fine now so I've removed the tags. The tag I have now added will be removed by an admin once they have changed the visibility of older versions of the page. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please stop tagging obviously verifiable book stubs with a short bit of summary with "more footnotes". See WP:WHEN. You've twice now put the same maintenance tag on an article that has a single, clearly attributed short paragraph. It's not helpful. I can't add a citation to it that says anything other than what the text of the article already says. -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Asilvering: Please see WP:VERIFY, in particular All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable ... must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. I don't see anything in WP:WHEN that supports a list of general references. See also Wikipedia:Further reading: Further reading is not a list of general references. --John B123 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The material in the article you have tagged twice now is indeed verifiable. Ironically (or aptly?) what you have done here in your quote is misquoted that page by omission. Here's what it actually says: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation. A summary is not a quotation, nor is it "likely to be challenged"; but furthermore, the material is cited, just not footnoted. Book articles do not regularly use footnotes in their summaries (see, for example, WP:PLOTSUM). Indeed, even the Good Article criteria do not require footnotes for this kind of paragraph. You are correct that further reading is not a list of general references; I am not sure why you think that is relevant to mention here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead paragraph needs to be referenced, WP:PLOTSUM applies to the plot summary only. I assumed you were using 'Further reading' as a list of general references, if you are not then the article is unreferenced. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead paragraph of an article is not supposed to contain citations - not to mention that it's entirely sky-is-blue stuff. The article is not unreferenced. It is an article on a book. The book is the source for the information about the information in the book. -- asilvering (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead paragraph of an article is not supposed to contain citations No idea why you would think that, see MOS:LEADCITE. The book itself would be a primary source, see Wikipedia:WHYN regarding the need for secondary sources. --John B123 (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
MOS:LEADCITE says The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Again, basic information like "this is a book by this author" is not "challenged" or "a direct quotation". The book is indeed a primary source for its own text, and is acceptable as a source for summarizing its own contents. Here is the relevant guideline for novels, which is analogous to academic books in this way: WP:NOVELPLOT. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
See no. 5 of Wikipedia:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources. See also WP:NBOOK:
Articles that are plot summaries
Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible, without including original research or unverifiable content, to write an article on that book that complies with the policy that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works, contained in criterion 1 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE
By all means take this stub to AfD if you believe it is impossible to write an article on this book that complies with this policy. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi John, thank you for reviewing my new page on the NIH Oxford-Cambridge Scholars Program. I saw where you added the "Primary Sources" template to the page, so I added some additional secondary sources. Do you have any other suggestions on improving the article's citations? Furthermore, do you think any additional work is needed for it to pass "New Page" review (it remains "unreviewed")?
--FlamingMoth (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Imcdc, I am but due to circumstances in the real world I can't devote as much time to Wikipedia as I used to so am not reviewing every day. Regards, --John B123 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Thats great to hear! Then when you have time, would you mind reviewing this page, SMBC Nikko Securities ? This is not a brand new article since a lot of content comes from the Japanese wiki. Hopefully this should take less time to review. Thanks -Imcdc (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi John! I see that the Rence (Artist, with Epic records) page says it is in need of links. I can share pages and pages of links, if that is helpful. What's the best way to do that? Here are a few recents: Alternative Press, AP&R: Rising Artists LA Exec, Rence by Neville Hardman, Awoo review, November 3, 2021, https://www.altpress.com/features/new-rising-artists-november-2021/
Hi. The article needs more links from other Wikipedia articles not links to other sites. The more links you have from other articles, the more people will visit your article. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
"Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival" listed at Redirects for discussion
Gooday - hope all is well with you - I am lying in bed, unable to enjoy the mini-heatwave! Some years ago I tried to make changes to motorcycle fairing, particularly in that one difficult (supposed)-American editor (now blocked) was promoting Kawasaki triples as having the first tailpiece from early 1970s, when I knew it was pre-dated by some five years (see Motorcycle fairing#Rear fairings). I've now written a small piece confirming the establishment of a US Kawasaki assembly facility at Lincoln, Nebraska#Automotive and technology, but not as yet checked the main Kawasaki articles for inclusion.
If you should see any book mention of the Commando Interstate Fastback tailpiece being a significant styling cue then I should be obliged as I haven't managed to find any so far. No urgency. rgds, Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rocknrollmancer, sorry to hear you're laid up. Hope you feel better soon. I'm now living in Southern Spain where the weather is abysmal at the moment, you're having better weather in the UK.
I can't remember seeing anything significant about the Fastback tailpiece, but will keep my eyes open. 'Rear fairing' suggest some aerodynamic device, I doubt the tail hump on a Kwaka triple does anything to help aerodynamics. The tail was part of the seat on the Kwaka. Is it not being upholstered significant over earlier humped seats where the hump was upholstered. That section of the article mentions mass produced, which could mean hundreds in some cases, millions in others. I don't know how many of the Yamaha TD/TR series were made, but it must have been thousands as in the late 60s and early 70s most of the field in 250/350 classes at all levels were Yamaha mounted. If this qualifies as mass produced then the 1963 TD1 had a tail piece.
Thanks for your good wishes; 90% recovered, will be 13 days now - two weeks of catching up to do. The older I get, the better I was! Contrary to the saying, it doesn't get any easier after the first 50 years.....--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Seeking your advice on creating this article
Hi John. I am trying to create the article Draft:JM Financial. It was created before by other users and deleted because it seemed to much like advertising.
I have created a new version of it which is pretty much based on just factual contents of it. What can be done to make this seem like a company article rather than a promotional tone?
-Imcdc (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Imcdc, sorry for not getting back sooner. I looked at the article and it does come across as promotional but I'm not sure of the best way of getting over that. Sorry. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi John. I have made some adjustments to the article now along with adding controversies. Is the tone appropriate to enter mainspace yet? -Imcdc (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Imcdc, it's looking better. I've made a few changes to make it seem less promotional. As it stands, the History section is almost a list. It would be better written more as prose. The heading 'Business overview' looks like something that would be found on a press release, so a different heading would be better. I've changed the list in this section to prose, again to stop it looking like a press release. Regards, --John B123 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi John. Thanks for the feedback. I think I get what you mean now. I have amended the article accordingly.Should be ok now? -Imcdc (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi John, I see you reviewed my article Walk the Sky 2.0 and apparently there's some things wrong with it 0(lack of information) I'm not sure what you meant by this. Could you provide me with more info on that? Oldsoirce (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi brother how are you? One of my friend he is journalist he have got his own Facebook page. So he want to me create his his page Wikipedia article? Is it possible? MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I have created these two articles but they have been sitting around for over a week now without anyone looking at them. If you have time, would you mind reviewing them?
Thanks -Imcdc (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi John. I have added reference to that section now. The content had to be changed a bit in order to match with the source info. -Imcdc (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ixtal, apologies for not getting back to you sooner, things have been hectic for me outside of Wikipedia. Although the article is minimal, it does meet WP:GEOLAND and has no major issues hence marking it as patrolled. I hope this helps. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
No worries! There's no rush :) Hope irl things are alright. I'm trying to understand more about the nuances of NGEO so I assume then that since it is a government source and thus very trust-worthy, the Sources section does not apply to the table justifying notability? — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
(BTW I tend to sound very passive-aggressive but I have a lot of respect for your judgement so its more of clarifying to me the de facto versus de jure aspects of the guideline, as I'm currently working on some proposals related to NGEO, hope it didn't seem like I'm putting your judgement into question with my comment above) — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ixtal, everything is fine irl, just hectic with work. Your reply didn't come across untoward at all. Interpretations of guidelines can be subjective at times, but as the start of WP:GEOLAND is Populated, legally recognized places I took the government source as showing this. Good luck with your proposals for updating WP:NGEO, as you point out many of these articles will never progress beyond a brief stub. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 812 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 848 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
