Hi all, newbie here. I have an article pending in the AfC, and I am happy to wait patiently. I'm just curious if there is a proposed timing set forth on future backlog drives. I saw that there was quite a spectacular effort set forth in July to save the backlog. Now that it's over 1000 once more, will there be a drive fairly soon? Or will it be longer? Thanks for any info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamanderxander (talk • contribs) 00:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Did I do this submission on Anthony Keyvan correctly? I googled and found enough coverage on it, and saw no fan-like tone in the article as well. So, I approved the submission. However, I wanted to add BLP-Sources tag while accepting the article, but I found no field for that then, so I put the tag later. I am not sure if I did it correctly. Please take a look into it and suggest. Thanks. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs)08:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Lightbluerain, I think you did a decent job, however, I wouldn’t have accepted the draft (notability is a bit borderline) and would have declined because of sources. I also don’t think IDMB is a good source, and should be replaced by a more reliable source. I see why one would accept the draft and am fine with it. However, it may be at risk for an WP:AFD eventually. Eternal ShadowTalk21:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Pity they didn't say "but now it's bouncing back showing they need more active volunteers to keep it under control". I've been mostly taking a break from AfC and Wikipedia in general since the drive but still see I'm in the top 10 for number of reviews in the last month. KylieTastic (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, User:KylieTastic. I see that you have already templated that editor about the need to disclose conflict of interest, and I have instructed the editor to re-read the neutral point of view policy, because I have reviewed at least three of their drafts that all appear to be written to praise the subject rather than describe the subject neutrally. I suggest that any questionable future draft submissions be reported to the COI noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Lately, I've been noticing a user on a IP /64 range just requesting random redirects at WP:AFCRD, mostly within the field of Internet culture and YouTube, and not giving a reason for each. This is the second day in a row where I've had to decline their string of requests for this very reason. Is this the right approach for such a review, and since I notice some of this user's requests getting accepted by other users regardless, is a reason really required for creation? Jalen Folf(talk)09:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that this template (which handles the redirect requests and WP:AFCRC) can automatically decline redirects (based on invalid title, target etc.). I'd like to know what the opinion would be on doing this.
Pinging @JalenFolf who recently reviewed redirects. ― Qwerfjkltalk20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Is this user copy pasting our accept and decline messages into their edit summaries? AFCH is not wikilinked like it usually is, so despite the edit summaries saying AFCH, I don't think they're actually using AFCH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Dodger67 Hey dude I thought that AFC reviewer is space were everyone can join to it i didn't know that new users are not suppose to make such edits like reviewing articles cause the lake of experience so by that am really sorry i didn't know but from now one i will not make those action untill i ask in The Teahouse. Thanks HellmuSa (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a mess! User:MER-C or anyone: That is misconduct on at least two major Wikimedia projects, which should satisfy the definition of cross-wiki abuse. Have they been globally locked yet? If not, should a request be made for a global lock? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
User did not have NPP rights, so can we rely on that secondary review as opposed to a third from AfC? I assume that is how the redlinks above went to AfD or got Draftified. -2pou (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I have an existing unpatrolling script but need to extend it for this case. Ugh. This weekend is not long enough. MER-C17:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that's definitely overreacting too much in the other direction. Unpatrolling and manual re-review seems to be the better play. Judging by the redlinks, it seems to be working. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Adding brackets to redirect-request template
Is it a good thing that brackets were added to the preloaded template? I find it less convenient when making a request, and it can confuse people so that they make requests like [2]. 64.203.186.102 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The heading of the decline message
I wonder if we should change the wording of the Decline template. Many of the new editors misinterpret this as the same thing as a rejection not understanding the the difference we put on to it. Decline being we feel it's not yet ready for the main space and rejection being this is counter-intuitive to an encyclopedia or no way it's notable. I am curious to see if a softer toned message in the bold section may make a bit of a difference and encourage them to read the reason for the decline. Perhaps the bolded decline message on the top should read "USER has reviewed this as "not ready (yet?)", on DATE, due to;". I'm hoping more then anything it may encourage them to read the decline messages and hopefully click through some of the links and not feel so dejected. This could also be a third type of refusal for topics which look promising. The third type of refusal would mean altering the AFCH script. Random idea I am throwing at the wall here to see what others may think. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)18:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd support a change of any kind, really. It's very common to have to explain that declines aren't really negative markings of any kind—they're more of an indicator of progress on how far in the draft creation process the draft is. In addition, perhaps a visual emphasis on the decline reason (and maybe embolden some links in them) as well as a different color (maybe yellow) for declines, leaving red for rejects? Similarly idea-smithing here, this isn't something I've thought more than a minute on. Perryprog (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Perryprog, same here this was meant to start a discussion and spitball some ideas. I'm not attached to anything but feel something may be done to help the promising editors more. I do also like the different colour idea as well, but didn't want to throw out too much at once. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Mcmatter, I personally decline many articles that probably are not suitable, but I can't be sure because I haven't done WP:BEFORE. I'm not sure if we want to call declined articles "not ready yet" because many of them are more like "probably not suitable but we're not completely sure". I know this is not constructive because I have no idea for an alternative, though! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Calliopejen1, that's where this could be a 3rd option, I have seen a few which may be about a suitable topic but formatting, sourcing, or tone have been the limiting factors. This softer tone may be enough to encourage those editors to become more familiar with the related policies. We can move to the stronger worded declines when there is less chance this will ever be accepted and save the rejects for the completely unsalvageable drafts. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I support in principle that it can often be taken as a reject, but also as Calliopejen1 said you also do not want to over encourage if actually non-notable. I would support the background colour changing from light red to a less negative option (orange?). I have thought similar often but never come up with any solid suggestions... but have thought along the lines of changing Submission declined on to something like Submission declined as submitted on or Submission in current form declined on or Submission declined as notability not currently shown on. KylieTastic (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point! There's a lot of obvious garbage (almost wholly COI-based stuff) that I really don't want to reject if it's their first submission but instead just want to say "this probably isn't in a recoverable state, and it's unlikely to ever be accepted" but in... a normal tone. Accidentally encouraging further working on the draft when there's more fundamental issues with the topic at hand could be really damaging, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Perryprog (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea. Reviewers on another website, GitHub, can choose between "accept", "request changes", and "close" (i.e. reject). I like "request changes" because its wording is very straightforward: if no changes have to be made to the article, it should be accepted, and if if the article (or topic) is so bad no changes can save it, it should be rejected. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This is genuinely a good idea. Since i began participating in AfC, my talk page is flooded by new users with several same messages "Reasons for your rejection" than asking "reason for decline". (See an example User talk:TheBirdsShedTears#Rejection of Draft:Zaid Ali) I think, AfC helper script should be updated. As Enterprisey said, "GitHub, can choose between "accept", "request changes", and "close". It seems "request changes" (with an ability to add custom links to relevant Wikipedia guidelines/policies) may be a good idea. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Possible Disagreement with Changes to Template
I am not sure, but I think that I disagree with any suggestion to change the wording of the decline message, since a decline applies to a range of submissions, ranging from Almost Accept to Almost Reject. We could split the declines further into More Encouraging and Less Encouraging, but I think that the answer is not to tweak the wording further. I think that what is more important is any comments left by the reviewer, and that reviewers should be strongly encouraged to leave at least a brief comment if the draft is worth further work. Many reviewers already do that.
In particular, on musicians, bands, albums, and songs, a comment can say that if the subject satisfies any of the musical notability criteria, please explain in an AFC comment or on the draft talk page. In other cases, similar advice can be given referring to another notability guide.
The key to it is not to try to have the templates be all things for all reviewers and all drafts, but for the reviewer to say something in addition to the wording of the template. Many reviewers already do. Many submitters don't read the comments by the reviewer, but they don't read the comments in the template either, and there is very little that we can or should do for submitters who don't try to understand what the reviewer is saying. Submitters who do think about and learn from reviewer comments often become article submitters.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
We have editors whose drafts were declined who ask why their drafts were rejected, or refer to rejection of their drafts. We also have editors who think that a draft was declined, and so is eligible for resubmission, after it was rejected. My first specific suggestion is that maybe the language of the Rejection template should be more clearly negative. In particular, the author of Draft:Lana Rhoades seems in good faith to have resubmitted it because they thought that they were permitted to resubmit it. After the draft was resubmitted after being rejected, I have nominated it for deletion, and the author seems to be in good faith puzzled as to what they did wrong, so I think that they didn't mean to be doing anything wrong. Second, the author asks why there is a blue Submit button. I do not see a Resubmit button on a rejected draft. There is a Resubmit button on a declined draft. There is an Ask for Advice button on a rejected draft. However, from the AFC tab at the top of the screen, a rejected draft has a blue Submit button as well as a yellow Comment button. I am assuming that they are referring to that button, and that they presumably used it to resubmit Draft:Lana Rhoades.
So I have two questions. First, can the standard message on a rejected draft be revised to make it clearer that resubmission is not permitted. Second, can the blue submit button be removed? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the Decline and Reject text is fine, but a massive problem is that the reviewers' comments are not on the Draft_talk page, and new drafters don't know how to respond to comments on the draft header. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
User:KylieTastic - I agree that bad rejections are rare but not unknown. I am not sure that I understand what you are saying about them. I would like to see language on the tenplate that clarifies that the article should not be resubmitted, and that clarifies what the author should do next. As you say, there is no blue Submit button until the editor selects the AFC tab from the top of the page. At that point, there are a yellow Comment and and a blue Submit button. I think that is what the editor is referring to. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon what I'm saying is I don't think we should be saying "resubmission is not permitted" (ever) if there could have been a mistake. There has to be some way to deal with mistakes. However I really don't know what the solution is, other than maybe they need to have got tentative approval from another editor? KylieTastic (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon - Yup - I think having to discuss at one of those before any resubmit is a reasonable condition, and if anyone can come up with wording to indicate it has to be a encouraging discussion even better. I'll leave this now for others to chime in. KylieTastic (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon it just starts the post on the AfC help desk to be filled in and saved (click on it and see). Although since most times it appears they will only be told since it has been rejected it will not be considered further it really isn't helpful, but some extra explanation is sometimes given. KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Robert, the current situation stems from poor communication. The failure to use Draft talk:Lana Rhoades for communication is an obvious major problem. Looking at that page, it is extremely unclear what a person is supposed to think the page is for.
I see you have accused User:Mbdfar of disruption (This resubmission is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)). This is a serious accusation done poorly. I believe you should instead use a warning template on User talk:Mbdfar. Possibly you didn't because he is an habitual user_talk page blanker? However, preferable would be a new thread, less accusatory, at Draft talk:Lana Rhoades. And then, editor disruption issues should escalate to ANI, not MfD.
You have initiated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lana Rhoades where instead you should have initiated a human discussion at Draft talk:Lana Rhoades. Your nomination includes: has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion. This is an unfair accusation because there has been no reasonable reviewer initiated discussions. The draft header, and the AfC templated user_talk posts are not reasonable starts to discussion. This is where the problem is, why the AfC coding. The problem is not with the DECLINE or REJECTED template wording.
I have referred to User:Mbdfar to WP:DUD. WP:AfC and draftspace are optional, and are for the assistance of drafters, especially new editors who don't know what they are doing, and COI editors. I think AfC is lacking in not pointing to WP:THREE or similar for attempts to recreate previously AfD-deleted topics. I think it could be noted that AfC reviewers have a bias against recreations of AfD-deleted topics, very simply due to their guidance of only accepting topics that will probably not be deleted at AfD. Further, I think there is a bias against WP:PORNBIO topics, an I propose AfC could be upfront about that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
New Page Review queue September 2021
Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
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 or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a strange case, and I think that I am partly asking for comments and partly identifying a situation that may happen. I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector on Draft:Battle of Tifariti, and it came up with a 91.3% match, which I think is the closest match I have seen in a long time. I then looked at the source, placeandsee.com, and I saw that it says that it is copied from Wikipedia. That is, it appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. It then appears that the text in the draft was copied from the History section of Tifariti. So am I correct that what this means is that the draft is an unattributed copy from the existing Wikipedia article? Am I correct that, while that isn't exactly copyright violation, it is sort of a copyleft violation by copying from Wikipedia without proper attribution? I have Rejected the draft. Was that a reasonable response?
My assessment is that a case could be made for splitting the section about the battle from the article, but that isn't what this draft was.
Robert McClenon, if there isn't much difference from the existing article, i would decline on basis that it is a duplicate of the existing article, and ask further if it was the intention of the author to expand on the event so much so that it becomes undue to be in the original article. – robertsky (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with robertsky, if the plan is to do some sort of split or fork then the draft isn't a problem, but if it's just someone trying to write an article by copying an existing one, that's an issue. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The copying wasn't from the existing Wikipedia article at all, which it would have been for a split or a fork. The copying was from a Wikipedia mirror, which had in turn copied it from Wikipedia. So it was only an indirect copying from the existing article. In my opinion, this was a an attempt to write an article that was copied from another web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, then just decline (or rejcct as you did) and add a note to the editor that the content actually exists in Wikipedia almost word for word, and invite them to expand further if they wish for a seperate article. they are probably new editors anyway. – robertsky (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Divisions and Subsidiaries
I may have seen this already and forgotten where it is. Where is there a policy or guideline that explicitly discusses divisions and subsidiaries of corporations? I thought it was in corporate notability guidelines, but I don't specifically see a guideline about divisions. We often have submissions of drafts about divisions and subsidiaries, when there is already a parent article. Sometimes the submitter is stubborn and is a paid editor. Sometimes the submitter is enthusiastic. I see a section on branches, but those are of non-profit organizations. I know that the applicable guidelines include due weight and balance. My judgment as a reviewer normally is to decline subsidiaries and divisions with either or both of 'exists' and 'mergeto'. Is there something specifically on subsidiaries and divisions of companies? I thought that there was, but I can't find it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently I accepted an article, tagging it with "WikiProject United States" and "WikiProject United States Government". Unfortunately, the AfC helper script created two wikiproject templates, once with "WikiProject United States" and another "WikiProject United States" supported by the WikiProject USG. I'm pretty sure this is a bug and intended behaviour should be one WikiProject template with all of the supporting WikiProjects under that template, i.e. one WPUS template with the WPUSG supported param. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
October 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211
The last drive ended less than 2 months ago. It is definitely too early to start a new one. But I'm curious, what would be the difference between a mini-drive and a regular drive? ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this, but if after 8 weeks post-backlog-finish (with 0 new entries) our backlog is 6 weeks, we're doing something wrong, because it means we are being overwhelmed; our rate of increase is almost the same as our rate of increase in February. I'm going to put this as a subsection because it's related but I don't want to derail discussion of the drive above. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed—I worry something is up if the rate of submissions is truly that high. MusikAnimal, could we maybe get backlog charts that show the rate of change of pending AfC submissions? My thought is that may help spot when there is a sudden change in how fast the backlog is growing. Perryprog (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Primefac a chart of the rate of change of pending submissions. The derivative of the above graph, if you will. The only reason I think it'd be helpful (as opposed to eyeballing) is that it makes it easier to notice the effect of things like burnout after AfC drives much faster, for example. Perryprog (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
We're not that burned out if the backlog is just rising at the same rate as before the drive; We just haven't made any systemic changes that would address the backlog differently going forward. Is having a minimal backlog on an ongoing basis the goal of this project? I've never seen it operate that way. It's not something I'm trying to help work towards. The backlog gets big but it never actually grows without bound; It levels off at a high level or a couple of heavy lifters show up or we have a drive. It's not predictable but it's not dysfunctional this way and is actually behavior you'd expect from WP:VOLUNTEERS. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point, and I do suppose I was being overly dramatic. I think my point and/or concern is more the fact that we used to be able to (at the very least) keep the backlog somewhat stable. I'm not overly bothered with a backlog in the 1-2k range, but for whatever reason we are not able to maintain the daily reviews that we used to have in times like '16-18. Back then, the backlog fluctuated wildly between 1k and 2k, but it actually went down some months. The last year or two we've consistently managed to never keep up with the daily influx (barring the aforementioned "I'm going to review 100 reviews a day" folks who randomly show up for a few weeks), hence the consistently-rising backlog. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It's been depressing to see it clime so easily. I don't think it's more submissions but because the daily number of reviews has dropped a lot to ~155 a day when we really need 200-250 a day. We only had 28 people doing 1+ review a day, which with only 193 doing any is not going to work. Ideally we need a lot more reviewers, but also some of those who are doing just a few to do just a couple more, and we certainly need to get away from needing a few heavy hitters. KylieTastic (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
At this exact moment we have 624 "active" reviewers (including the probationary members). If we could get even half of that list to do a single review per day, we would knock down the backlog. If we had a third of the list do a single review per day, that takes care of ~80% of the daily submissions. We don't need more reviewers, we need more reviewers actually reviewing.
I of course know we're all volunteers and we are not obligated to do anything on this site, but if we have 70% of those saying they want to help out doing absolutely nothing, that's incredibly problematic. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean, in this regard we could ping people on particular articles for them to look at based on their expertise, but it comes back to your "not obligated" point earlier. Bkissin (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, if the goal of AfC is to be a quarantine zone for all the non-encyclopedic crap that UPE/COI/tendentious editors put together, then it's working as it should. As someone who hasn't really taken a break since we reached 0, I definitely understand the burnout. Where were the new volunteers that were supposed to stay along when the drive ended? They realized that the harassment they receive from AfC submitters and the neverending slog of articles at AfC is not worth it! Bkissin (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I haven't received harassment or complaints from the reviews that I've made over the last year or three, but if the editors submitting drafts are harassing people they should be ignored or sanctioned. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a new point: but structurally, we're sorta screwed because volunteers are never, ever gonna keep up with people who are paid to submit drafts. The "breaking up a review into multiple independent steps" idea might buy us a little breathing room, though. Perhaps we could also try doing automated reviews of submissions that entirely lack (non-YouTube, non-Twitter) sources or references? Enterprisey (talk!) 07:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
One idea I had from long ago was to have a lua module/bot that would do some basic text parsing of a draft and offer a "bot review" with some suggestions about what needs work. Multiple external links in the body? Give a blurb that you shouldn't do that. Bare refs? Explain how to properly write citations via Visual Editor. No references or two many references? Give a blurb with links to the many referencing guides we have. There's a surprising lot of text-based heuristics that would be very easy to implement in Scribunto alone that could do all this. I never got around to writing a proof-of-concept though because I got busy with life. Perryprog (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, some help like that sounds like a great idea. I think we'd get the most benefit if this bot review were integrated into the editors, particularly VisualEditor (although only 1 in 5 randomly-chosen drafts were written with VE?! I have no idea how they do it, maybe we should push people towards it more). I'm aware I'm chasing the perfect over the good, though, so Scribunto it is. Maybe the "pending" template could say "warning! your submission is likely to be declined" if it detects this sort of thing. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Since it seems relevant, some other items I was thinking of adding to this list... these aren't in any particular order, but are more just things that I believe are easily implementable that could be beneficial: • pick up on common buzzwords ("solutions") • notice incorrect template placement (namely COI templates being in the wrong place) • notice abnormally high/low reference/word counts. There's a whole range of possibilities here, so it'd likely take some discussion on whether it's worth caring about the bits here that are for example fixable by semi-automated editing (like smart quotes or level one headings).
Regarding location: my original idea was it would be a template you would paste into the talk page of your draft, but that honestly seems sub-optimal. It might make more sense to have it integrated into the pending template like Enterprisey said. Perryprog (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Another interesting/worrying stat is that where pre backlog drive we had an accept rate ~20%, that went up to 22% for the drive, it is now down to 13.7% KylieTastic (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
That's probably just because reviewers are doing the easy declines and the growing backlog is the more difficult accepts. ~Kvng (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Technical Question About Backlog
Can someone easily determine how much of the current backlog consists of new submissions, and how much of it consists of resubmissions of drafts that were declined during the backlog drive? I am not entirely sure what conclusions can be drawn from any answer to this question, but I think that quantitative questions should be asked when possible. The backlog drive would have resulted in the following dispositions of drafts pending review:
Accepted as articles.
Declined, becoming drafts ready for resubmission.
Rejected, becoming rejected drafts.
Speedily deleted, whether G3, G5, G11, or G12 (a smaller number).
Theoretically we could have a modified version of Module:AfC submission catcheck that counts how many decline notices are on the page, which would indicate how many times a page has been declined. I don't know if it could get as granular as to say when a page was declined, though. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
When you go into the AfC Helper, the decline option is "neo - Submission is about a neologisim not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". I'm not sure where it's stored either, but it's certainly there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
When a draft is accepted by an AFC reviewer using the AFC script, a redirect is left from draft space to article space. A redirect is also created if an editor who is not a reviewer moves a draft to article space, because a redirect is automatically created on a page move (unless the editor doing the move is a page mover or an administrator and has checked to suppress redirect creation, but acceptance of a draft is not one of the reasons why redirect creation should be suppressed). So the redirect will stay in draft space. I had been about to ask whether the redirect will be deleted by G13 in six months, but I have answered my own question. The criteria for speedy deletion say that redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. There are sometimes nominations to delete drafts because there is an article. They happen often enough that there is a speedy close criterion, Speedy Redirect from draft space to article space, and the resulting redirect is exempt from G13.
So the first question that I have is (again) what should be done if a draft is submitted for review and an article on the topic exists. I think that this calls for two questions. First, is the draft a subset of the article, or does the draft contain information that is not also in the article? Second, were the draft and the article written by the same editor? If the draft is a subset of the article, I think that the draft should be redirected to the article. If the draft contains additional information, the draft should be tagged to be merged into the draft. Do the other reviewers agree? If the draft and the editor were written by the same person, then I think that the reviewer should consider whether the article passes review, because too often, if the draft and the article were written by the same person, they are gaming the system to prevent draftification. In that case, if the article is not ready for article space, an AFD may be in order.
By the way, yes, this is being written partly in response to an unpleasant MFD nomination, now withdrawn in a tiff. Since the nominator has said that he will let the draft page "rot for all eternity", he obviously is ignorant of how drafts work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, as has been discussed before, if there is a draft duplicating an article:
if only one editor has created both (so we assume copy/paste), then redirect the draft to the article
if there are multiple editors for the draft, or it wasn't a copy/paste, decline the draft as a duplicate
if there are multiple editors for the draft, and it was a copy/paste, request a {{histmerge}}
if (from your last hypothetical scenario) there is more information in the draft or other non-copied information available, decline the draft as "merge"
Sometimes the reviewer copy/pastes a draft into the article space, and we can't really do anything about that other than AFD the article or decline the draft (as appropriate). Primefac (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Nope, we just strongly discourage it. Anyone who writes a draft shouldn't be reviewing it, but we cannot enforce that. I would argue, though, that if they're just going to do that they should move it themselves without giving it the "AFC approval" (even though technically that's not worth anything). Primefac (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I do that myself from time to time for drafts in the state supreme court justice project. In those cases, it's basically a formality, since an editor who has the ability to create new pages in article space could have done so in the first place. BD2412T20:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Suggested to add a 'I have coi' form to Special:CreateAccount
This is correct. As a reviewer you should not accept your own drafts. I would suggest that for questions about your draft, please post HERE instead, not here. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 04:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
SavetheTreeSBro, there are currently just below 1,800 other drafts waiting to be reviewed. This works out to be an estimate of seven weeks, but that's highly variable—it can (randomly) be much faster than that, or even much slower. Perryprog (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Will someone please look at this draft and either accept it or decline it, or advise me whether they agree with me? My review is that it should be accepted, but I declined it three times before it was released, because it had not been released, and I want to be sure that I am not biased one way or the other. Thank you.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I’ve reviewed it twice. I think it is the sort of draft that should be accepted, despite misgivings that it might get deleted at AfD. There are many sources, but weak at demonstrating notability. More likely, it won’t get nominated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
And a G6 on the redirect would have been inappropriate. The redirect had non-trivial history, due to ultras trying to convert the redirect into an article. A round-robin move rather than a G6 was needed. Sometimes ultras try so hard to get an article accepted that they make it harder to accept the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Acceptance script Interrupts Itself again
I accepted Vivienne Medrano. About half an hour I checked on it and saw that it had two AFC templates still on it. It also still had AFC comments. I removed them. I also noticed that it was categorized as Draft class, and I had specifically assigned it C-class, but it also didn't have the AFC project template, and the adding of the AFC template also assigns the class (if the reviewer specifies the class in the Accept dialog). In other words, the script didn't do anything except to move the draft to article space, which is the first thing that should be done, but not the only thing.
So I think I have a question, and a request or comment for other reviewers. The request or comment is: If you think that you have accepted a draft, check on it in a little while and verify that it has finished accepting itself. Sometimes the script doesn't finish, for no obvious reason. Sometimes the reason is that the reviewer closes the window that the draft is in before the script completes. That wasn't the case this time. The question is: Does anyone know of any other causes of the script not finishing?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hm. Unaware of something that could be causing that. I guess I could make it only do the move after everything else is done, but that wouldn't be much of an improvement. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
DGG used to have this problem all the time, but the only thing we could figure was that the script was being interrupted, either due to connection issues or the page being closed before everything was complete. I think the main advice here would be to refresh the page after an accept, which will take you to the new article and it can be checked that everything went as planned. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been having intermittent timeouts and had edits not processed, and one decline with a failure to add the notice to the users talk page. Unless it happens regularly I would just put it as server/internet issues. KylieTastic (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not a request for a second or third opinion as to notability. I think that we agree that the subject is notable. The problem with the draft is one of tone. Can someone please rewrite this draft so that it isn't written to praise its subject? Wikipedia editors know that if the subject deserves praise, then a neutral description of the subject's career is sufficient praise. Can this draft be reworked? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
New editor using AfC templates
I am not sure if this warrants any action but a new editor Nickb410 after his eleventh edit in mainspace moved a draft into mainspace and left a message on its creator Jackhughes26's talk page using the AfC accept template. On the article's talk page they added the "This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation" banner, which is misleading. See Special:Contributions/Nickb410. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Curb Safe Charmer, honestly it's likely just worth it to ask them what they're doing, as odd and questionable it may be. It could be just a misunderstanding of what AfC means to them, for example. Perryprog (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Notability is a big issue. The subject of the BLP runs a political opinion blog with some very dubious practices and pretends he is a legitimate online news outlet. When three new SPAs show up to create a BLP and then edit-war to defend their version, it's kind of hard to come to any other conclusion that there's a COI aimed at advertising the blog and increasing traffic. Independent Australia isn't used as a reliable source; there is some discussion about the fake news tactics employed in the RSN archives. Even if I can't say for certain what's going on and who's behind it, I'm not seeing much in the way of building an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Both editors indef-banned for sockpuppetry, Both articles deleted, one restored and a draft submitted for creation by an account that has been inactive for ten years and only edited on football previously. Suspicious much? --Pete (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I see that a draft has a title that duplicates that of an existing article, but is not the same topic. There are two usual cases, both when the topic of the draft is a person. First, there may be another person with the same name already in the encyclopedia. Second, there may be a disambiguation page because multiple people have the same name. As we know, this calls for disambiguation. So I move the draft to disambiguate the title. So far, this is basic AFC stuff, and we all know this. Then what I want to do is to request that, if the draft is accepted, it can be found be a reader typing the undisambiguated name. That means that either a hatnote is required on the primary, or an entry is required in the disambiguation list. So far, we all know this. So what I want to do is to tag the draft to say that the primary or the DAB page should be updated when the draft is accepted. Here is the issue. What I have been doing is putting an AFC comment on the draft, saying that the title has been disambiguated, and a hatnote should be added, or a line should be added to the DAB. But the problem is that, if the AFC script works correctly, the AFC comment is now removed. If I am the accepting reviewer, I remember what needs to be done. But often, someone else reviews, and accepts, and they should accept the draft if the person is notable. (Occasionally this happens with a company also, but this usually happens with people.) So the article may have been accepted, but a reader may not be able to find it until the link is inserted.
So the question is: Is there a better way to mark a draft so that it will be cross-linked when it is accepted? I don't want to put the hatnote on the primary at the time of disambiguating, unless I know that I am accepting the draft. I don't want to put an entry in a DAB page unless I know that I am accepting the draft.
What I would like to do is, at a minimum, to put a note on the talk page of the draft. Some of us have already said that we would like AFC comments either to be on the draft talk page, or to be moved to the article talk page at acceptance time. I assume that will be implemented in 2023. So another question is: Would it be appropriate to put a Cleanup tag on the draft saying that a link should be added? As I was writing this, it occurred to me that a Cleanup tag, like other Twinkle tags, survives the AFC script. Is that the right approach?
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not suspect there is any script, or a way of making a script, that can accurately and reasonably add a name to a dab page if it is necessary (after a draft has been accepted). This step is likely not one that we can mandate anyway. I suppose manually adding a maintenance tag is one way to do it, and I've seen a few hatnotes (which aren't removed by AFCH) saying "if accepted XYZ needs to be updated", but it still requires extra edits and if it's not removed then there is a random hatnote sitting there. In other words, I don't have a good answer to your question, as it's "probably not". Primefac (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Primefac - I wasn't asking about a script that would add the name to a dab page or the hatnote to the primary page. The script change that I was asking about would copy the AFC comments to the draft talk page. We have been talking about that, and in agreement that it would be desirable, with no downside, which is why I don't expect to see it done before 2023. I was looking for a way to keep a visible but not disruptive note of the need to update the dab page. Thank you for the answer, which amounts to that nothing will be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Questions from a new reviewer
I recently got access to the AfC helper script and the permission to review articles, but I had a couple of questions. I assume that I cannot accept a draft I create, but can I edit drafts before or after I review them? For instance, can I clean up the article a little bit to remove original research, give the article a more neutral tone, or clean up the references and add archive links? What if I find a submission that does not contain references that demonstrate notability, but doing a quick Google search clearly shows that there is significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Can I add the sources and then accept the article or should I ask the user working on the draft to do it themselves? Could I drop some sources on the talk page using Template:Refideas? I guess I'm mostly curious how involved I can get with a draft if I'm going to review it. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
You may edit any draft as mercilessly as any article. If you put so much effort into it that you feel invested in the topic, then, especially as a new reviewer, it would be wise to leave the improved draft for someone else to review. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
TipsyElephant yes you can. You can do as much or little editing as you want to improve articles, before accepting, declining. I have a list of ones that I ended up being the major contributor at acceptance. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
"Thirded" for what it's worth. If I find a draft that is acceptable but might contain reference, formatting, or other relatively minor issues I will often clean them up before accepting. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
College Sports Seasons - AITA?
There is an IP user (probably the same one that does the two-sentence stub articles on former NFL players) that submits articles on Football and basketball seasons for various universities. Examples (not exhaustive): Draft:1979–80 Rice Owls men's basketball team, Draft:1969–70 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team, Draft:1979–80 Brown Bears men's basketball team, Draft:1992–93 SMU Mustangs men's basketball team, Draft:1971–72 Penn State Nittany Lions basketball team, Draft:1975–76 Nevada Wolf Pack men's basketball team . That is only the ones that I have declined today! I am of the opinion (and while I don't want to put words in @KylieTastic:'s mouth or any other reviewer) and I'm not alone, that these articles are not ready for mainspace, both due to the anemic sourcing and the fact that they have little to no prose content. I frequently cite WP:NSEASONS, which states: Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. At this point, all it is creating is an an indiscriminate collection of schedules and bare bones stats without any information to explain the content they are providing. This would not be a big deal, except that non-reviewers will go in later after the drafts have been reviewed and move the drafts to mainspace anyway (with no changes), suggesting (in the diffs located here and here that the articles would pass AfD, and therefore, through WP:AFCPURPOSE, should be accepted. Who is in the right here?
In the end, Wikipedia is not WP:SRSBSNS, and it's not the biggest deal in the world. It's really frustrating and a massive slap in the face to have something you decline make it to mainspace anyway, but that is what we deal with at AfC. If the consensus is against my read of this situation, I will gladly step back from reviewing those articles and leave it for others to deal with. Bkissin (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Bkissin oh yes I am well aware of them, they also have a habit on the NFL players of having refs (often the nfl.com one) that are for the wrong player, and quite often the nfl.com has no actual career info on the older players. Also another submitter that refuses to communicate or improve there submissions based on past edits (Only edits to their talk page are unblock requests). I read the situation as, per WP:NSEASONS, as submitted they are a usually no go (usually no prose and 1 source) but probably many/most would survive AfD but only because there are a couple of really good editors for American Football subjects that jump in and do the work if challenged. The trouble is there already exists so many in mainspace that do not pass WP:NSEASONS in the current state, and often only get fixed when challenged (AfD etc). I think WP:NSEASONS has become out of touch with consensus, and unless your into a sport how do you know which are notable. It feels like there should be a caveat for NFL teams (maybe others) and that WP:NSEASONS is really there to stop marginally notable sports teams having lots of minimal season articles. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely agree with your view of the situation KylieTastic. On one hand deletion is not cleanup and it shouldn't take the threat of deletion for good editors to jump in and rescue and article from the chopping block. Yes, WP is always a work in progress, but if an article is not even trying to meet minimum standards and is no more than a directory listing, then in my mind it should be declined until such a time as it has passed WP:NSEASONS. In the past I have attempted to show examples of good and featured WP:NSEASONS articles, but people want things accepted now, quality control be damned. Bkissin (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Bkissin yes some people want "things accepted now" but the golden rule for AfC work is: "There is an equal and opposite number of people who will agree and disagree to any action you take" ;) KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I only now noticed this, and I see that it has been relisted. I see that it had 10 sources when User:Timtrent nominated it for deletion, and he said that they were primary or otherwise inadequate. It now has 18 sources. I am checking the sources (using Google Chrome, because it translates). One possible result, the ideal result, would be a Heymann Keep. By the way, the disambiguation is unnecessary, but an article should not be moved while it is in a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Curiosity question about pending submission counts
What is difference between the counts presented in the New Pages feed (with the Awaiting Review filter checked) vs. the pending submissions counts presented in the AfC status template? For example, right now the New Page feed says 1,700 but the template has 1,749. I did purge/refresh, but get the same. S0091 (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that I am more calling attention to an occasional situation than asking for advice. See Draft:Heropanti 2 and Heropanti 2. The draft was submitted for AFC review about 24 hours ago, after having been declined previously. The obvious problem is that it is an unreleased film. It is being submitted because there is a myth that films become notable when they begin principal photography (or animation). The wording of the film notability guidelines is awkward but contributes to that myth. In fact, films normally become notable when they are released and have been reviewed. However, the less obvious problem is the more serious one, which is that the title in article space is a locked redirect to the previous film. It was locked by an administrator due to repeated resubmission by disruptive accounts that were probably sockpuppets. So a reviewer can't accept the draft, even if it were ready for acceptance. I could decline the draft, and it could probably be resubmitted, just because declined drafts of films are usually resubmitted. So I rejected the draft, and said that if the submitter wants it considered, they have three choices:
Does anyone either agree or disagree that this was what needed to be done? The situation happens from time to time with locked redirects. Persistent resubmission of declined drafts also happens from time to time, including for films in production.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
SALTing admins usually don't unprotect under request from contributors to the draft. Deletion Review is almost always an option, especially with a decent draft in hand. My recommended would be for an AFC reviewer to review it as a normal draft, and if the result is accept, then the AFC reviewer contact the SALTing admin or RPP to request unprotection, and if that is declined, go to WP:DRV. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️01:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Robert, I disagree with your reading of WP:NFF. I think it is not awkward or confusing or mythmaking. It is indeed an SNG that provides an exception to the WP:GNG. It is for films that are imminent for release, the bulk budget is spent, it will be released. This is justified by the release of a film generating a flurry of activity, and by the expectation that Wikipedia is up to date. If the film is released deadpan straight to TV, and no sources are generated, it can be deleted, but the norm is that one the day of release a film with reliable source verification of big budget will attract a flurry of activity and sources and edits and even new editors.
User:SmokeyJoe - On this film at least, you and I are taking opposite views on whether the film satisfies film notability. This is not the only film that is awaiting release where there has been strong disagreement as to notability. The fact that reasonable reviewers commonly disagree is, in my view, sufficient evidence that the guideline is confusing. Either: (1) you are completely and inexplicably wrong; or (2) I am completely and inexplicably wrong; or (3) the guideline is poorly written; or (4) something else is wrong. I have disagreed with reasonable reviewers in the past often, and have been supported by reasonable reviewers in the past often. I think that is sufficient evidence that the guideline is poorly written. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Robert, on WP:NFF. Many years ago I spent a lot more time at AfD than I do now, but back then, I saw that WP:NFF, then a mere WikiProject guideline, was an absolute predictor of whether a film would be kept at AfD. Has principle photography commenced, meaning the commitment of the bulk of the budget? Are you disagreeing that NFF is a strong predictor of outcome at AfD? Or are you disagreeing that this film Heropanti 2 objectively passes NFF? NFF goes grey for low budget films, but I don’t think this is the case here, do you? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your frequent recommendation to draft authors to go to DRV. I have never yet seen that to be appropriate. A better recommendation of disagreement with an AfC REJECT is WP:DUD. AfC is optional, and it provides advice to assist drafters. It is not itself meant to be a barrier.
I disagree with you REJECTION of the draft. If it looks like it meets WP:NFF, it should be accepted.
If an AfC reviewer accepts a draft, the protecting admin, or WP:RFUP, or most admins including User:Primefac, will unsalt on the basis of the AfC accept. Anything else would demand a review of the AfC reviewer. The SALTing threshold is way higher than the threshold for an AfC accept.
All that said, if the sources are all about a perpetual delaying of release into the distant future, it may be arguable to decline. For me, the question would be: If I encountered this at NPReview, would I AfD it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
On my review, reference 34, [3] is the critical reference. It says a portion of filming is completed. This is enough for WP:NFF. If I found it at NPReview, I would stubify it. I can appreciate hesitancy to accept a reference bombed draft, I sure don’t like to. 40 references make reviewing tedious. I wish drafters were pointed to WP:THREE. More references don’t help with getting it accepted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe - I thought that I was raising two separate concerns. You seem to be addressing and disagreeing with one of them, and don't seem to be referring to the other one. The first one is the future film guidelines, and I will try to explain some time in the near future why I think that the guideline is ambiguous. The second, which you don't seem to be addressing, is that the title is already salted due to previous repeated re-creation. The previous re-creations were by sockpuppets, and the submitter is not a sockpuppet, but that is not important. The title is a locked redirect. I couldn't accept it if I wanted to accept it. The submitter can't mainspace it if they want to mainspace it. If you or the submitter think that it should be mainspaced, do you have another option besides discussing with the salting administrator, requesting unsalting at RFPP, or DRV? I don't think that you have addressed the fact that the title is salted, and so resubmission is useless unless the create-protection is addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you about the salted title. I disagree with your statements that you can’t accept a draft if the title is salted. Are you you referring to the technical function of the AfC script. If one would accept the draft, I think one should press the accept button. If that leads to an ungracious script failure, then the script needs fixing. If you think you mustn’t accept if the title is salted, that creates a catch-22 situation, because the decision to unsalt requires the decision to accept the draft.
User:SmokeyJoe What happens when the Accept button is pressed while the mainspace title is salted is the same as what happens if there is an unsalted redirect in mainspace. The Accept script does not permit a reviewer to accept a draft when the mainspace title is occupied by anything, an article, a salted redirect, an unsalted redirect. If there is an unsalted redirect, or a salted redirect, or an article, the script will not overwrite. If there is an unsalted redirect, then the reviewer should tag the redirect as G6 - move. That is not an ungracious script failure. That is the way the script ought to work. It should in particular prevent accidentally overwriting anything that exists. A feature to force overwrite of a redirect would be nice-to-have, but other things are more important. Does that answer your script question? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that User:Woody exceeded WP:Protection policy (WP:SALT) in applying both excessive level and duration of protection he applied, for not that many recreations over a limited timeframe. It should be a straightforward and quickly approved WP:RfUP request. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe - As to level of protection, many admins are not in the habit of ECP protection, and semi would not have been enough. As to duration, I agree that indefinite protection is a mistake on any film that is rumored to be in the works. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I've reduced it to ECP. Salting is usually permanent "(While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection may be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable).) but I am always happy for anyone to tweak or amend (without recourse to me) any admin action I've made if they see it differently. Woody (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Or are you disagreeing that this film Heropanti 2 objectively passes NFF? NFF goes grey for low budget films, but I don’t think this is the case here, do you?
Heropanti 2 does not objectively pass NFF. I don't know how NFF was worded in the past. I know how it is worded now. The film is in principal photography, and there have been passing mentions of photography, and press releases stating that it is in photography.
This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:
2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined primarily by reception and reviews.
NFF says that films that have commenced principle photography can have their own article. NFF wording has been fiddled, and is not written the the double negative, consistent with the wording not being “must”, as there is always the possibility of a good reason to NOT have a standalone article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
There are a myriad of sources confirming the commencement of principle photography. eg. Sources reporting the completion of major elements of principle photography are unambiguous proof that it began. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The film has an abundance of sources. It’s release is imminent (allowing for lengthy delays probably due to COVID). It doesn’t make any sense to insist on keeping it in draft, with readers expecting it to be covered. With every new source hitting the media, a new editor is likely to create a new article, making a new fork. This is why anticipated films get an easier pass on the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe - I have analyzed the sources in detail and have nominated the article for deletion. We are clearly interpreting the future film guideline differently, and this is far from the only time that the guideline has been differently interpreted. The forum to discuss notability of the article now is the AFD. I am also discussing the contentious nature of the guideline again at the film notability talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate any comments on Draft:Street Woman Fighter and Street Woman Fighter. There is a malformed article in article space, and a draft. I didn't evaluate the draft in detail, because of the article, and I have proposed the article for deletion. I left a comment on the draft saying that it will be evaluated when the article is deleted. An editor then asked me on my talk page why I didn't boldly copy the draft into the article (with attribution). I said that if someone else did that, it would be fine with me. The disadvantage of the PROD is of course that it takes a week, but In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Is there a third approach? Was this one reasonable way to deal with this? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused AFC templates
Hello, is there a policy for this project to use or leave as is the unused AFC templates from the Unused Templates Report from 452 to 490? Asking to avoid any potential major disruption as part of my task force idea to deal with the backlog of unused templates as part of WikiProject Templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Please leave the AFC templates alone. As Kylie states some might be truly unused, but a lot of them are subst-only. I know you want to clean up the unused templates, but I would really prefer to see the Project to take care of its own templates, especially when there are less than 40 anyway. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Just quickly judging from the names of the templates, they're probably used in the manual workflow. We could consolidate them, but I judge that effort to have the worst cost-to-benefit ratio of any idea I've had in the last year. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Muhammed Hysom
Please I need help on how delete this draft. This Draft has been declined about 5 times if not 6 and had been rejected once. Each time it is declined, the IP removes the automated message and comments by reviewers. The article has no reference to support anything in there but they keep submitting again and again. I think the lasting solution to this is to speedily delete it, but I couldn't find any criteria (even the DB A7 somehow did not really give me what I was looking for). Please someone should take a look and do something. You can find everything I said in the edit history. --Comr Melody Idoghor(talk)18:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The only difference between this draft and other drafts that were tendentiously resubmitted after rejection was that the proponent kept deleting the decline and reject templates, which just makes things uglier. It appears that there is a consensus developing to delete. Also, it appears that the unregistered editor has been range-blocked. This was at least as much a conduct issue (to be dealt with by a block) as a content issue (to be dealt with by deletion). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Rejected this one for being a duplicate of Draft:Georgia Storm, which was also rejected. However, the submitter of those drafts commented on my talk page, and made a case for accepting it. I would like a third opinion on this draft. Eternal ShadowTalk21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been following this drama from the sidelines. I think there is frustration on both sides, with Kevinw33 (as a fan) being frustrated with the bureaucracy of the AfC process, and AfC reviewers frustrated that despite multiple declines and rejections, the article got pushed to mainspace. Unlike most reviewers, my argument would be that if the team can meet WP:GNG with reliable sources (local newspapers, etc. instead of soccer blogs) then it could pass notability. Eternal Shadow, if you want to submit it to AfD, that would be the best test for it. After all, one of the tests around drafts is whether they would survive an AfD discussion. Bkissin (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I have looked at it, and have not checked the references in detail, but it appears to me that: (1) it still doesn't make the case for general notability, as it didn't when I declined it in May 2021; (2) the case for GNG may be there anyway. I think that this is a case where there should be an AFD. I haven't done a Before AFD search. Is it sometimes in order for a reviewer to nominate an article for deletion without having done the before search, because there should be a community discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This is another article that illustrates that we should have a way for submitters and reviewers to discuss a draft that is less contentious than to have the fans push a rejected page into article space. I will break down this comment into two parts. First, there should be a way for submitters and reviewers to discuss a draft that is being repeatedly declined. Second, there should be a way for submitters and reviewers to discuss a draft that has been rejected, that is less contentious than MFD or WP:ANI. At least, that is what I think. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenonEternal ShadowThank you for the help everyone. This is my first article creation so I have been struggling with it. My concern regarding "Local newspapers, etc. instead of soccer blogs) is the environment the team is in. The team is in a town on the edge of suburban and rural and is a football hotbed. The local newspapers are good ol' boys who only care about high school and college football and brush off soccer. We have tried to get coverage from them but soccer still has a long way to go in the rural south to get coverage. The best press the team gets is from newspaper in the teams they play against, especially Appalachian FC and Georgia Revolution. Despite this the team plays in front of good sized crowds, attracts players with established notability, and makes waves in 4th tier leagues which gets good coverage in soccer blogs, podcasts, and the soccer undercurrent that has been bursting through the last few years. They played in a US Open Cup game which I saw was a requirement for club notability as well. Any advice is absolutely appreciated, thank you for all yall do. Kevinw33 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Superficially, they looked ok. It’s very tedious work to go through all the references to determine that the are all not WP:GNG-attesting sources. I think drafters should be advised to read WP:THREE, and to put the WP:THREE sources on the draft talk page. This would make things much easier for all involved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree, a lot of patience is needed to dig through all references, particularly with the amount of unnecessary refbombing. What I'm more interested in is the rationale for acceptation Gretex and Loney Hutchins, the former being sourced on non-independent + trivial coverage, the latter a biography that blatantly disregards our policies on the sourcing of BLP. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I've looked at all of this you have mentioned. Those at AfD are there with justification. I would prefer the outcomes off each to be to draftify since it gives the creating editor a fighting chance. AfD seldom does so. Loney H I have tagged as requiring more references. I was tempted to AfD with a suggestion to Draftify, but felt it was sufficiently advanced and that the subject was likely to pass the" >50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion" concept. That being said, I would have declined it at review time and requested better referencing.
@MoonlightVector, it is important, please, that you come here and offer your thoughts. While this may seem as if you are on some sort of trial that is not the case. Good reviewers have all made mistakes. Unless mistakes are repeated after advice we prefer reviewers to grow into the role, making fewer errors of judgement as they gain expertise and experience. Please come here and take advice from those of us who have made mistakes before you.
I give you a guarantee now that I still make errors in reviewing drafts, and will continue to do so. I also know that my errors are fewer as time passes. That is my hope for you, too. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me09:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to second what Tim has said: I did not bring up this topic here to put the reviewer on trial. God knows I've made some mistakes at NPP and AfC. My main purpose in starting this threat was to get views from experienced users on how to help new reviewer make these (sometimes difficult) judgement calls. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I have added to Primefac's cordial invitation on MoonlightVector's talk page. It is my hope that they come here. Good reviewers are made, not born. We all have to improve, all of us, from the most expert to the newest reviewer. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me12:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I mostly been declining stuff and is not fully experienced, some of them are indeed possibly bad but some I will find good to remove, I will for now review most of them if I can and figure out some. Thanks for your input. MoonlightVectorTalk page12:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@MoonlightVector I think the road to success is knowing when one is unable to review a draft, and learning to leave it alone. Another reviewer will handle it.
I've had a few interactions with this editor in the past (I was the IP that asked about their acceptance of Carlo Romeo (journalist) here) but I just want to add that this isn't just a problem restricted to accepting articles that aren't ready yet, they also seem to be rejecting drafts for all kinds of spurious reasons which have no basis in policy.
Here [4] They reject a draft with the rationale "Not ready for mainspace" - what on earth is the draft's creator supposed to do with that feedback? Here [5] they reject a draftified article with the rationale "Too early to resubmit to mainspace" - it being "too soon" has no bearing at all on accepting articles - they should be giving feedback on the issues with the content so the author can try to fix them. Here [6] they reject a draft with the rationale "1-day Decline, Final time until proper review by multiple" - I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, let alone what the author is supposed to do to try to fix it. Here [7] they reject a draft with the rationale "Not Professional". Here [8] the entire rationale for their rejection is "Unfinished". Here [9] They reject a draft for "Linking to other pages in article" (I assume they meant it didn't have enough wikilinks? Still a ridiculous reason to decline). Are we really rejecting drafts over missing periods [10]? I'm also unclear why someone who claims to speak Dutch would issue this [11] rejection, when the article is very clearly written in Spanish?
Their user talk page and it's archives are full of warnings about inappropriate speedy deletion tagging and problematic involvement in administrative areas. They also don't seem to have written any articles themselves. While their heart is in the right place the distinct impression I'm getting is that this editor doesn't really understand content policy and doesn't have the experience needed to tell what is a viable article. Put bluntly, I don't think they are currently in a position where they should be reviewing other people's work. My suggestion would be that for the time being their AFC rights are removed, they keep up their antivandalism work but also start writing some articles of their own. In a few month/few years time when they have some content creating experience under their belt they can come back an re-request access to the AFC scripts. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
MoonlightVector, I'm starting this sub-section just so that the above discussions can continue without this getting lost in them. I hope that you can take the thoughts and advice given about seriously, and I would offer one more: if you cannot find a pre-made decline reason (e.g. nn, film, essay, etc) you should not decline the draft. If you can agree to that, I see no reason why we cannot treat the problems above as a learning experience and give a second chance for productive reviewing. Does this sound acceptable? Primefac (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Superseded by the comments below. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it is wrong of you to advise this newcomer to engage in AfC activities and articulate “nn” reasons when they have zero reviewable experience in assessing notability at AfD. WP:Notability is a very complicated and unintuitive thing that even experienced editors get wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Doing a search through their contributions they do have participation in two articles for deletion discussions, neither of which looks good. Here they state that we should delete an article because "Is too short and is generally just not important.", and here they vote keep with the rationale: "Having not enough data doesn't mean you should delete it. It is still important (somewhat) and if they have internet then they could see it and might want it to be kept. Unlikely but plausible" - neither of these votes has any basis in policy. They also nominated an article for AFD then immediately withdrew it when the creator objected, resulting in this warning [12]. They also have multiple talk page warnings about tagging drafts for speedy deletion under non-existent / incorrect criteria [13][14][15] and started two MFD discussions for issues that did not require deletion - here they ask for a draft to be deleted because it has been vandalised and here they send a draft to MFD because it contained copyright violations (which were ultimately rev-deled). They also have proposed at least one article for deletion under PROD, which was also completely lacking in policy based arguments [16].
Really this just reinforces what I said above - They have their heart in the right place but they don't seem to actually understand content policy. In my opinion they badly need some experience actually writing articles and engaging with the editorial process, because simply doing anti-vandalism work does not prepare people to be ready to review the work of others. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with SmokeyJoe, it's clear from the IP comment above that MoonlightVector's problems won't be solved just by sticking to the pre-made rationales. They're no use if one hasn't understood the polices/concepts behind them. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Recently, a new user said in a chat room that they couldn't figure out how to submit a draft once it's written. Indeed, the interface does not currently show anything related to submitting a draft while reading or editing it. Another editor noted that they frequently field IRC help desk queries about this. I think we should make it obvious how to submit a draft. The user said (this was on Discord, by the way; the thread called "draft submit workflow" under #general) they would expect to see a "submit" button in a "banner at the top of the [draft] that says 'this is a draft. here's what you need to do' or something". Based on that, I have made an unprofessional mockup. The status will be shown using JavaScript for all Draft-namespace pages. Unsubmitted pages will have a "Submit" button that will immediately submit the draft, without having to go through the current dreadful subst:void-based interface. (With appropriate checks to verify that the draft's author is submitting it, etc.) Thoughts? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If we can fix the subst-void nonsense for submitting, I'm all for it; I don't even care about the root cause for creation. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I Hadn't even considered such a change was possible, but I assume being a Interface administrator gives you the access. As per Primefac, just for getting rid of the subst:void it would be worth it. It should be disabled if a rejection temeplate is present. I guess you'll need the subst:void still for user page submissions. Probably need a UI engineer to help with the design though ;) KylieTastic (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Just from a technical/template-side perspective, adding a namespace check to include the submit button only if located in the userspace is fairly trivial. Primefac (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Aw, sugar. I hadn't thought enough about how it'll be redundant to the existing template system. Mostly not-serious proposal: only show the status as illustrated if there's no template at the top of the page (because sometimes the "pending" template ends up at the bottom)? I don't like that, though; just a single word + color is gonna be a lot faster to scan than all those words, so the label is likely to be beneficial if shown unconditionally. I hadn't thought about the userspace angle, either. Some userspace pages are really non-serious drafts and I wouldn't really want to show a submission button there... I don't know how to handle that. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not a subst-only template, because it is populated by fields dependent on the user making the edit; if AnomieBOT were to subst every {{submit}} that wasn't subst, we'd have a ton of submissions "submitted" by the bot. We have a tracking category so that it can be manually fixed. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
How about creating a namespace wide edit notice that contains some basic instructions on the AFC process and how to write/submit a draft? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Maybe we could put the middle collapsible sections ("Where to get help", "How to improve a draft", etc) in there? Enterprisey (talk!) 06:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Enterprisey: that's what I had in mind, yes. A little intro message, some instructions on how to submit a draft, some links to the tutorial and getting started pages, and perhaps a link to the AFC question page and the teahouse? the only thing we would need to bear in mind is that collapsible sections don't work on mobile and are displayed in their entirety, so we would either need to take care that mobile editors don't end up with a ridiculously enormous unhideable edit notice, or we would have to make it device sensitive. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213
Some of you may want to comment on or participate in the discussion of this article. I reviewed and accepted four drafts of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. This was not straightforward for two reasons. First, all of the titles already were redirects to the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. Second, two of the redirects had non-trivial history because they had been expanded into articles and then cut down to redirects. So the redirects had to be moved to make way for the drafts. If they had trivial history, they had to be tagged for deletion. If they had non-trivial history, a round-robin move had to be done to put the history in draft space pointing to the article. So far, so good. I thought I had accomplished something. Then I was asked to move Pietro Maximoff back to draft space. I was asked to move it back because it did not comply with a guideline that I had not been aware of, the MCU character guideline. I have declined to move it back, I had two reasons for declining to move it back. First, moving it back to draft space, after the round-robin move, would be complicated and difficult. Second, I am not sure whether that would be a correct action. I said that I thought that an AFD might be in order instead. I have started discussion at the article talk page, Talk: Pietro Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe). This is a situation that may be of interest to other AFC reviewers.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been taking a IBAN from dealing with one of our more prolific submitters (for my own sanity). Is there anyone who has been dealing with their submissions who I can ping or tag when they submit more? Bkissin (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I mostly only deal with the old legislators, and even then only on good days, and I have a search bookmarked. The rest I mostly just don't wont to get involved with. There submissions have been rising again (51 out of there 20 limit! list. KylieTastic (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I had a chat with them which may be bearing fruit. This morning the list of their work is down to 35 submissions. They were collegial, though expressed some understandable displeasure over their restrictions FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me09:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
In accepting some of FA's drafts, I had two of them fail to complete the script, after the draft was moved to article space but before anything else happened, such as removal of the AFC log, or updating the WikiProjects. This has very seldom happened to me in the past , but twice happened in quick succession. This makes me think that it is caused by some sort of noise, maybe in my router, maybe on the Wikipedia servers, more likely in the Internet between my router and the server. I think that, if this happens again, I will decide that something is too busy, and stop editing Wikipedia, and do something else. Just an observation. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Presuming that they're both notable, I would probably accept Zvi Lotker because the key piece of information comes from his university. While this is not an independent source, it's certainly reliably, which is all we need once notability is established. In the case of Owen, there are some self-published CVs in there, so I understand you're hesitant. If you want to sidestep the problem, you can always trim the draft, only keeping the well-sourced bits and then accept it as a stub. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft:James E. Owen? No. H-index = 30 is maybe, a clean yes I expect > 40. (<20 is a definite no). (I know DGG has disagreed). No because he is not a professor, Senior Lecturer is not Professor. I feel comfortable with declining due to the poor quality (for Wikipedia) sources. He is known for Small planet radius gap, but that article while mentioning his name does not mention him enough. I would !vote “delete” at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
h factor is an absurd criterion. An h factor of 30 could mean 5 publications with 300 references each and 25 with 30, or it could be 30 publications with 30 references each. The first situation is a factor for notability, the second isn't. A formal self published CV is usually the same as the one on the university site, one written for a conference or talk published with a conference paper or talk is however unreliable. Owen's cv if you actually look at it, is on the official university site. It's his official cv. To evaluate references, you need to actually examine them, or at least click on the link and see where they go. If he's not mentioned or cited in our article on his subject, he should be, and this will be a good time to do it His citation figures are 467. 392. 302..... He is unquestionably notable. Zvi Locker's article citations are 262, 235, 233.... He too is certainly notable. FWIW, Senior lecturer is systems like the UK is equivalent to Associate Professor, and may of may not be notable
SmokeyJoe, later today I will fill in the data and accept these people, and this week if I have time I may check your other acceptances and declines of academics as far back as I can go. If I find any notable and accept them, you can challenge them at AfD. That's where the argument should be continued.
H-factor is not absurd, but has a very strong correlation with whether it is kept at AfD, because it has a vary strong correlation with their standing as an academic. Possible skewed distributions notwithstanding. I’ve never seen an NPROF deletion with H > 40, or a “keep per NPROF” with H < 20.
On Draft:Zvi Lotker, the five references are non-starters for demonstrating notability. How you found other sources? Does he pass a specific NPROF criterion (H index = 31 is not one).
User:DGG. I am making an effort to refresh my experience with NPROF sorted AfDs. I certainly don’t enjoy !voting delete on good efforts on quality academics, just because the NPROF bar is fairly high. There people rarely come close to passing the GNG, but leading academics are particularly suitable content for Wikipedia.
I note that others frequently address the H-index measure. I think that you are an outlier in your extreme disdain for it, even as a mere quick indicator of likelihood of meeting other criteria. I did my own study some time ago, and found with confidence that for passing NPROF, H-index < 20 means “no”. 20-40 means “maybe”. >40 means “yes”. No one ever is above 40 without many papers cited over 100 times. No one ever is below 20 with many over 100, unless they also have many GNG sources on their exceptional qualities. 20-40 means careful analysis is needed. Many with H-index 20-30 have articles, but a lot more don’t.
I don’t deny there are complicating factors, like first authorship, and gift authorship on a methods paper, and field bias. I have doubts, however, that field bias is a bad thing, I think that fields that multi-author a lot are more notable than fields that don’t. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I have now commented at the Abkar AfD, which somehow I missed before. As for Owen, I think the draft can definitely be promoted in its present form despite the junior-researcher nature of the Fowler award; his citation record has a long-enough line of hits to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 (the top 8-10 papers; going down as far as the h-index does, to the top 30, is too far to be looking). Lotker is more borderline on citation record alone, which to me looks weaker than Owen's especially because he's had much longer to accumulate citations, but the test-of-time award adds to his case, and if published reviews can be found for his new book that would also help. I wouldn't go out of my way to promote the Lotker draft but I would probably end up with a weak keep if it came to an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I just asked here to bring this to the attention of more experienced people. I don't think their ratings are reasonable, but I also don't have enough experience to tell them what the ratings should be. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Just now I changed all these to stub. The personal scale I use is stub 1-5 paragraphs, start 6-14 paragraphs, C 15+ paragraphs, B never (I let the WikiProjects handle this, they often have specific criteria similar to GA). Those thresholds are not spelled out in policy and there is some flexibility, but I think we can agree that a 7 sentence article should not be rated B-class. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Timtrent it would be good if the AFCH tool did the ORES check when accepting to give reviewers an indication of class. It's been one of those 'todo' items I've never got around to doing anything about. KylieTastic (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Lazy Maniik, I am not sure if this is made known to you. There is this userscript User:Evad37/rater.js (docs: User:Evad37/rater) which pulls out the ORES ratings onto an interface for you to populate into the various wikiprojects. As a ballpark, my ratings are typically one rating below the ORES rating if the ORES rating is of <50% confidence. Even if it is above 50%, they being evaluated against the standard quality metrics. As such, Bs are seldom given due to the typical quality that we see drafts have. – robertsky (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned by some comments here: with the possible exception of B-class (which has a six-point checklist), ratings are better left alone than given conservatively (e.g. marking something as Start when it's "at least Start-class", but actually C-class) so members of interested WikiProjects can see which articles they need to rate. Additionally, ORES should never be the sole basis for a rating: there should always be human assurance that an article does meet the class descriptors you are rating it as. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv what do you mean "better left alone" the AFCH tool asks for our project assessment - so we are the "interested WikiProject". If you mean the additional projects then yes if your not confident in assessment leave. However not all projects bother to rate and the class system is general enough for people outside of most projects to rate, but if in doubt I agree leave for others. Also I generally leave the importance as that means the projects still come to assess. Yes ORES should not be used blindly, but it's a good indicator especially for newer editors. If it says 79% Stub, 1% B and you were thinking B then your almost certainly wrong. Also people should look at all the ORES scores because it's not just the highest percentage but the spread - 50% C, 25% Start, 25% Stub is different from 50% C, 30% B, 20% GA. KylieTastic (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: you can leave the project assessment blank and still accept a draft, and doing so is preferable to giving an incorrect (e.g. too conservative) assessment. This is because editors like me often survey the lists of unassessed articles for WikiProjects we are interested in (of which WPAFC is of course one) and assess the articles. Giving a bad assessment removes it from the list. In my experience, ORES is very surprising in how often it is right, but since it is using a number of crude factors like "number of references" and "infobox present", it will overestimate articles that look impressive at first glance but fall apart when you inspect them (such as those with mostly unreliable sources, or poor-quality writing). Editors should bear in mind that it is descriptive, not prescriptive i.e. it is aiming to describe the conclusion you will come to independently, not to influence your conclusion. — Bilorv (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Lazy Maniik I apologise, I felt I was clear. As an example, while it is customary to rate a draft on acceptance, it is not mandatory. If you find you are unable to offer a rating you believe is appropriate it is acceptable to leave it unrated, secure in the knowledge that someone will rate it in due course. This should not be your default, nor your usual action.
Similarly, we do not have to offer a review just because we have opened a draft. We may close it again and leave it for another reviewer.
Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement (AFCH 0.9.1)
Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements (AFCH 0.9.1)
Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement and npov - Submission is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone (AFCH 0.9.1)
Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement (AFCH 0.9.1)
Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and adv - Submission reads like an advertisement (AFCH 0.9.1)
Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and This subject does not match WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN? (AFCH 0.9.1)
Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and v - Submission is improperly sourced (AFCH 0.9.1)
Since the ORES tool and the Rater gadget are mentioned above, I have a question. I often omit the assignment of a rating to an article when accepting it because I will then finish the acceptance by using the Rater gadget to assign the WikiProjects and the ratings (Stub, Start, Class C). (I am another reviewer who never assigns Class B to a new article. Class C is very good for a new article, and a WikiProject can reassess.) The gadget tells me what rating has the highest percentage. But how do I see the other percentages? If it says 45% Start, for instance, what does it say about Stub or Class C? How do I view the percentages? (If I can't view them, then I recognize that as a limitation of the tool.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
May I please be moved from "probationary" reviewers to "active" reviewers?
I have been AFC reviewing for quite a few months now, and I think I am familiar with the reviewing methods, so I think I am ready to be put on the "active reviewer" list. May you please move my name there? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The short answer is yes, I have seen it, and no, I have not had time to evaluate it. That being said, I do not want to be "the gatekeeper" of AFC, so if other people want to give their opinions on whether shifting from probationary to full is a good idea in this case, please feel free to do so. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
We're reviewing their AFC history, not encouraging them to apply. AFD stats will do nothing to determine whether they have been reviewing in line with our general expectations. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
There’s no need for dramatic sighs. AfC general expectations include the assumption that the reviewer understands AfD. I reviewed his five AfDs, they’re ok, neither good nor bad. How does one find his AfC reviews? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Review information for any user is at https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/ (direct link to FA is after the table below), just type in their username. One of these days I'm actually going to find somewhere to put this link so that it's useful for things like this (and so that I don't keep having to search through my browser histories to find it). Primefac (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Primefac - User:SmokeyJoe is focusing on AFD performance because SmokeyJoe has a reasoned but idiosyncratic opinion that AFD experience is an important precondition to being an AFC reviewer. They have mentioned this viewpoint frequently in passing, but it hasn't been discussed in depth, possibly because it isn't the view of most other reviewers, who don't notice this emphasis. Maybe a separate discussion with User:SmokeyJoe is in order, because I think that this is their personal opinion rather than that of the project, and so it may require more discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
1-5 look ok to me. #1 no one gives pertinent feedback about the non-independent sources being useless at getting it passed. I’m not sure about #5, but I think it is better accepted. He does some editing post acceptance, which is good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: We are talking about reducing the current backlog and a user who has been in the project for "some months" only reviewed 28 drafts and now asking to be an active reviewer. While joining this project, many of us stated that we are joining to help "reduce the backlog", but instead, it keeps increasing despite many participants. Well I guess it's fine. -- Comr Melody Idoghor(talk)19:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly something I'm considering, but if they're doing good work, every bit helps (i.e. it's not like we're going to kick them off the project). Primefac (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much discussion we want to spend on this. It's turning into a mini-RFA. Doesn't Primefac quietly and automatically take people off probation around 6 months? Could just wait for them to do their next batch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
My request for others to review was mainly to point out any glaring issues or errors; I always appreciate extra eyes on stuff like this. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: I'm not saying we should kick them off the project, but at least they should show some activeness/seriousness before requesting the topic of this discussion. Even if their 6 months probation is complete, it should be extended for them to show their seriousness. --Comr Melody Idoghor(talk)22:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed a tendency recently to see WP:A7 / WP:G11 (or both!) candidates turn up at CAT:CSD, that started off in draft space, then were unilaterally moved to mainspace, bypassing the AfC process. These include Larry Kosilla, Paul Maheke and Big Sailor Baby in just the last ten minutes. I assume these are all trying to get around the WP:ACPERM limit that makes it much harder for spam to get into the mainspace. Is there any way of yanking page move permissions so this doesn't happen? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that it was three different editors on three different draft pages, and none of them were AFC reviewers, I think this is more of an administrative issue than an AFC issue. Page moving is not one of the p-blocks available to us right now, so you'd likely have to find some other method of sanctioning them. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
It cannot. Right now the only method of stopping someone from moving a page is via edit filter, which so far has been described as "not ideal" as a way to deal with a single editor. Unfortunately, that means the next-best thing is to block them. Now, I don't know if a pblock from Article space will prevent them from moving something to the article space, but then again a pblock from the article space will prevent them from editing any article, which some would view as "too much". Primefac (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333, User:Primefac - As we know, any autoconfirmed user has the privilege of creating an article in article space. I don't think that any particular method of gaming the system is new since ACPERM. Also, some experienced editors dislike draft space and would prefer to see all autoconfirmed editors create articles directly, and to see non-autoconfirmed and COI editors use user space. Another form of gaming the system is creating the same article in draft space and in article space, in order to prevent New Page Patrol from moving it from article space into draft space. I think that Ritchie333 and Primefac and I are describing ways that promotional and conflict of interest editors and single-purpose accounts are trying to game the system. Can they be partially blocked by title? Is there a way to request that such editors be partially blocked from particular titles that involves less drama than WP:ANI? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see any of this as gaming; this is just a case of users skipping the AFC process (which most of us here agree is not mandatory, even though we'd prefer that) and drafting something before moving it to the article space. If a single user is creating large numbers of non-notable material that is subsequently CSD'd, they should be required to go via AFC following a discussion at ANI; this is not a new process and we have a half-dozen users under this sort of restriction.
That being said, if it's a dozen different users doing one-off bad creations, there's not really much we can do other than CSD or XFD those pages. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that I was imprecise in referring to moving drafts to article space as gaming. Moving a draft into article space immediately after it is declined is tendentious in a somewhat different way. What is gaming is creating a page in both draft space and article space at the same time. I agree that NPP is the safety net. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have had this happen a couple times on other drafts. When I try to review the only options are Submit or Comment but it is in submitted status. What is the issue? S0091 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
What I find annoying is their use of AFC templates, both ion the draft-> article talk pages and their own. Thsi passes themselves off as a bona fide reviewer. Ive removed those I have found on the articles, and asked them about it on their talk page FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I have made contact with one of the students. This appears to be an education project. I copy here from my talk page:KMUOS refers to the 'Kateb Maktub' project I am apart of as a translation student at the University of Sharjah. The goal of the project is to increase the number of articles published about Arab authors, and the course grade depends on the status of the article (whether or not it gets published). The reason I use this hashtag is to make it easier for my guide to find the articles I posted in relation to this project.
This seems like the second time they've done this project, as the University of Sharjah has an event listed under the same name and goals that happened back in February. See here and here. That second link also contains the names of the 4 professors involved in the project back then. No idea if it's the same ones now though. Contacting the university's Department of Foreign Languages might also be helpful as a general first step too. SilverserenC17:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I was looking to accept Draft:Tubbo as it has the sourcing to pass GNG, but Tubbo already exists in mainspace as a redirect. I tagged the page for G6 speedy deletion as normal, but the request was denied with the given reasoning that the Draft had already been declined twice, before the current sourcing was added. What's the proper course of action here? Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The edit history shows it to have had an unusual sequence of moves. It is part of project #KMUOS (see above). I've become more involved than I would wish, so I would ask for a reviewer to take it at face value. The Arabic references may be machine translated. I have not inspected what appears to be enhanced referencing.
Previously in main space I reduced this to a stub by removing all elements with no references, and was unable to find notability, so issues a PROD. That does not mean there is no notability now. The creating editor has a propensity for using archived references when the websites archived are live. This has, knowingly for unknowingly obfuscated primary sources. I have not checked for this and am leaving the draft alone now FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me21:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Got it; IPs don't have mw.config.get('wgUserName') and you have to query meta=userinfo instead. I can avoid a big patch to AFC-submit-wizard by having AFCH ignore u=null, so I'll do that. I have also patched AFC-submit-wizard to put the empty string as the u parameter instead of "null", which AFCH should behave normally on. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Whoops! Writing scripts for IPs is a new problem. Sadly even mw.user.getName() doesn't work for them. Nevertheless in this case, turns out it's simple enough to get the userinfo by clubbing it with another API call [17] Fixed. – SD0001 (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
With the queue now at over two months I think we need to look at bringing it down to four weeks. While it was fun hitting zero submissions it can be argued that such fast turnaround gives no real time for thought by submitting editors.
A mini drive would aim to hit four weeks backlog and then close. Or that is what I am proposing. It is for you to discuss this.
I have seen a really pleasant number of new names accepting and declining drafts. I propose that the top ten of reviewers from the July 2021 drive stand aside from being participants. They may continue to review, but do not get any drive credits. I chose ten as the cut off point, I suggest we discuss this. My objective in proposing this is to allow newer reviewers to get more and better experience.
Support anything to encourage others to jump in.... Also I'm attempting to take November off from Wikipedia or at least the never ending jobs such as AfC (I may do some content creation just to chill). KylieTastic (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Support, with focus on quality reviews and non-competitiveness, if possible. I'm worried having things like a leaderboard makes participating in the drive a bit more intimidating, so it might be better to have "benchmarks" instead of an actual ranking? (E.g., "over twenty reviews" instead of "top twenty reviewers") Not sure if this is a great idea in practice, of course—I'm just spitballing. Perryprog (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I personally enjoyed the leaderboard in the last drive. It created a lot of motivation for me. The motivation to get as high as I could motivated me to do more reviews, rather than just hitting the barnstar thresholds. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Alternate option I'm genuinely chuffed that the last drive went better than all of the horrors of the previous drives. However, as we have clearly seen following this drive, it doesn't fix the core issue: the rate of change of the backlog has not changed in the last year+ (at least). In other words, even if we do a drive through November and get the backlog down to 4 weeks (or even clear the queue again), we'll be right back up to 8 weeks by New Years (or close to it). Instead of quick bursts of "OMG we need to get this backlog down!" why don't we take the month of November to figure out why we don't see a change in this rate? We have a bit of a data gap between 2018 and 2020 (my fault, I'll admit, but I got tired of keeping data that a) wasn't changing, and b) no one other than me cared about) but at some point during that period we went from keeping fairly consistent reviews (created drafts ≈ reviewed drafts) to what we have now, so back then the backlog never really dropped below ~1500 but it was pretty consistently there.In other words, let's figure out how to change our engagement. Why do our reviewers (currently numbering 627 including probationary) not review more? We've said countless times over the last few months that "if we got each reviewer to review one page a day..." or similar metrics, but we've never actually managed that. Before we can fix that issue we need to know why we're not seeing even 50% return of interest from our community. If we can figure that out, we can get more folks doing reviews, and if we have more reviewers then folks like Kylie don't get burned out trying to manage something that has been clearly demonstrated to be unmanageable at current levels. I'm happy to split this off into a sub-thread or new section entirely, but having been heavily involved with this project since 2015 it's genuinely the only way I can see us making any significant improvements. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think I average about 20 reviews a day, but I have no idea how to encourage other reviewers to contribute more. I would like to have more time for article creation, but feel guilty if I stop reviewing. Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Theroadislong, you need to do what's best for you. Everyone needs to remember that Wikipedia is not our job. There's plenty of projects I'd rather be doing as well, but we all seem to be hamstrung by this AfC albatross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkissin (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac If we can figure this out I will support whatever it happens to be as a far better solution that a mini drive. It needs to be motivational. I'm not sure how to achieve that unless it is something mildly competitive.
We are coming up against two things: the NPP drive which is for the month of November then various holidays also in November and December. I think many AfC reviewers are also NPP reviewers so not sure this is best time for an AfC mini-drive, although some stats about how many AfC reviewers are also NPP would be helpful. I also wonder if a simple, occasional newsletter may be helpful, really as a reminder AfC exists along with asking editors to recommend others to apply. If we really want to get at why folks do not participate, then we need ask. Has that type of survey been done before for AfC or something similiar? S0091 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Some days it feels like wading through treacle when User:FloridaArmy submits such an enormous quantity of borderline, notable, three sentence articles. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Now running at 42, down from the 51 when I left a note. I have hopes, though time will tell. They make a reasonable point about the apparent bias against notable African Americans, but they do not always help combat this when their drafts are too scanty. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me14:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@S0091 I think we will all work better with FA on our side. I appreciate immensely the work they do on African Americans whose lives and work have been sidelined yet who are notable
How many AfC articles are Draftification from mainspace? That's the question that matters to me. Whatever the number is, we should try and make sure it goes down to as close to 0 per month as possible. Stop draftifying articles! If you think they are non-notable, then send them to AfD. If you think they are notable, but the article isn't great, there's so many tags you can use to reflect that. Draftification is not the solution. That's just passing off the work to AfC reviewers because you're too lazy to do the work yourself. The much more minor and more easily done work on your end, I might add. Apologies for the harshness of this comment, NPPers and others, but it's something I've felt strongly about for a while and have commented around here about in the past. SilverserenC21:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a good question. I personally agree with the philosophy behind draftication but sometimes what I see is they are resubmitted without any improvement, which is an issue. I think there is some room for improvement in the messaging when an article draftified at least. S0091 (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
As an AfC reviewer, and non-NPPer, I have to say I don't entirely agree. Draftification can be an excellent solution for many problematic page creations that have some sort of "potential" but also need significant amounts of edits and sourcing. Going through the AfC process also means that the approval of experienced editors before being sent back into the mainspace, which I think is especially important in cases like this. Perryprog (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
If anyway wants to provide diffs of their negative interactions with AfC submitters, that may explain the issues reviewers deal with. Bkissin (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Support. My preferences would be 1) that it's not in November because of NPP's drive, 2) that everyone be eligible (why exclude our top people? what if they want to participate?), and 3) that 0 drafts in queue be the goal (much more rewarding to hit 0 than to hit 4 weeks). I agree with others that there are endemic problems that cause the queue to keep coming back, but I don't really see any problem with using a couple drives a year to create motivation for people to review. A couple drives a year could potentially be the long-term solution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea Timtrent! Let newer users give it a try (and they can reach out to established reviewers with any questions, either in AfC comments or on our talk pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkissin (talk • contribs)
Comment I also think we need more region-specific help. Thankfully, we now have some very good reviewers who are knowledgeable about notability in a Nigerian context (Celestina007, Idoghor Melody, etc.) and I'm sure we have some good reviewers for the Indian subcontinent as well (two regions where we have a lot of drafts, and also a lot of spam). I don't want it to seem like these editors should focus on a particular subject area (they should be free to review any and all articles), but we need their help especially! I don't know which Malayalam movies are notable and which are filled with advertorial content, same with members of the Nigerian and Indian civil service. This will also help combat some of the bias issues we often face. Thoughts from others? Bkissin (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Blank cheque support for any backlog of any form, presumably in December. I do like Timtrent's idea of excluding the top 10 participants of the last drive, because the point of the drive should be to encourage people who are not already prolific reviewers, rather than to burnout the prolific reviewers we have (which is counterproductive). — Bilorv (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Support and will also stand aside even though I am new to AfC because getting something shinny will not push me one way or the other. Although, it might be fun to have unofficial side challenges not based on the number of reviews. S0091 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Interacting Backlogs
There are at least three interacting backlogs of quality control reviews in the English Wikipedia, that need to be considered as aspects of the need for quality control:
At least one of the proposals for dealing with the backlog is really a shift from one backlog to another. In particular, one editor says that the cause of the AFC backlog is that too many articles are being draftified, and that they should be either tagged or sent to AFD. That is a plausible argument, but would shift them from NPP to AFD rather than from NPP to AFC. The disadvantage to moving articles into the AFD closure backlog is that it either requires administrators to delete, or involves non-admin closes to Keep, which isn't the answer if the articles shouldn't be kept. Many of the AFC reviewers are also NPP reviewers, and many of the NPP reviewers are also AFC reviewers, so that we can look at those two backlogs as two branches of one flooded river. (Maybe the AFD backlog then is an artificial lake that the flood can be diverted into.) An AFC backlog drive may increase the NPP backlog, and also diverts volunteer time from other areas of volunteer work. An NPP backlog drive may increase the AFC backlog, and also diverts volunteer time from other areas of volunteer work.
I have a non-obvious thought. We do not want an AFD backlog drive. If a backlog of AFDs builds up, we do not want a drive to work off the backlog, because that would increase the reliance on non-administrative closes, and NACs are biased toward Keep and No Consensus. The damage that we want to avoid is having articles that should not be in the encyclopedia getting Kept in AFD because of biased non-admin closes. That is just a non-obvious concern. We don't want to increase the percentage of non-admin closes of AFDs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I can't remember if I had done it for the previous backlog drive since it has been a while, but a suggestion: AfC reviewers with NPP rights should help mark new articles as patrolled during their re-reviews. – robertsky (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Add "check talk page" to reviewing workflow
Hi there. Firstly I'm not a reviewer so I don't know that much about the process, but I did notice that nowhere in the reviewing instructions does it say it might be a good idea to check the talk page before accepting. It wouldn't be the first time that there is relevant discussion there about the article. A recent example is Talk:Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022, where I opposed moving it to mainspace per WP:TOOSOON – a few days later it was accepted anyway. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jochem van Hees Our job as reviewers is to accept drafts which we believe have a >50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. Deb is an experienced editor and accepted the draft. If you disagree you are welcome to send it for deletion and allow the community to decide. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me22:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean to question how experienced the reviewer was or that there is nothing to do about it. I just mean to make a suggestion so that hopefully better decisions can be made in the future. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jochem van Hees All reviewers work to make better and better decisions. However, the Draft: namespace is not intended as a place for article to linger in case they may, one day, become notable. If it has been submitted it will be judged by the reviewer on its merits.
As I understand it, the newly accepted article then goes to the safety net of WP:NPP. I have not followed this newly accepted draft.
I might apply someday but I'm currently mostly focussing on other parts of the wiki. In the specific case of the Albania article, my suggestion was to wait a month or two until it does pass notability requirements, which likely will happen since it concerns a scheduled event. But in the end I'm not here to complain about this specific example, but to suggest a more general improvement. If people on the talk page already are questioning the notability of the draft, then it seems weird to me to just accept it like that. Because then the discussion has to be moved to AfD, even though the point of this WikiProject is to avoid such unnecessary AfDs. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I can't find in a log who did the NPR review, but here I see that User:Jochem van Hees previously did a bold draftification. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, User:Jochem van Hees is not qualified to be doing unilateral draftifications. Wikipedia:New pages patrol and draftifications should be left to qualified New Page Reviewers. If you are not NPR accredited, and you don't like a new article, use WP:AFD.
Before User:Jochem van Hees continues to make WP:TOOSOON judgements and executions, I urge him to get more experience at WP:AFD. He has a lot of mainspace edits, but this is too little. WP:N and WP:TOOSOON are nuanced and complicated, and AfD is an excellent place to test your understanding. At AfD, if you are misunderstanding, you will soon be told.
I strongly agree with the sentiments about "check the talk page". Indeed, I think AfC reviewing records and comments should be on the draft_talk page, where prior draft_talk comments can be read, and any comments can be responded to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that boldly draftifying articles wasn't allowed. Thanks for informing me about that. (This one wasn't particularly unilateral though, there was agreement about it on yet another discussion at WikiProject Eurovision.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
True, that was a discussion. When draftifying per a discussion elsewhere, I suggest linking to the discussion from the edit summary, and adding a note on the talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment - @Jochem van Hees, this is just to say that I understand your concerns. I have no problem with you believing it shouldn't have been approved. However, the version I approved yesterday was not the same version that you moved on 20 October or the one you challenged on 4 December; a lot of work had been done on improving it. It seemed to me no worse than the other "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest 20xx" articles and better than most. Deb (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right here; it is a lot better than nothing. It's just that I was already annoyed by the lack of relevant content in these kinds of articles, so this one also being moved to mainspace even though I opposed it made me again more annoyed. But this is more of a general issue with WikiProject Eurovision that I should be addressing there, not here. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Check Talk Page
The original topic of this thread was that reviewers should check the talk page for any comments. Without discussing the history of any article, I think that the instructions should say that reviewers should check the talk page of a draft. Sometimes there are comments there, which is really at least as good a place for comments as the AFC comments on the front of the draft. Sometimes a reviewer puts comments on the draft talk page rather than in AFC comments so that they will survive the acceptance script. So I think that the reviewing instructions should say to check the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I above offered a left-field suggestion that the problems might not occur of drafters were asked to respond to WP:THREE on the draft talk page. And, especially if they have reference bombed the draft.
on further look at User:MoonlightVector, I’ll repeat my very old suggestion: AfC reviewers should be restricted to formally approved NPReview editors, and that NPR should be looking at, among other things, the editors AfD experience. MoonlightVector has insufficient AfD experience to be doing NPR or AfC. If he is interested in this sort of work, he should become experienced at AfD first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome to hold that opinion, but that's not the criteria I use (or the criteria that we have agreed on), especially when NPR often will ask that applicants have AFC experience if they're not yet eligible for NPR. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Primefac. I don’t remember whether I was involved in the agreement, but even if I was, old assumptions for old decisions should be regularly reviewer for their accuracy. We had a discussion somewhere (this page?) where I listed the order in which newcomers should gain experience. I think it was: mainspace editing; AfD; NPR CSD PROD; AfC. Contrary to my first impression, I came to consider AfC to be the most demanding of reviewer wisdom, because AfC is where an unwise reviewer can do the most damage, because AfC review is unilateral and impacts new editors who least know how to respond to a bad review. (Neglecting here the use of AfC by COI and Paid editors).
I suggest returning to that discussion, and I suggest:
(1). elevating the importance of experience at AfD as evidence of suitability for AfC reviewing. AfD is a better place to start engaging in critical review of others work because it is a group activity, and poor contributions in AfD are responded to by other AfD participants.
(2). Discouraging AfC reviewer applicants who do not already have NPR experience (tell them to apply for NPR). This is because: (a) NPR is easier; and (b) negative decisions at NPR result in another reviewing the negative decision.
I strongly disagree with (2), as I explained above; if you want to make that a formal requirement, we'll need an RFC and to coordinate with NPR to change their metrics.
As far as AfD experience goes, I of course take that into consideration, but it is only part of the decision; I also consider their edit count, CSD/PROD logs, their talk page, and their page creation experience. If poor AFD experience (either low !vote counts or an "accuracy" of ~60-75%) is the only issue, then I'll likely add them as a probationary member. In other words AFD does play a part in the process, but I am not (for example) going to decline someone just because they have only !voted in 6 AFDs (assuming a reasonable track record) but have a half-dozen approved drafts.
If you want to mandate that applicants have a minimum number of AFD !votes with a certain accuracy, or that we should have harder cut-off ranges for who is probationary and who is not, or even mandate that everyone is probationary for the first six months regardless of how experienced they are, I am more than happy to do that. If anything, though, I think we just need to do more casual reviews of the new members, because I've asked many times for review of probationary and other new users over the years, and I have almost never received any useful feedback (hell, some of the times I've brought up members for review I've been told off for not giving enough slack). I cannot see everything, and I am not infallible, so maybe instead of changing the entire process because one new user was a bad choice on my part we actually do a little work in helping them out before they get to the point where they get removed from the group. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Primefac, I wrote “elevate the importance” and “discourage”. Why do you respond with “formal requirement” and “mandate … minimum”?
New enthusiasts themselves should be offered the advice that AfD experience is valuable and valued for NPR and AfC reviewing.
AfD is an excellent training ground for newcomers wanting to get into review, due to it being a group activity. AfC is not. They should look to AfD for gaining experience before AfC, but I am all for subjectivity by AfC leadership in making decisions.
I always look at the AFD stats. As I said, I make mistakes, and upon re-reviewing their request I'm honestly not sure why I accepted them, even as a probationary member. Primefac (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac there is never an issue with any of us making mistakes. It is the way we handle ourselves when we realise that matters. As usual your commitment to true service to Wikipedia comes shining through. Thank you. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me11:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe this will help. It did not occur to me that Primefac or the AfC reviewer appointment process could make a mistake, and I spoke about the importance of AfD experience on the assumption that it was not considered important. Clearly, AfD experience is already suitably regarded. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Usedtobecool, can you share why? I find AfC harder, more challenging, because I find it harder to explain why not, why I am declining, whereas at NPR, I select articles I am interested in and on objective criteria they usually pass. There is, however, a massive difference between the front and back of the queue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, most of what I would have said seems to have been covered already. To put it in my own words, yours is a suggestion I would agree with when taking an editor-centric view. But I believe we have a higher duty, the readers. As much as we would be harmed by editors leaving without trying again due to a poor AFC review, we would be doing a disservice to readers and potential editors, if by poor NPR acceptances, we were to become a host for subpar content, which would both diminish Wikipedia's credibility and give potential editors the wrong idea about what is acceptable. One of the most common complaints we hear from AFC submitters is "why does my article on this subject which is of equal standing and importance as these subjects which are already on Wikipedia not get accepted when I have followed the examples of these very articles in my writing and sourcing?"I also do not think that we have so many good faith editors quitting without trying again for it to be a problem requiring priority action over other issues we have. Editors are given an invitation to visit the Teahouse and the AFC help desk when their drafts are declined. And almost all drafts get resubmitted (at least the ones which could conceivably be encyclopedic and credibly significant), at which point erroneous declines will get rectified, unless we have so many poor reviewers that we continue to have pile-on wrongful declines, which I do not believe is the case. As others have pointed out, articles passed by NPR become more or less permanent, add or take away from Wikipedia's overall credibility and serve as examples for where we are going. Wrongful AFC declines are re-reviewed by resubmissions, posts to the teahouse, helpdesks or user talk pages. There are few experienced editors policing declined drafts to catch salvageable ones. And ultimately, they are sooner or later reviewed by admins working G13. On that front, we should be making sure we have good admins to handle them reasonably, and encouraging everyone who works G13 to identify promising drafts. And if we really cared about these drafts, we should be running drives to rescue promising drafts to mainspace.That's not to say we shouldn't care about the newbies feeling dejected by inconsiderate and untactful rejections. It seems to me we should find other ways to make sure our reviewers don't do that than shifting the burden to another project to get them ready. I agree with you that editors gaining AFD experiences first would be best. Primefac hasn't contradicted you on that; you two just haven't figured out the exact threshold of reasonable AFD experience to qualify one for page review and curation. I think DGG agrees with you to some extent with regard to whether AFC should continue to be a stepping stone to NPR, if not full. And regardless, we would benefit from his opinion. (For general information, NPR asks novice editors applying for that perm to gain experience doing AFC first, in case that is not clear from Primefac's comments). Apologies for the length. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️10:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Usedtobecool. I think we more or less completely agree. Small comments: I don’t think the Teahouse works so well, it’s not negative, but I think editors who don’t engage in collaborative mainspace editing don’t become part of the community. On Primefac’s threshold of AfD importance, it was all a misunderstanding, I thought he regarded lowly when in fact he had made a mistake. On NPR vs AfC, maybe it is all subjective perspective, but I think editors should get experience at AfD before trying either NPR or AfC. Not a rule, but I recommend it, and I think it should be a general recommendation. How much AfD experience? Somewhere between 25 and 100 AfD discussions !voted in, and with something like 70-90% agreement on Keep/delete results. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a low-threshold perm for editor retention; and I think AFC can be that low-level perm, and anyway, it may not have a choice. We have so many experienced editors with 100 AFDs; if they volunteered to AFC and NPR, we would not have the backlog we have but they don't. By the time an editor gets to 100 AFDs the right way, they will be ready to move on to bigger and better. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️14:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I like AFC a lot more than NPR and AFD (and to be quite frank, I don't like AFC that much, but all three are very important). None should be a prerequisite to doing the others, though all are very useful experiences to have. I understand we need evidence of good notability and copyright knowledge before granting AFC, but that could take many forms. I'm not seeing evidence of any systemic issue we have in granting or declining AFC permissions through the current process. — Bilorv (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
If an AfC reviewer incorrectly approves a draft, there will generally be an NPP to fix the problem. If an NPP incorrectly approves an article, there's no one else to correct that. As such, it's best to have less experienced participants start at AfC: if they make too many mistakes, at least someone will catch them, as presumably happened in this case. I of course do agree that AfD/PROD/CSD experience is a must-have for AfC, although I think that's already the rule. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: You're only considering one side of the process there, i.e. what happens to the articles. I think you also have to consider what happens to the editors writing these drafts, after all AFC will be a lot of peoples first introduction to Wikipedia. If someone spends hours writing an article only to have it rejected for some inexplicable reason then there's a fair chance that person is simply going to leave Wikipedia and never return - that's the major damage poor AFC reviewers can do in my opinion. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point: there's no one really checking AfC declines either. It's certainly important to ensure that both sets of reviewers are fully competent. I would subscribe to the view that AfC is simply easier (there are fewer possible outcomes), but bad reviewers can still do significant damage at either one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I check AfC declines on resubmission drafts, and an often unimpressed, albeit less so than in the past when “lack of inline citations” was overused as a reason. I think from the mindset of a newcomer, AfC declines are very hard to understand. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The idea that AFC reviewing is harder than NPP reviewing may not have consensus, I don't think we can state that as fact. AFC does not require WP:BEFORE, which in my mind makes it easier to do than NPP. AFC also does not require the bottom part of the NPP flowchart, such as maintenance tagging and categorization. The point above about AFC accepts getting checked by NPPs, but NPP accepts not getting checked by anyone, is also a good point. Combine those things, and I think there is a good argument that AFC should be lower, not higher, than NPP in a hierarchy of difficulty and obtainability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Which is harder I guess is a subjective opinion. NPR may have more tagging options, and may be more work checking references, but I don’t think more work means harder work. I think AfC is harder with respect to giving a good and responsible reason for declining. AfC accepting is much easier. Complicated, I guess. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think that you need new or more stringent requirements, I think it's just a case that the existing requirements need to be applied properly. I don't want to rag on Primefac, but there's no way the user above should have been accepted under the current guidelines, a read of their talk page as it was in early October would have shown that they obviously failed criteria 4,5 and 6. I think it's best to just mark this up as a mistake, re-review any potentially problematic decisions they made and take a bit more care with approvals in future. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)and
I do both, and I find AfC much more interesting--unlike AfC, most articles at NPP are potentially acceptable and I prefer to work on the more severe problems. At NPP, they are almost always in English; they are rarely downright advertisements; they are relatively infrequently unintelligent trivialities or people playing foolish games. Like AfC, they often duplicate existing articles, or contain copyvio, are unreferenced or very poorly referenced, or need extensive fixing of references or format; almost always, they are imperfect. They need a careful check and tagging, and sometimes diversion to draft or deletion. It is usually possible to assume that if they get into mainspace, the errors will get at least partially fixed--often by the time I get to review a NP, it will already be much improved , whether by the original contributor or other editors. I think it is a great mistake to use one for training in the other. Kudpung and I have long had dreams of a unifed procedure, and I think that's the only solution.
I think there are many errors in accepting or rejecting drafts. But I'm biased, because I mainly work with ones that have been rejected and abandoned. 80% percent of the time they should indeed quietly disappear at 6 months; 10% of the time they should have been removed by speedy; and 10% are rescuable, though I only try to rescue in my own field. Consequently I notice mostly errors in my field, such as academics judged only by the GNG, or acomplishments like the highly notable honors specified in PROF not being spotted. But I also reasonably acceptable articles abandoned because the reviewer had asked for too much, instead of accepting articles that, however imperfect, would nonetheless pass afd. I can only assume there are similar mistakes in other areas also. -- DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, Extraordinary Writ, Novem Linguae, and Usedtobecool: NPR is the harder of the two because the fundamental difference is that a New Page Reviewer's decision is a serious judgement call on the future of a new article. NPP is basically a binary process: Accept, or tag for deletion. OTOH, at AfC the creator is offered more explanation on why an article is rejected (often temporarily), and can be resubmitted and reviewed by the same or other AfCers, thus encouraging user retention; or of course leaving truly inappropriate or abandoned submissions to await their fate at G13.
I believe that ideally NPR and AfC user rights should be merged (that would give AfC reviewers an official status) and with all reviewers having the same level of competency notwithstanding that accepted AfC articles should pass the scrutiny of NPR (and not by the same person). There is no 'strict' deadline for an AfC, but inappropriate New Articles if not promptly reviewed, will fall off the queue and be indexed by Google forever.
The requirements for efficient NPR are complex and demands a thorough understanding of the guidelines for it which need an almost admin level of knowledge of notability and deletion. It's not for the squeamish and that's probably why of the over 700 users who asked for the permission, fewer than a couple of dozen are truly active at it. Barkeep49, ICH, Celestina007, Nosebagbear, and MER-C will understand those issues.
To illustrate the importance of due diligence when according user rights, especially at AfC and NPR, Eostrix/Icewhiz whose recent glib posting at WT:NPR was, by the grace of God, more recently prevented from successfully becoming an admin (123/1/2) at the last minute by Arbcom, and globally blocked and locked by the WMF in a unique and one of the most scandalous NPP/RfA issues in Wikipedia history: The Signpost October 2021 "The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded".
A specifically created project space exists for discussing these NPP/AfC changes and improvements, for further developing the ideas, and for deciding how best to approach the WMF to engage them in the coding of scripts etc. It has worked in the recent past. Despite overwhelming community consensus in the hundreds, it took nearly a decade of squabbling with the WMF to get ACPERM trialled and rolled out, and the next big debate on the horizon will be about IP editing. IMO, DGG and Primefac have the longest and broadest experience in the workings of AfC - which of course is not to say that others are less competent - but they might wish to take the lead in proposing some concrete changes and improvements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Kudpung, I withdraw my comment that one is harder. Instead, I would say that at AfC an inexperienced reviewer may do harmful biting of newcomers without anyone else ever noticing.
I agree that NPR and AfC user rights should be merged. The knowledge and experience required is very similar. It's my opinion that AfD expertise on interpretation of Wikipedia-notability is most important, although others might say copyright concerns and reliable sources are at the top. On NPR having complex demands, I think much of the complexity is gnoming work (eg categorisations) that well get done rapidly by others if the reviewer doesn't.
You assume that AfC reviewers do not immediately mark their AfC accepts as NPP reviewed? I think that is not right. In the archives here or at WT:NPP (I can't remember for sure), there have been discussions about whether AfC reviewers should mark their accepts as reviewed, and I think opinions went both ways. I don't have a strong opinion on this, I think there are weak arguments both ways. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Personally I have always liked that we could give AfC to people who we couldn't give NPR to because there would still be the NPP check. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe and Barkeep49:, I think it is quite obvious that AfC reviewers should definitely not be passing their own reviewed articles at NPP. That would defeat the whole purpose of having the additional safety net of NPP - and leave the place open for scandals like the Eostrix/Icewhiz one, who was blithely posting pieces of authoritative advice for NPP right up until he was pre-desyoped and banned. That said, there has been a lot of abuse at NPP recently; well, either that, or the community is getting better at catching it. There needs to be a script or a filter, or whatever, such as: Sorry, as AfC and New Page reviewer, you can't assess this article at NPP. The NPP process is the higher authority, even if the reviewers were to be merged. On our work with Marshal Miller of the WMF who did an excellent job at the AfC Process Improvement we started with DGG and Espresso Addict, Primefac, and ICPH, et al., the Special:NewPagesFeed already includes a live feed for AfC drafts.
That's one of the reasons why at WT:NPR users are now calling for a complete rebuild of the NPP code base to make the feed and the curation tools (whose GIUs are fine, BTW) conform to the norms of a WikiMedia extension to make it Wiki-agnostic. It would then be much easier for the devs to upgrade as new features become organically necessary. AfC and NPR both need revisiting again by people like reliable and AfC/NPP-friendly WMF devs such as MusicAnimal , DannyH (WMF), and Marshal, who have helped us here in the past. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
While I like the double review benefit of AfC/NPP, and am on team "don't patrol own reviews" (which as an admin with AP actively requires depatrolling), I do accept the position of reviewers who do feel that the review is sufficiently rigorous for them to be able to do both, and that it actually does cause very few to slip through the net, while avoiding a duplication of efforts. Both arguments have weight, and currently BK49 is correct that the consensus is to allow those with both userrights to make their own judgement on the issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping Kudpung. Now From my perspective there isn’t a tougher perm/duty than NPP to say otherwise is statistically incorrect. Let’s talk about time used up, as NPP is the first mechanism against what ought not to be on mainspace, when we observe an article we check for copyright violations, if it comes back as clean, we move on, if not we tag accordingly, if the copyvio is minimum we ask for a revdel, having done so we move to check for promotional content in the article, if it is an ADMASQ we tag for a G11, if the promotional content is minimum we manually assist the article creator in re-wording parts of the article, having done so we move to check if the article is a duplicate, if so we tag with the relevant CSD tag, note that all of this is done prior a notability check. If all those are “clear” as aforementioned we then have to check to see if the article is notable enough or meets the required SNG, note that NPR's have(or ought to have) a very extensive knowledge on reliable sources and it’s intricacies, for example a reliable source isn’t the same as a reliable piece. if the relevant SNG or GNG isn’t met we have to nominate the article for deletion wherein we give a detailed rationale on why it is being nominated for deletion, we do a tedious WP:BEFORE, news, books, journals, google and whatnot. Now moving to marking as reviewed, when an article is accepted we have to add relevant categories, use Rater, leave a message for the article creator, tag accordingly if need be & all the aforementioned I stated above are but a tip of the iceberg, @SmokeyJoe do you see the arduous tasks we have to undergo before marking as reviewed? Juxtaposed with AFC do you see how implausible it is for AFC to be tougher than NPR? Furthermore, you mentioned that the Teahouse doesn’t work so well, I believe 331dot & Nick Moyes would disagree with you. Furthermore you tackled Primefac on a mistake they made genuinely? It’s a good thing the perfection bar is impossible to attain. Lastly, NPR are also major defense against undeclared paid editing, all put together is a no-brainer as to which is more arduous. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Celestina007 I would describe your description of NPR tasks as "several", not arduous. I think arduous depends on what you like to do. At the risk of being criticised for being sloppy, my preference in NPReviewing as reviewed (approved) is to leave categorisation to people who care about categorisation (not that I don't care, but others care more). I keep all reviewed articles on my watchlist, and I see them being categorised soon, by familiar names who are categorisation aficionadas. What's "Rater"? I only leave a message for the author if they are new. And I tag only as necessary, thinking that over-tagging is worse than not tagging at all. If it doesn't *need* to be fixed, it doesn't *need* an ugly reader-disturbing project hatnote. Mostly, I consider necessary maintenance tags to be borderline to sending to AfD.
WP:BEFORE is hard work for topics that are not my interest, which is why I skip topics are not my interest, at all of AfD, AfC and NPR.
On the Teahouse. Where it doesn't work is where the newcomer never posts at the Teahouse. I have some knowledge of newcomers drawn to Wikipedia in editathons, where clearly, the attrition rate of their contributions never getting out of draft space is too high. I think the Teahouse is good, but it is not so good at welcoming newcomers into the community. Instead, I think newcomers should engage the community by editing mainspace, and then on article talk pages, long before they attempt to draft new topics. A different line of thought.
Did I tackle User:Primefac? I apologise again and will try to be more gentle. When I wrote, I did not realise that we were talking about a mistake, I was thinking something entirely different, mistakenly, and now probably best forgotten. I have full confidence in Primefac.
What I consider arduous about AfC is my perceived need to explain to the newcomer, who has little idea, why all that effort they have recently expended should be abandoned as a waste of time. Or instead of "arduous" do I mean "depressing"? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, This right here is Rater an imperative script for new page reviewing. Arduous literally means involving or requiring strenuous effort but we shall keep semantics aside for the sake of a constructive conversation. I’m afraid the problem between what I have described above and your response is idiosyncrasy or should I say training, although I must confess that I am not perfect but any new page reviewer who isn’t categorizing, rating, tagging(if needed), doing a thorough WP:BEFORE and most of what I already described isn’t reviewing properly and that is a factual statement. As for the Teahouse and “new editors not posting there” that is a factual inaccuracy. In-fact i rarely ever see regulars seeking for assistance as most people who need help are new editors who come straight from AFC and a quick glance at the Teahouse substantiates my claim. Although leadership there is decentralized (and rightfully so) I believe Nick Moyes, 331dot & Cullen328 are closest to the “leaders” there and they can attest to the efficacy of the Teahouse in grooming new editors. Now back to AFC, look SmokeyJoe, i understand your point which if I’m reading this correctly is that the current threshold for granting AFC is low and you want the bar set to a higher standard right? You aren’t necessarily incorrect, I believe you can expatiate on this point without over simplifying NPP. Celestina007 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
"I’m reading this correctly is that the current threshold for granting AFC is low and you want the bar set to a higher standard right?"
User:Celestina007, on NPReviewers not categorising being non-proper, I disagree, and with experience on the matter. A new article not being fully categorised is not a major problem. Categories are a Wikipedian's tool; very very few readers use categories, so categorising is less urgent than reviewing itself. And miscategorising makes far more work than not categorising.
Regarding Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#WikiProject_Sorting and Rater, I disagree more. New page patrollers assigning WikiProject banners is a big cause of the demise of WikiProjects. From the perspective of the WikiProject, it removed the job of new page patrol for new articles within their scope. It removed WikProject member's central and most important job, watching and managing the scope of the WikiProject.
Concerning inactive WikiProjects, the current practice of tagging new article talk pages with their banners, it is a disservice to all. If gives the impression that the WikiProject cares about the article and has noted its creation.
I believe that you should never add a WikiProject tag, unless you are a member of that WikiProject.
I do agree with doing a thorough WP:BEFORE before nominating at AfD, and that to NPReview you should be prepared to nominate at AfD. Certainly, you should be capable of making a quality AfD nomination. However, I do not think it is criminal to skip articles, without touching them, if you choose not to accept them. I think it is OK skim the list looking for easy approvals, even if it can be said that dealing with the unacceptable new articles is more important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, Thanks for the response, now whilst I may not agree with some of your points, I do not believe they are necessarily incorrect, it is just perspective, Generally speaking, I think academy trained new page reviewers and reviewers who applied for the perm and got it outrightly may not agree on certain things. In the end I believe this has been an intellectually stimulating conversation, on a basic level I concur with some of your points and disagree with the others. At this juncture I’m not sure what to add anymore. DGG also makes excellent points. Celestina007 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe , I see much of it the way you do. The most difficult parts are not the articles, but the people--trying to figure out what it is appropriate to say, and how to say it. Thee are new users who ought to receive all the help we can give them; there are obvious upe socks on whom explanations and attention are counterproductive. Learning how to do this take primarily not mastery of the rules, but judgment and experience. We can teach people tricks, and ask them to watch how we use them, and correct their beginning misjudgments, but in the end it's they who musst develop their understanding. This is why I think we may be better with a relatively small group of people who specialize in this process--a beginner can do altogether too much harm, and someone who does this infrequently will lose the feel for it. We do have such a core group now, but it's too small. We need more people prepared to devote perhaps several hours a week to it, not go in a few times a month. Other WP processes are similar--I realized very earlier I would either have to learn a great deal about copyright, or let others do the non-obvious; similarly for categories, and images, and spi and dozens of other specialties. (This is the same problem as that swith admins, who use the tools only infrequently).
Even for someone who's a regular here, like those in this discussion, we need to realize we need to specialize further at least to some extent. I don't judge drafts (or articles--all this applies equally to NPP as to AFC)for which I don't know the standards; I don't engage with people who I know won't understand the way I do things. I don't think it's a good idea to go into the queue and do successive random articles--one should go in, and find those that make sene to work on, while still giving oneself a little variety and a little scope for extending one's competence--and still having people who take their turn at cleaning up the ones so ambiguous that no one wants to take them on. I'm pleased to see an increasing number of AFC reviewers just leaving comments, but letting another reviewer judge. I leave the Nigerian celebrities to Celestina. She leaves the professors to me.
I agree newcomers ought to edit mainspace first, and not just the minimum number of edits. Good editathons and classes have learned this--to direct the beginners to improving existing articles. Many people, in perfect good faith and not single purpose editors in the usual pejorative sense, come here to write something particular that they know of, and it can be difficult to persuade them to be around a while first and practice before they do what's important to them. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
AfC submission wizard ready for general usage
Now that it's been over a year since the initial discussion, I finally got around to writing down some documentation at WP:AFCSW, and kinking out the bugs in the code.
testwiki: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submitting – feel free to make any test submissions here. The whole wiki exists just for testing purposes. Draft:Sandbox, Draft:Sandbox2, Draft:Sandbox3 are available here.
Exciting!! I'm happy that this will get many good-faith contributors' articles sorted out and hopefully dealt with on a fast track compared to all of the junky BLP/product/company articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Great job with this. Very impressive. Idea: this might be a good place to try to explain GNG and sources to newcomers. Some kind of notice such as Please be aware that not all topics qualify for a Wikipedia article. With some exceptions, most articles require three top notch sources with multiple paragraphs of detail about the subject. Newspapers, books, and academic journal articles are usually good. Blogs, company websites, and personal websites are not acceptable. You should not spend a lot of effort writing an article until you have discovered and included these sources. Planting this seed early could eliminate a round or two of declines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the wording, though that's an interesting idea. It would have made a lot of sense to show at a place where the user is starting a draft, but here the user is submitting instead. Anyway, I've made a list of this and other ideas at WP:AFCSW#Ideas for future consideration. I think we can discuss each individually at some stage. – SD0001 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, there are probably more places where the current wording used may not be the most optimal. I've pulled all of these strings out of the main logic (see line 43 onwards) – this will help to make changes in them with lesser chance of breaking the script. (Ideally, these should be moved to a separate JSON page, but that would make the wizard slower to load.) – SD0001 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if high protection is necessary, but the pages are on my watchlist and the first time something goes awry I'll bump protection. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Quick follow-up to note that the AfC submission templates have been edited to point to the wizard, a few days ago. Everything appears to be going smoothly. Thanks to everyone who helped with testing and reporting issues! Suggestions for new features in the wizard can be discussed in a new section on this talk page or on WT:AFCSW. – SD0001 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
My DraftCleaner script adds reference sections when absent. Script is still in beta though, I need to make some changes to it to make it less buggy before I can confidently recommend it. I am also worried that it overlaps with AFCH's little-known "clean submission" feature. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Enterprisey, sure, sounds like a great idea. What's the best way to integrate? Maybe I could refactor DraftCleaner to be a function, and then AFCH loads the page in my userspace and calls the function? DraftCleaner isn't ready for wide use yet, but could be made ready quickly by me disabling the two features that create the most false positives. If I get time, I also have plans to add a bunch of test cases. These one string in, one string out type functions are ripe candidates for unit tests. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a rough stat on how many AfC articles don't get created?
In teahouse there was a discussion about creating your first article. I emphasised reading AfD to understand notability as the failure rate is high. But I didn't know how many failed on AfC
@Wakelamp. According to this Quarry query, the AFC reviewer decline+reject rate for the last 30 days is 85%. This stat doesn't compensate for a writer submitting multiple times and eventually getting accepted, but is a good approximation. Sadly, a lot of drafts have unfixable problems such as notability and do not make it out of AFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
matches my guess, which was 80:20. I suspect the potential number if all drafts were given the assistance they might require would be 70:30. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
are there statistics for what percentage of drafts entered in Draft space never get formally submitted for review? DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
No, the statistics are just the # of times reviewers accepted, declined, or rejected in the last 30 days. The number of "draftified and abandoned" or "created and abandoned" drafts is not included in this particular query. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae I get user not found on the Quarry... ok i can't resist - I have Questions about the Quarry Query behaving Queerly :-)
Hey @Wakelamp. I fixed the Quarry link above, you can click on it now to see its secrets. I copied it from @KylieTastic and adjusted it a bit, but it looks like it reads the comment_text field in the recentchanges table. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Awesome! This is the bit I get confused on it an article goes through AFC, then gets deleted would it still appear in recentchanges, or do they get blown away after the item is being deleted Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Wakelamp no there is no full/accurate evidence left for mere mortals in the databases once deleted. An admin with a admin level bot would be needed to get complete figures for all submissions. If a reviewer always posts messages on the submitters user page then you can look to for "declined (AFCH 0.9.1)" (Example query I used back in the last backlog drive: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/55766). KylieTastic (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Once after a draft is declined for copyvio reason using the AFCH script, the decline banner dosent display the actual website-link where the content is copied from. There is a field: ′Original URLs (one per line)′ , but it dosent display after reviewing. Any solution? --Gpkp[u • t • c]14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Gpkp: Apart that, when you enter bio,neo, nn, sports, film etc as your decline reason, the automated message writes the same thing without stating which one in particular. It just writes “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.” I think it shouldn't be the same text for every of such criteria. --Comr Melody Idoghor(talk)04:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's not quite the same: instead of saying "see the guidelines on the notability of people", it says "see the guidelines on the notability of films or music-related topics or whatever. I suppose it could be more specific, but then again it's important that they be sufficiently vague to cover all of the situations in which they might apply. As to the original question, that's surprising that it doesn't specify the URL. Perhaps the reason is that you're supposed to nominate it for revdel or speedy deletion, both of which do show the URL? I'm not sure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the original URLs are collected so they can be placed in the CSD G12 template, if you select the check box to nominate for deletion. I don't think the script places the URLs anywhere else (decline banner, user talk page, etc.) Now should these URLs be placed in more locations? My gut instinct is it's not necessary, but happy to hear other opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree and thank you @Novem Linguae:. The text-field: ′Original URLs (one per line)′ could be made as visible, only under the condition that the text-box: ′Nominate for speedy′ is checked. --Gpkp[u • t • c]06:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Few years ago, somebody informed me not to mention the copyvio-URL in the AfC review. Cant remember who was the user and which guidline said so. --Gpkp[u • t • c]09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I am genuinely curious to know who that was, because they're wrong (though I do suppose there could be extra context that has disappeared from your memory over the years). Primefac (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I had mentioned the result of Earwig's Copyvio Detector in an AfC review, by the time the user replied that he/she found the review useful even though it was not ok to disclose those results and URL.--Gpkp[u • t • c]10:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it makes sense to show the URL(s) (e.g., in the decline banner) even if the draft has not been nominated for speedy deletion. I regularly go through Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations to try to remove copyright text from some drafts where the reviewer did not do so themselves, and it's a pain when you can't tell what they thought it was a copyvio of, especially when it ends up being a false positive and an incorrect decline. DanCherek (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
There are 3 codes: ′cv or cv-n′, ′cv-Website or cv-n-Website′ and ′cv-cleaned or cv-c′. Only ′cv or cv-n′ seems to be active. --Gpkp[u • t • c]06:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I am aware there have been no changes to the decline template or the /comments subpage. cv-cleaned should still work as well. Additionally, it should be showing the URL if the user has provided that value (see Draft:Jeff Burger). If things aren't showing up as they should, it's a script issue, not a template issue. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I think I identified the issue in submissions.js. Lines 2329 to 2334, which include the URL in the decline template, are only called if the checkbox to nominate the page for G12 has been checked (line 2315). That was the case with Draft:Jeff Burger and similar drafts like Draft:Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. I think the script should be updated so that it shows the URL even if the page has not been nominated for deletion (i.e., if only part of the draft has been copied from elsewhere). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanCherek (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I see some drafts with what appear to be notable titles go through the G13 sieve, and I wonder whose 'fault' it is. I think, sometimes, what did I do wrong?
Do we have any figures, indeed are figures useful, on:
What proportion are near misses, might have been approved as >50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process?
What proportion are simply 'fire and forget' submissions?
What proportion are hopeless?
I recognise that these are intersection sets. I think the information may be useful to inform our thinking on the acceptance threshold. When I was a new reviewer I thought I was doing Wikipedia a service by raising the bar. I see now, that I was doing the reverse, probably putting useful new editors off.
I think we all need to consider our personal thinking on this. I'm not looking to reach any form of consensus. I'm looking, instead, at getting us to look at our own thinking, and becoming even better at what we do. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me17:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
It ought to be a silly problem. Unfortunately it's a significant problem. There are only a few admins who do the deletion who even occasionally check. Doing a proper check takes several minutes, and a look at the deletion log will see most admins going much faster than that. There are to the best of my knowledge fewer than 5 people checking the forthcoming G13s to rescue them --I'm one, and I try to check every one that looks like an academic, but I cannot keep up even with those at one hour /day. And then there's the much more difficult problem--once these are spotted, since most need major fixing, who's going to do that. I try to do one or two a week. I will not send to mainspace something that has only 51%, because that's taking a chance with the erratic decisions at afd. If I think the subject is notable, I want to be reasonably confident it stays in wikipedia. �� DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I spent a few months reviewing/tagging G13 eligible drafts. Many are not submitted therefore they do even go through AfC so keep that in mind. My experience was you had to wade through a lot a crap before you found something that had some potential. For ones I did not have the knowledge or tools to improve (generally sourcing), I tagged promising, which puts it in Category:Promising draft articles and sometimes even posted notes at a relevant Wikiproject or editors that I knew likely had an interest in the subject but my experience is they end up deleted anyway. However, I agree with DGG it is worrisome, especially for the ones not submitted. Pinging @Liz: as she is one the admins that handles the G13 CSD category for input about her experience. S0091 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping for another set of eyes on this, because I'm not sure that my reading of WP:WEBCRIT is correct. I was reviewing this draft and while only one-source meets WP:GNG in my eyes, I'm wondering about some of the other referencing. Many of the references are other sites (mostly reliable sources) reporting on stories broken or originally reported in The Mac Observer. WP:WEBCRIT says that the subject might be notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Do those type stories fall under this category? If not, what is that section of WP:WEBCRIT referring to? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me!02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Editors placing their own AFC Acceptance templates on their own talk page
I have noticed this self aggrandising trend, which I see as deceptive. Is there a way of modifying the user talk page acceptance template to detect whether the signature is from a genuine AFC reviewer? It might then state some form of red error message instead of a deceptive "My article has been accepted" template FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me10:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Timtrent: It really looks deceptive, but I don't think there's any policy or law that states that reviewers shouldn't review their own articles. Until there's a policy like that, I don't think there's anything anyone can do...Comr Melody Idoghor(talk)10:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I agree, I think all you can do is call them out on it. I've done that in the past and it has stopped them. If they sign as themselves it should stand out as self aggrandising if they sign as another I'm sure there must be a policy about that? Also even if technically possible, and would be an intensive task on some users talk pages (FA for instance). If there was a policy to cover this deception the best option would be to have a bot remove and warn when added not have the template check every time viewed. KylieTastic (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, both. Perhaps we should discuss, first, whether there should be a policy? I have a view that AFC templates ought to be deployed only by AFC reviewers with the exception of the AFC Comment template for the drafts. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me10:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it's technically possible to restrict the template from being substed by users who aren't AFC reviewers (store list of reviewers in a more easily parsable form such as JSON, and check if {{REVISIONUSER}} is in that list) but I don't really see why this is necessary. – SD0001 (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed Draft:Big Mouse (2022 tvN), and declined it as too soon. The submitter replied to me, on their talk page: "There are a lot of Korean series pages and they have not been deleted!! Some of them may be released after 10 months !!!" I haven't researched the number of future Korean television programs, so I don't know whether the programs to which the submitter refers are in draft space or in article space. If they are in article space, which would not surprise me, then they are cases where Other Stuff Exists that will probably be deleted if nominated for deletion. I am guessing that they are in article space, were created directly in article space (which is the privilege of any autoconfirmed editor), and either are waiting for New Page Review, were sloppily accepted by New Page Review, or were put in by an editor who has the autopatrolled privilege, and so should know better. I am not asking for advice, but I am calling this matter to the attention of AFC reviewers, many of whom are also New Page reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This draft illustrates a situation that I occasionally see, which is a good-faith error about Articles for Creation by an editor who is working to improve the encyclopedia (which is what we are here for). The draft appears to be a substantial expansion of the existing Start-class article. Saw sam sai. I had to decline the draft because AFC is not a mechanism to submit improved articles, only new ones. Does anyone have any ideas on what advice to give to the submitter of the draft to simplify the job of improving the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Can't be arsed finding the essay/guideline at the moment, but "improve the article in draft space and then review before merging in" is a perfectly acceptable way of improving a page. As mentioned, though, it's not something that goes through AfC. If it's a relatively good improvement just have them edit the page directly, otherwise as Timtrent says, have them start a talk page discussion to discuss the draft. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. It's a good-faith incorrect assumption that AFC can be used in this way. I've seen this good-faith incorrect use of AFC before. In this case, it's a major improvement. If it hadn't been an improvement, I would have redirected the draft to the article after declining it. If it had been a minor improvement, I wouldn't have mentioned it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
As Bob says, there are multiple ways of handling the merge . I have a few times accepted under a variant title that would be a useful redirect, and then merged the articles. It's a particularly clear way of preserving attribution. Anotherfactor is thatif the user is no longer here, which I see in the majority of cases, there's no point asking them to help. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This draft in particular appears to be one from a recurring class assignment from Thailand, which remains undocumented. I haven't checked this one yet, but I've found significant problems with some of this year's recent batch of drafts, so please keep your eye out for image copyvios and close paraphrasing (though I've found several to be close paraphrasing of Google Translated Thai sources—these will be rather tricky to catch). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Where to Discuss a Decline
I am not really asking for advice in this thread, and am not really providing advice in this thread. The main question here is what we should tell submitters about how to discuss a decline that they disagree with, and I am mentioning it here because I provided one answer as to what is not the place to discuss an AFC decline. A draft, Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer), was submitted, and was declined. The submitter then went to DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I declined the DRN case request because there hadn't been discussion between the originator IntDesign and the AFC reviewer Loksmythe, and also because the Teahouse and the AFC Help Desk are forums for discussion of AFC declines. Does anyone have any other comments on how an originator should try to discuss with a reviewer? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The draft_talk page. Ping the author and submitter(s) to the draft_talk page. The reviewer should post the decline on the draft_talk page. Responses then go naturally threaded after, on the draft_talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping SmokeyJoe - while many people would disagree, I made every attempt not to AfD an article when I used to review. I thought draftification might enable the editor to work on it and get help from AfC reviewers on direction on how to show notability. Of course, if they didn't contact me directly on my talk page (which many editors did). I not only have a question of notability on this article, but I have a strong suspicion of UPE (which I mentioned on their talk page when I draftified it). Regarding discussion of the AfC decline, the article's talk page is definitely the best forum to discuss an AfC decline. Like SJ said, I would ping the author and submitters. Another option, which when I used to do AfC and found helpful, is to have the discussion on the article itself, through the use of the "comment" feature of the review tool. And in this instance I definitely wouldn't even discuss the article until the UPE concern is addressed. Onel5969TT me12:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
And the UPE concern is a reason not to encourage the author to move it into article space, although it can and probably will be taken to AFD if moved into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Draft talk, Teahouse, AFCHD, the decliner's talk page (though some would argue against that). Plenty of venues to choose from, with varying levels of response times and results. While the Draft talk is probably the most ideal place, who other than the page creator is (reasonably speaking) actually watching it? Primefac (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
And therefore, when it is question that might be of general interest, someothrvenue is best; if it's just arguing about details, then the draft talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC) �
I was reviewing Draft:Automoliini and I noticed that it was autogenerated from iNaturalist's "Create this page on Wikipedia!" template. It's a great outreach effort in theory but it's encouraging people to create drafts citing only iNaturalist, which is a user-generated source. Is there anything that can be done about that? I've declined the draft for now but I've seen one or two others made from this same template already. Rusalkii (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Snyk
I created a page for Snyk
It was earmarked for speedy deletion but this has since been removed and now has a tag on it that it reads like an advertisement.
I'd like someone to take a look at the page and let me know their opinion.
Is it notable enough? Does it read like an advertisement? The reason I put the funding in there is that its valuation as a 8 billion dollar company is what makes it notable. I didn't want to include other stuff for fear of it reading like an advertisement. So if someone could please advise, I appreciate it. Thank you MaskedSinger (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@MaskedSinger: Neither WP:N nor WP:NCORP say that valuation has anything to do with notability and the sourcing is weak. It does read like an advertisement because it says everything a firm would want to say about itself and nothing it wouldn't. Chris Troutman (talk)16:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: The valuation generated enough articles on it to generate the notability ie significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure what they would/nt want to say about itself. My plan was just to start the page and then whomever wanted to add whatever they wanted to it, could do so. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Please note that articles that regurgitate company factoids and present no original analysis fail the "independent" part of WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Newspaper articles that were obviously written based on press releases look like they pass on the surface, but the de facto standard at AFD is that they are not independent and in-depth enough. I haven't checked them all, but I spot checked this Reuters article, and this is in my opinion a classic example of a newspaper article written based on a press release. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Start by finding references that pass WP:42. Do not write another word until you have at least three solid references and then write what they say. All other material in the draft including references that are useless should be cut out with a scalpel FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Timtrent Hope you're having a good week. I tried again. I'm not sure if it's perfect and up to your standards but I tried my best. As I said, my aim was to start it very small/basic and for the wider community to do the rest. Regards MaskedSinger (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Over the past couple days, I have seen a couple decent drafts on Chinese dishes (Draft:Shanghai-style Salad and Draft:Sampan Congee (Boat Congee)). Valereee, who I defer to on the notability of such articles, brought up an interesting point. Both articles have been edited by multiple users of whom the draft is their only edit. I'm starting to hear quacking, but it very well could be a WikiEd project. Could a couple of you take a look at the drafts and see if we're being crazy or not? Thanks in advance. Bkissin (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's an educational project. The IP registers to Shanghai New York University. And this is a very typical educational project in an ESL class. Food items in non-English countries don't get nearly the media attention that they do in English-speaking countries and Europe. I'm about ready to open an RfC on notability of food items from outside Europe and the English-speaking world. —valereee (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I'm a librarian at NYU Shanghai. This is my first year beyond individual workshops on Wikipedia. This group of articles is not in WikiEd officially. The course is an English for Academic Purposes class (a first-year experience course on academic writing). Thank you for letting these drafts continue. I am incorporating this WikiProject page into my notes to share with other NYU librarians.JenniferNM (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the lecturer for this course; it's not an ESL course but a sophomore course on academic writing for the humanities. I am new to Wikipedia; I have only participated in group edit-a-thons when I lived in Chicago. In my class at NYU Shanghai, students each created their own accounts (which is why you see several edits in a short period of time from various accounts with our university's IP address), but worked in teams together, in person, to create or refine Wiki pages as the culmination of their work this semester. We used Wikipedia articles about policies, notability, neutrality, Manual of Style, etc as class readings. Thanks for spending time on these drafts; the students are thrilled to see their work in the world. Humanmerelybeing (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)humanmerelybeing
Words in URLs that indicate unreliable sources
Howdy. I'm working on my CiteHighlighter user script. I added a feature today that highlights URLs orange if they contain suspicious words, such as "blog" and "preprint". Are there any other words I should add? I think AFC could offer some good ideas from the PR/self promotion angle, e.g. "innovative". –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
While I don't have anything specific to note on this subject at the moment (busy in real life), I suppose now is a good a time as any to share this lovely tool I found and occasionally use for (somewhat jokingly) spot-checking spam cruft... [18]Perryprog (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Timtrent. Thanks for the suggestions. News, about, and release had too many false positives, but I went ahead and added newswire, press-release, pressrelease, announce, and acquire. Please do let me know if you think of more. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
