Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working).

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Notability as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

If both the instructor and student make completing the course curriculum a top priority, it will generally take around a month to go through the entirety of the curriculum. This pace is not required or necessarily expected, but rather is provided in order to give participants an idea of what to expect.

Notability

PART 1

When patrolling or reviewing an article, you may often come across articles do not meet the WP:N guidelines, but the editors make the edits in good faith. Please read WP:AGF and do not WP:BITE the new editors.

A. Notability is a test guidelines to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article in Wikipedia mainspace. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, General Notability Guidelines, Specific Notability Guidelines, Stand-alone list before completing the following tasks.

General notability guidelines

1. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE new editors.

Answer: Wikipedia needs new contributors to help expand and improve the project, and so it is important to be both welcoming and understanding of other editors and their contributions. This is especially important towards new editors who are likely to be less well-versed in Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, by assuming good faith it is far easier for editors to collaborate and to resolve editorial disputes; all with the aim of improving Wikipedia, which is what the vast majority of editors are aiming to do. Help people that have made a mistake rather than assuming they are out to act with bad intentions! Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

2. In your own words, how is notability defined in Wikipedia?

Answer: Notability is the way that articles are assessed to be worthy or unworthy of inclusion as their own article, to ensure that Wikipedia does not become an unregulated collection of non-notable information. The key to notability is the presence of multiple reliable sources which cover - in-depth - the subject and thus lead to a topic being worthy of an article. To be notable, an article must either meet the general or the category-specific notability guidelines, and must also not be excluded due to its nature as a 'what Wikipedia is not' article (eg newspaper, blog, ad etc). Notability applies to the topic, not the article or the article's content, and so to check for notability an editor must search for the availability of reliable source coverage rather than looking at the quality of the article (or the number of references in the article). Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y Note: Significant coverage whereby sources need to be both "independent" and "reliable". Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

3. Does a step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" considered a notable topic in Wikipedia?

Answer: No; fails WP:NOT specifically WP:NOTGUIDE since: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter". Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

4. What are the differences between A WP:GNG and a specific notability guidelines? how do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

Answer: WP:GNG provides a general template for notability which articles are required to meet, but there may be specific reasons for certain topics to have slightly different notability guidance, which is why the SNGs have been formed (with consensus) for some topics. When patrolling I think it would be best to both consider the GNG and any relevant specific SNG (determined from the article's subject category), as this could refine the notability guidelines for the article. I suspect in a very general sense SNG take some precedence over GNG (ie an AfD for an article meeting SNG but failing GNG is on balance more likely to survive, and an article failing SNG but meeting GNG is on balance less likely to survive, but obviously this would be very different in very different cases). Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y SGN/SSN do not take precedence of GNG but in some AfD cases SGN//SSN would be considered to save/keep the article for deletion as certain subject such as WP:NACADMIC would not have enough independent (IS) sources talk about the subject. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Specific notability guidelines

5. If an editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why?

Answer: Firstly, notability cannot be determined from the lack of sources provided in the article - notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources, not the quality of the article. A search for (and then ideally subsequent inclusion of) significant reliable coverage could be conducted to determine if the article meets GNG, for example if there is significant coverage detailing the planning/preparation/run-up to/details of the Olympics. From WP:NOPAGE "Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured." One should then check SNG WP:N(E) specifically WP:FUTUREEVENT, and ensure that the article has potential to be sufficient enough not to be excluded by WP:CRYSTALBALL. In this specific example, I suspect there would be sufficient coverage to make the article notable. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y again, The notability of the subject needs to be covered by multiple sources which are both "independent" sources and reliable and not reliable alone. Almost all major sport events, we would able to find some independent, reliable source (IRS) about the event (future) prior the events are talking place, especially for summer olypics games where by the bid for host city selection happens 8 years prior the actual event taking place. If you know the subject is likely notable, then go and find IRS to support the content as a good practice so the article would meet the notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

B. Without considered of sources/content policies and review just based on "subject specific notability" (SSN) "alone" for sake of the exercises below, please answer if the subject meets the SSN guidelines, based on the given content below, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

6. A New York city based 2021 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

Answer: From the investor fund alone - fails WP:COMPANY 2.2.1/2.2.3 - trivial financial coverage, numerical facts not determining significance. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y fails all WP:NCORP. Cassiopeia talk

7. Tagir Ulanbekov who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 10-1.

Answer: Per WP:NMMA 1, seems to fail due to only having two WP:MMATIER (UFC) fights (10 Oct 20, 30 Oct 21), where three are required. All other fights don't appear on WP:MMATIER list. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

8. A upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2021 and to be released on August 2022 in the cinemas.

Answer: (Currently) Fails WP:NFF - not yet begun principle photography, thus also failing WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

9. A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2021 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.

Answer: May pass WP:POLITICIAN "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" - thus check GNG and any other source coverage, although running for election itself does not guarantee notability, and if the only coverage is of the candidacy then it is likely to fail GNG. NB caution WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NPOV. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Just running for an election would not meet WP:NPOL; however, if the subject have coverage other WP:NBIO than the election camping then the subject could be notable. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

10. A singer who self produced his first album in May 2020 and his songs are listed in Spotify.

Answer: Appears to fail all WP:SINGER criteria. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

C. Based on which SSN guidelines the below subjects are notable under (1) which notability criteria MUSICBI#1 (if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations

11. Carlos Alós-Ferrer

Answer: Meets WP:NACADEMIC 1/3/8 - due to role as editor of Journal of Economic Psychology. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior How does the subject meeting NACADEMIC criteria 1

Answer again: NACADEMIC criteria 1 requires '"significant impact in their scholarly discipline"', and I think his publications and the source coverage describing his role as "speaker of the interdisciplinary research unit" on his specialist subject indicated a significant impact, although upon reflection this notion of significant impact is not necessarily reflected in multiple independent reliable sources, so perhaps he doesn't meet this criteria? Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. subject meets WP:NPROF #1 - see [1] for being highly cited (note - academics usually do not receive enough independent sources (reliable source yes) that talk about them, so at time we would use scholar google cited info to in the AfD (article for deletion) discussion so the article might be closed as a "keep", we will discuss AfD in later assingment.) ; :#5, His academic position as the NOMIS Professor for Decision and Neuroeconomics Theory is a named, endowed position and #8 as the chief editor of Journal of Economic Psychology [2]. Cassiopeia talk 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That all makes sense, thank you - in future I'll make sure I fully explain how the criteria is met. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

12. Alistair Overeem

Answer: "He is a former Strikeforce Heavyweight Champion, DREAM Heavyweight Champion, K-1 World Grand Prix Champion, and was the first fighter to hold world titles in MMA and K-1 kickboxing at the same time" - meets WP:NKICK 1/2, WP:NMMA 1/2/3, WP:SPORTSPERSON. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC) :Y - Strikeforce (defunct) was never been considered one of top teir mma promoters.Y Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm getting this wrong - I know very little about MMA - but Strikeforce appears on WP:MMATIER, so I presumed this meant it was considered valid in meeting WP:NMMA 2? Thanks, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior My appologies, You are right. Not sure why I stated the above. Cassiopeia talk 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

13. Jennifer Lopez

Answer: Per the above! Career singing meets most WP:SINGER, career acting meets WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT 1/3. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior, pls specify which WP:SINGER criteria the subject meet. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Answer again: Meets WP:SINGER criteria 1 (further reading provides published books eg . J.Lo: The Secret Behind Jennifer Lopez's Rise to the Top, Jennifer Lopez: The Great Hispanic Heritage Series etc), 2 (see Jennifer Lopez discography), 3 (see Jennifer Lopez discography) , 4 (some tours have their own articles eg Dance Again World Tour, It's My Party (tour)), 5 (Work, Epic, Island, Capitol, etc - all with their own article, cited in main article), 7 (sources confirm including reuters, etc), 8 (see List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lopez), 11. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) (updated: Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC))

14. Three Mile Island accident

Answer: Cleanup, investigation, impact meet WP:LASTING, WP:EVENTCRITERIA 1/2 due to severity, national significance and coverage. WP:GEOSCOPE due to national coverage and the lasting safety implementations which had international impacts. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

15. Persepolis

Answer: WP:GEOLAND 1 "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.". WP:NBUILD 1 "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level " - UNESCO World Heritage Site. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Communications

Mxtt.prior, Good day. See assignment 1 above.

(1) For all the assignments, pls provide hist diffs of the articles, reverts, edits, reports, results of the reports, talk page messages that are applicable.

(2) Pls provide guidelines where applicable and justify/explain in details of your application or analysis.

(3) Pls ping me if you need assistance (here in this program page at the communication section of every assignment).

(4) Please book mark this page and ping me when you have finished the assignment for me to review.

(5) If you need to take a break from editing Wikipedia for more than 2 weeks, pls inform me so I may know. If you Stay safe and best. Welcome to NPPS. Cassiopeia talk 02:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey Cassiopeia, hope you're having a good day :) I've finished the first assignment and am ready for review. Best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior, See comments above and pls re-answer 2 questions as state above. Note: I have a feeling that you have look up other participant program and copied the answer in your own words. Pls do not do so as this program is designed for you to read the many lengthily guidelines so you would gain the knowledge and "know how to apply them". There are many application questions on the program assignments which you need to know the guidelines and provide the justificant/analysis/reasons for your answers and without reading them you will not able to go through all the assignments. All the past participant who I suspected looking answers from other participants abandon the program after a few assignments as they could not understand the guidelines well enough to continue and participant should spend time to learn and acquire the knowledge themselves instead just being a copycat. Moreover, it take a lot of my time to review the assignment and provide guidance to the participant, and I dont like to see and appreciate when student not come here to learn. Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, thanks for your review! I've had another go at the questions which needed re-doing, and would appreciate if you might be able to also give me some guidance about q12 again. Having read and attempted to understand all of the pages and guidelines myself, and having completed the exercise, I did check another participants responses to ensure I hadn't missed anything critical or made too many mistakes and was thinking along the right lines - I apologise and won't do this again, I can see it would be more beneficial for me to make the mistakes myself and learn from them with your help. Best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior, See comments on Q11 & 12. Thank you for being honest. We have a total of 10 assignments and many of them are practical questions. Assignments are merely exercises and the final exam is the one we grade them. If you read the material and do the assignment solely by your own, at times, you would find you might not know or not sure about the answers or how to apply the guidelines to the particular questions and situations. If is ok to be wrong and you could always ask questions of the areas you are not familiar or on how the guidelines applications. That is how we are learn. Pls note also you need to provide reasons/analysis/explanation and the application of which guidelines of your answers. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to assignment 2. Cassiopeia talk 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you, I have checked your review on Q11 ad Q12 and I understand the reasoning and the inaccuracies which I made/lack of precision in my answers. In future I will ensure I provide more detailed analysis and explanation of the exact link to guidelines. I think I am now ready to move onto assignment 2 if you are happy with this. Best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Sources

Background for trainees

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for such content claimed should be supported by independent (secondary), reliable sources for verification. Please read WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:RSP, WP:V, WP:PROVEIT, WP:Primary, WP:Secondary, and WP:Tertiary and answered the the below questions in your own words.

You could contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on web due to Paywall content or printed books.

---

Exercises

1.

Topic	Explanation	5 Examples	Comment by Cass
Reliable source	Reliable sources for facts are published materials which are known for accuracy and their own scrutineering of their published works. For example well-established news outlets or reviewed scholarly publications may be reliable sources for information or facts. A (primary) source such as an opinion piece can be an example of a reliable source for the authors opinion, but not necessarily a reliable statement of fact.	(example) The Guardian newspaper Associated Press publications/news National Geographic magazine journalism The Lancet peer-reviewed scientific publications BBC News news reporting Oxford Dictionary of National Biography biography reference work	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
User generated sources	Self-published content generated by individuals rather than being edited, reviewed, scrutinized, externally fact-checked and formally published.	Product reviews for example on Amazon or on a manufacturer's website Blogs such as those on Medium which have been created by an individual, and published with no editorial oversight User editable collaborative wikis such as Fandom (website) Posts from individuals on social media sites such as on Instagram Q&A sites such as Quora	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Non Independent source	A source with a connection to the topic or conflict of interest relating to the topic it is being used as a source for.	Company/product website/promotional material/brochure eg this mercedes-benz website discussing their own product An individual's own website or a website made by their close family/friends eg this composer's own website Company/business press releases eg this bp press release Website promoting event/place/product with clear financial incentive to do so and link to the event/place/product in question eg this travel guide An organisation discussing one of their own projects eg this minister's views on policies relating to her own actions and those of her government	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Further edited Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

---

2.

Type	Explanation	Sources (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Cass
Primary	Primary sources are created at the time of an event happening. They are directly connected to the thing they are a source for.	(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results Letter between commanders of an army An autobiography Company website Immediate news reporting (without additional analysis) of an event A piece of art (eg a painting is a primary source for itself) Census data An image depicting a building would be a primary source for the building User manual to a product Weather data from a meteorological station Diary entry/notebook Interview with a person Party policy manifesto Black-box flight data Court records Speech transcript A piece of music	Y. Sources can be from the time of the event (eye withness), but dont have to be as long as the sources are directly from to the subject. Cassiopeia talk 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Secondary	A secondary source presents and discusses primary sources, analysing their content.	(example) newspaper Textbook/journal (non-auto-) Biography Plot summary of a TV series in a review Research paper pier-review (secondary source for the paper, primary source of the pier-reviewer's opinion) TV documentary discussing an event	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Tertiary	Collection or overview of other sources.	(example) encyclopedias Reference book Archive of news report photos from an event Travel guide Wikipedia article bibliography/reference section of an academic book	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 00:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

---

3.

Subject	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Comment by Cass
Example: Art	Example:Sculpture	Example:Article critiquing the sculpture	Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History	Letter between two past individuals (eg a King and their advisor from 500yr ago)	Book by a historian discussing the motives behind and meaning of the letter and its significance	Textbook discussing the range of historical arguments about the letter - describing the fore-mentioned historian's views, and comparing the historian's discussion to that of other historians	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Science	Research paper outlining trial results	Review paper on the methods and validity of the research paper	News report on the review paper findings	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Athletes	Metrics on athlete's performance in a particular event	Sporting podcast discussing the athlete's performance	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia article on the athlete

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

---

4. Please explain in your own words why the content claimed needs to be verified?

Answer: Content needs to be factually accurate, or an accurate representation of a person/organisation's views, thus it should be verified with sources. This ensures Wikipedia retains credibility. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 00:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

N. Content needs to verifiable so we may know where the info/source from for we could know if the source is independent and/or reliable, and not because it is the facts or true - see WP:But it's true!. If source indicated XXX is from Jamaica but the fact XXX is from Cuba, we put XXX is from Jamaica in article as per source. We will correct the info when the sources (not need to be the same source) correct itself. For example Alexander the Great - How he die is based on which sources you read, from poising, to malaria and typhoid fever to infectious (meningitis) to acute pancreatitis and etc. Cassiopeia talk 23:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

5.Could we used Wikipedia as the source? and why?

Answer: No, although the Wikipedia page could be used to find direct sources from the reference list. Wikipedia is user-generated and self-published. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 00:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Wikipedia can not be the sources as the content of Wikipedia is supported by "other sources" - See WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia is a online knowledge sharing platform. Readers should check the sources in the article and verify/read the info themselves. Cassiopeia talk 23:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

6.Give an example and explain why a source is reliable but not independent of a subject?

Answer: An autobiography might reliably provide detailed information about it's subject's life, but is certainly not independent, since the author is discussing themselves. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 00:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 23:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

7.Give an example and explain why a source is independent source but not reliable?

Answer: A tabloid newspaper might independently report on an event, but provide sensationalised claims or unreliable information. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 00:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 23:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no or "?" after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".

Example Article about Bill Gates

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/williamhgates/	Linkedin is considered not independent as the info is provided by the subject.	Since the content is self-published, thus it is considered not a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy source	The source provide significant info about the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

8.

David Howell Petraeus AO ( /pɪˈtreɪ.əs/; born November 7, 1952) is a retired United States Army general and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, ^[1] until his resignation on November 9, 2012 ^[2] after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported. ^[3]

Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008), ^[4] a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands. ^[5]

In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad ^{[6] [7]}

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/	no vested interest or obvious connections to the topic from either editors or the news organisation	USA Today is generally accepted as reliable	detailed reporting, analysis and discussion of primary sources within the article	✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch	while the video itself is a primary source, the news reporting by CNN and hence the date (which this citation is being used as a reference for within the article) is independent coverage by CNN	again the video is primary, but the coverage by CNN is reliable (eg unlikely to be a 'doctored' or misrepresentative edited video)	does not provide significant analysis; essentially only a primary source containing limited information except for validating the date/swearing-in ceremonie's existence	✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	reporting and authors do not appear linked to the topic and hence is independent	per RFC not generally considered reliable in us political commentary, however upon inspection the article appears to actually have been written by the Associated Press, who's reporting is generally considered reliable. The article could, however, be seen as somewhat sensationalised reporting.	beyond more than a mention - detailed discussion and analysis of the topic in the article	✔ Yes
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	does not appear linked to the person, although difficult to discern due to editable, self-published website nature	appears to be editable self-published source and hence unreliable	basic details only	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	no clear links or reasons not to be independent	appears to be reliable secondary analysis and description of his life	detailed description and discussion of his life, far beyond passing mention	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	primary source interview and hence not independent coverage. The interviewer is not independent of the content being discussed either (first hand accounts)	appears to be likely reliable as a primary source for an interview, although not necessarily reliable for the content of what was said (ie the facts the interviewee presented are not necessarily reliable, since they are in this context primary and in a way self published (being discussed by the interviewee in their interview))	provides significant coverage of the interview, acting as a major primary source for the interviewee's opinions and discussion	✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	appears to be no links between publisher/author and topic	considered reliable facts from the publication, although some content of the article is opinions/ puffery written by the author which would be primary, self published and not reliable except as a source for the author's views (eg "Petraeus is an articulate, intelligent, well-educated and charming man. He gives an impression of restless energy, his body never staying still for long.")	detailed description and analysis of life and key events	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Y

1. http://www.cnn.com/video - The video is all about the subject and not passing mentioned only - so it would be considered significant coverage and pass GNG.

2. https://www.huffpost.com - good observation on the original source from Associate Press.

Cassiopeia talk 07:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

9. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Meets WP:ANYBIO points 1 and 2 - recipient of Order of Australia meets point 1, role in invasion of Iraq and as CIA director constitutes widely recognised contribution to US security and military history, as represented and supported by detailed reliable independent secondary source coverage. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 23:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 07:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

---

10.

Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player. ^[1] She won five Grand Slam singles titles. ^[2] Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000. ^[3] She retired in November 2007 after being hampered by a hip injury for several months and testing positive for a metabolite of cocaine during that year's Wimbledon Championships, ^[4] which led to a two-year suspension from the sport. ^[5]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/	Self-published Instagram profile is not independent	Not reliable since the information is self-published and hence has not been through a verification or accuracy checking process; eg it may be biased in the account-owner's favour	Beyond the one sentence bio and the images, there is very little significant information to be gained from this source	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html	No clear links between source publisher, editors and the topic hence little reason to suspect lack of independence	Los Angeles Times is a reputable publisher (see also WP:LATIMES)	Main focus of the article, reasonable informative coverage hence a significant source	✔ Yes
[3]	Not independent in the sense that the author is heavily involved in tennis - having played, coached and for many years written articles about it. That said there appears no direct link between the author and Hingis so in this sense the article is independent of Hingis even if not independent of Tennis.	This part of the book is taken directly from an article by the author which has been published in a sports magazine. Since the column "won 1st prize in the United States Tennis Writers Association 1999 Writing Contest" commentary category, it is likely accuracy checked and hence reliable.	This page of the book alone only briefly mentions Hingis, and does not constitute significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis	Author appears independent with respect to Hingis	Generally considered reliable for factual sorts reporting per WP:RSN/Archive 318#ESPN.	Reasonably significant - detailing key dates of career changes	✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis	Autor and publisher appear independent of Hingis	Generally considered a reliable unbiased source. This article appears reliable.	Some information about career and long quotes make this source significant in it's coverage of Hingis	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 07:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

11. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Meets WP:NTENNIS points 1 (appears on International Tennis Hall of Fame player category) and 3 (Grand Slam tournaments). Meets WP:SPORTSPERSON since she has "actively participated in a major [...] professional competition". Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Y. Subject pass WP:NTENNIS SSN (sport specific notability) - Full content from the article Martina Hingis would pass all the WP:NTENNIS criteria. Cassiopeia talk 07:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" or "?" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".

12.

Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan. ^{[1] [2]} Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture." ^[3] This is one of Wright's most famous private residences (completed 1937), was built for Mr. and Mrs. Edgar J. Kaufmann, Sr., at Mill Run, Pennsylvania. Constructed over a 30-foot waterfall, it was designed according to Wright's desire to place the occupants close to the natural surroundings. The house was intended to be more of a family getaway, rather than a live-in home. ^[4]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/frank-lloyd-wright-was-a-house-builder-and-homewrecker/	No clear COI or links between the publisher New York Post or the author Hoffman and the subject matter	NY Post does not have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy, likely falls into WP:QS and may be sensationalised. See also WP:NYPOST.	Subject matter is the main topic of the source, and is thoroughly discussed throughout.	✘ No
https://franklloydwright.org/work/	The source is a foundation with a mission to "make [Llooyd Wright's] work known and accessible to the public worldwide and to raise funds to further [...] preservation efforts" and therefore is not independent of the subject matter.	The source likely has access to archives and records to verify its description of the works.	The source briefly summarises the works and contains a detailed list of projects and hence is more than a passing or trivial mention.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm	No obvious affiliation between BusinessWeek and the subject matter.	Businessweek is generally considered a reliable, reputable source. See also WP:RSP#Bloomberg.	The source contains detailed descriptions and details of his life and works and is therefore significant coverage.	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Appears to have been written by an independent author, with no affiliation to the subject, considerably after the death of the subject.	This published secondary source contains detailed citations of primary sources and footnotes to support its content - it is likely to be reliable and fact checked.	Described as a complete biography this book is primarily focussed on the subject matter and therefore is a significant source.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

{{tick}. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

13. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Meets WP:ANYBIO criteria 2 - an enduring contribution of many extant architectural structures, key individual in US architectural history. And criteria 3 - ANB page qualifies as included in national biographical dictionary. Meets WP:ARCHITECT criteria 1 due to the enduring contributions to the field of architecture and substantial influence on successors; criteria 2 due to the lasting influence of his 'organic architecture style', a new architectural style; criteria 3,4(a)(c) see Fallingwater which is a well-known work receiving critical attention and The 20th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright which constitutes significant monument status. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Y. Full content from the article of Frank Lloyd Wright, he would pass all the all (1-4) WP:ARCHITECT criteria. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

---

14.

Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. ^[1] Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA. ^[2] He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation. ^[3]

At age 16, the Vice President of 20th Century Fox, Paul Higginson. Who previously worked on Star Wars, Titanic, and Independence Day took on Jordan and Rowan Snow as a mentor. ^[4] In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy. ^[5] Jordan lived in Skelmersdale for 10 years before moving to Rhyl, North Wales. He's currently writing 'Stranger in the Night' scrreenplay for Warner Brothers.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/	NB Link rot means this source is no longer available. It is also not archived on IA unfortunately, so I could not view it.	Despite having not seen the source, however IMDB is selfpublished so this is not likely to be a reliable source. See also WP:IMDB.		✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	NB this source appears to fail verification as I could find no way of accessing a member's list or finding any mention of Jordan Lennon on the page. If such a page were to exist, it would not be independent since the website would be of the organisation of which Jordan is a member.	It seems likely that an organisation's own site would be able to report accurately it's own members, and the BAFTAs is a reputable organisation.	Unanswerable since the I can find no mention of Jordan Lennon in the source	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	NB Link rot means this source is no longer available - LinkedIn claims the page does not exist. It is also does not appear to be archived on IA, or at least searching for it simply leads to the LinkedIn redirected authentication page which IA can't bypass.	LinkedIn is a WP:SPS. WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF suggest it may be used only for an 'uncontroversial self-description' if from a verified account (presumably for basic information such as birthday etc only), and that generally as a WP:SPS LinkedIn should be considered unreliable, so this use of the source to verify previous jobs doesn't seem likely to be a reliable source.		✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	Behind The Voice Actors is a site independent of the actors/studios mentioned on their website. The site's editors are volunteers and so are not influenced by payment/contracts to the content discussed on their site.	For information on role credits, this is likely to be a reliable source, as the information is fact checked and verified by a publication team. It has general consensus as reliable as a source per WP:RSP#Behind_the_Voice_Actors.	The page contains very limited information other than role credits for films, and so is not significant coverage.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

15. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Basing this assessment only on the lines above, this article does not appear likely to meet the SNG. WP:NACTOR criteria 1 requires evidence of 'significant roles in multiple notable films' which is not met by the sources provided or text in the article. There is no suggestion that criteria 2 'unique contribution' is met either. The article also does not appear to meet WP:FILMMAKER since the article does not mention, and no sources suggest, that Jordan 'created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work'. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

{{tick}. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

---

16.

Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim ^[1], is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer, ^[2] Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland. ^[3] In 2002 he was offered a contract and moved to Sydney (as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club) to play in the Bulldogs' junior grades. ^[4]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7505117/2019-Rugby-World-Cup-Sonny-Bill-Williams-expecting-fourth-child.html	Does not appear to have any connection between the reporting and the topic, hence likely independent as a source.	While this article is mainly based on reporting self-published primary sources (tweets) from the subject, Daily Mail is a deprecated source per WP:RSPDM.	The source contains considerable information on the subject's personal life, more than just a trivial mention.	✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108	Website of the team is directly linked to the player, and hence has a conflict of interest and is not an independent source.	The source likely has access to statistics about the subject due to the connections, and many of the facts appear to be referenced reliably in the source, hence this is likely to be a reliable source.	The source contains a large number of statistics about the subject and therefore constitutes a significant source.	✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308	NZ Herald does not appear to be affiliated with the subject and therefore this is likely to be independent reporting of the interview. The interviewee does, however, have a personal connection to the subject, so the interview section of the article should be used with regard to this.	The source is a brief paragraph of commentary followed by a transcription of an interview (primary) and it is published by a reputable source recognised for fact-checking (also per this rfc)	The subject is only mentioned briefly and trivially as part of the interview, there is less than a sentence worth of relevant information.	✘ No
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html	The Sydney Morning Herald appears to be independent of the subject matter and is not affiliated with the player/team/sport.	The Sydney Morning Herald is a reputable publisher and this article has likely been fact checked. SMH is also generally considered reliable by consensus from this rfc.	The article contains details about the subject's career and life and is more than just a mention so counts as a significant source on the subject.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 14:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Y.

http://stats.allblacks.com - since subject played for All Blacks (New Zealand national team), the source would considered not independent as subject is affiliated with the source (All Blacks official site).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz - more than half of the content is interview, in that sense (strictly speaking), for such it is not independent source.

Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I can see why NZHerald article might not be seen as independent since most of the article is interview. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 07:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

17. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Meets WP:NRU category 1 since he has played for the All Blacks, listed as a High Performance Union here, which means he meets the Specific Notability Criteria for Rugby Union players. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Y. Sonny Bill Williams (full content), the subject would also meet WP:NRU criteria 1, 2 a a rubgy union player also WP:NBOX criterion 1 as a boxer, WP:RLN criteria 1, 3 as a ruby league player. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

---

18.

"Can't Stop This Thing We Started" is a song by Canadian singer and songwriter Bryan Adams. The song was written by Adams and Robert John "Mutt" Lange, and was the second single from Adams' 1991 album Waking Up the Neighbours where by the song was nominated for Grammy Award 1992 "Song of the Year" ^[1]

Weekly charts

Chart (1991-1992)	Peak position
US Mainstream Rock ( Billboard) [2]	2
Denmark ( IFPI) [3]	2
US Billboard Hot 100 [4]	2

End-of-year charts

End-of-year chart (1991)	Position
Canada Top Singles (RPM) [5]	3

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/09/arts/grammy-short-list-many-for-a-few.html	Neither NY Times nor the author Jon Parales appear to be affiliated with the Grammys or Bryan Adams so this appears to be an independent source.	WP:NYT is generally considered a reliable and recognised source.	The source contains just one sentence about Adams and 'Can't Stop This Thing We Started', including some nomination details. It is not a significant mention.	✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/music/Bryan-Adams/chart-history/RTT	Billboard charts are independent of the artists/groups featured on the charts. The site uses a specific formula to determine chart position independently of any influencing factors.	Billboard is generally considered a reliable chart source per WP:CHART#Suitable_charts.	The source simply lists the position on the chart for the single, it is not a detailed source.	✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/music/Bryan-Adams/chart-history/HSI	See above Billboard source.			✘ No
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.2024&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2fobj%2f028020%2ff4%2fnlc008388.2024.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.2024	The publisher Archives of Canada is independent of RPM and RPM was a magazine independent of Adams.	Per WP:PRIMARY point 1, since this primary source has been published reputably by Archives Canada, it can be used as a reliable 'statement of facts' for the RPM ranking.	As with Billboard, the source simply lists the position on the chart for the single - it is not a detailed source.	✘ No
https://www.musicvf.com/song.php?title=Can%27t+Stop+This+Thing+We+Started+by+Bryan+Adams&id=7272	Appears to be an independent website not affiliated with any of the artists listed on the site.	While it is difficult to assess the reliability of the website, it does appear to lift chart listing directly from Billboard and The UK Charts, both reliable sources, and therefore it may be a reliable source to use for these chart listings.	Contains very limited information - artist, release date and chart ranking. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
https://musicchartsarchive.com/singles/bryan-adams/cant-stop-this-thing-we-started	This charts website does not appear to be affiliated with the artist or single.	No evidence of reliability for this website. Pages do not appear to be reviewed or follow any publishing guidelines, and there are no clear sources for the information contained on the site.	Contains very limited information - chart ranking and lyrics only. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

N. For Song which the sources indicate the ranking ofthe chart is considered significant coverage. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. That makes a lot more sense for these song articles. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 07:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

19. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: This single meets WP:NSONG point 1 since it received high rankings on various countries charts including RPM Year-end and US Billboard, however the SNG specifies that meeting point 1 is not a direct indication that it is notable. It fails point 2 since it was only nominated for, not winning, Grammys. A search online seems to suggest it is difficult to find 'multiple, non trivial published works' covering the song (as demonstrated by the article's lack of any significant sources), and even any substantial reviews are hard to find. This suggests the article may fail to meet the relevant subject specific notability guidelines. That said, I am not convinced an AfD would lead to deletion of this article, so I really am not sure about the notability of this one. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

N The subject meets WP:NSONG criterion 1 - has been on charts and it is considered notable and GNG as the article has been created since 2007 - see Can't Stop This Thing We Started and has not been once nominated for deletion. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, not sure why I didn't think meeting criteria 1 was useful. That all makes sense. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 07:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

---

20.

Kamlesh Bhatt is a Solution Architect and a DevOps Engineer living in Singapore. I am a fan of technology, music, and entrepreneurship. He is interested in photography and travel. He could be reached at his blog and youtube channel. ^{[1] [2]}

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://medium.com/@kamleshbhatt_	This is a WP:SPS profile and therefore cannot be independent since it was written by the subject matter.	Medium is a WP:SPS blog and is unreliable as the information provided by the author is not fact-checked by the site or any publisher. It is listed as generally unreliable per WP:MEDIUM.	Contains only a list of previous job roles, not significant coverage.	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kamlesh-bhatt-45392961/	This is also a WP:SPS profile and therefore cannot be independent since it was written by the subject matter.	LinkedIn is a WP:SPS blog and is unreliable as the information provided by the author is not fact-checked by the site or any publisher. It is listed as generally unreliable per WP:RSP#LinkedIn, and also should not be used in this instance as the LinkedIn account is not verified.	The source appears to cover a detailed employment history, and therefore is likely just about significant coverage.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

21. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Answer: Does not meet SNG. Fails WP:BASIC as there is not significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; the given sources are both primary and hence do not contribute towards notability. Does not appear to meet any WP:ANYBIO criteria - no evidence towards point 2, a major contribution to engineering demonstrated in any secondary sources. Does not meet point 1 since the subject has not received any widely recognised awards, or point 3 as they are not listed in a national biographical dictionary. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Mxtt.prior. See assignment 2 above and pls provide guidelines, justify/explain in details of your application or analysis of your answers as always. Cassiopeia talk 00:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior Hi, are you still interested in continuing the program? Pls let me know since I have yet to see you working on the assignment above. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hey, I completed half of the exercise and then unfortunately had to take a break from Wikipedia over the early part of this year - I apologise. I'd still like to continue - I should be able to finish this exercise over the next week and then I have quite a bit of time over the following weeks so would hope to progress then? If you'd still be willing to help me then that would be great, but I appreciate you may not feel you would like to continue with me after a break for a while. Best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 19:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior Welcome back. It is OK to take a break; however, do inform me next time if you need to take a break more than 2 weeks and let me know when your return date so I may know. Once you have finished the assignment above, then pls ping me. At the mean time, stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hello, hope you're well! I've now completed this exercise. I struggled slightly to assess the reliability of some sources such as this one from q14 and this one from q16 and some of the chart-listing websites such as this one from q18 - I relied mainly on my own common-sense/judgement but I'm not entirely sure whether I made the correct assessments about their reliability, or how you might suggest going about this on smaller websites used as sources? I also wasn't entirely sure about the Subject Specific Notability Guidelines for Q19, and I wrote a note to this effect when attempting the question. Thank you and best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior Will look at it tomorrwo and get back to you. Cassiopeia talk 09:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior, Sorry for the delay. Problems with my service provider, then I was sick then there is a personal issue I needed to handle and have been absent from editing Wikipedia for awhile. See comments above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on. Once again, my apology for taking so long to review the assignment. Stay safe and best.08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior, Ping again - not sure you have received my review and comment above. Pls let me know. stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 07:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, sorry didn't spot your first comment. No worries at all, hope you're doing ok. Just to check, for Q4 I basically needed to say that verifiability is to ensure that the article is an accurate representation of the source (even if the source might be erroneous, which could be fixed in the article by checking other sources for consensus)? Q18 makes a lot more sense knowing that chart positions amount to significant coverage, and I've had a bit more of a look at Q19 with your comment and I think it now makes sense to me as to why it would be retained and meets the relevant criteria. I've also now noted from Q16 a significant portion of a source being an interview would likely mean it is considered not independent. Best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior, for Q4 - that is right - regardless the info from the IRS is right (fact that accurately reflect the reality) or wrong, as long as the content is representation of the source indicate. We can also use other source to change the info to reflect the accuracy of the reality; and if no sources to be found for then we will not change the info until such time. However, certain things are not refine by correct or erroneous but different views for such we will include both info in (with sources of course) and that would be WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE guidelines. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 09:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you very much for the explanation, that’s clear and makes sense. I think I’m ready for the next section if that’s ok with you. Best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 13:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Content Policy

Article titles

Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below

1. Article name "Hannibal Barca" - Does the article name need to be change? and Why? (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general and statesman who is widely considered one of the greatest military commanders in history. His father, Hamilcar Barca, was a leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War (264–241 BC). ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Answer: This article should be renamed "Hannibal". WP:UCRN says that the article title does not necessarily need to be the full/official name, and in this instance, the person is best known as just "Hannibal". Just "Hannibal" is neither inaccurate, nor ambiguous. Furthermore, the three independent reliable sources shown all refer to the person as Hannibal, not Hannibal Barca. WP:AT also states that 'in determining which title to use, ... quality encyclopaedias and an online search engine' may help, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica also uses the title Hannibal. Hannibal is both WP:PRECISE enough to distinguish who is being referred to, as he is the only Hannibal commonly known by that name only (a hatnote/disambiguation may reduce any confusion), and WP:CONSICE. This is an example of WP:MONONYM. As such it is a better title than "Hannibal Barca" in this instance. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 19:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. As per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:UCRN the article needs to change the name to "Hannibal" and a redirect from "Hannibal Barca" to "Hannibal". We dont go by what Enclyopedia Britannica as Wikipedia has its own guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 04:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

2. Article name " Magic Johnson". Does the article name need to be change? and Why?(please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is an American retired professional basketball player and former president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played point guard for the Lakers for 13 seasons. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

Answer: This article does not need to be renamed. WP:NICKNAME says that the name most commonly used in reliable sources should usually be the article name, even if it is not the person's 'real' name. The title could not be "Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr" since WP:NICKNAME states that one should 'Avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original given name(s), in quotes or parentheses between first and last name', but MOS:NICK says that it should be expressed in that way in the article lead (as it is). "Magic Johnson" also follows WP:UCRN, since it is the name used in all the sources. Additionally, "Magic" still passes WP:NPOVTITLE since WP:NICKNAME states the nickname should be included 'even if it appears to pass judgement' and this is supported by WP:NPOVNAME. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 19:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. Well-done. Cassiopeia talk 04:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Biographies of living persons

Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below.

3. As per the texts below, pls explain the if the content is acceptable of inclusive and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Conor Anthony McGregor (born 14 July 1988) is an Irish professional mixed martial artist and boxer. His is a former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) featherweight and lightweight champion. ^[1]

On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin. ^[2] The incident happened on 6 April and was originally reported by Irish media, although without the video that showed the attack. Irish police stated in April that they had opened an investigation. ^[3] McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019. ^{[4] [5] [6]}

In April 2019, McGregor is the father of Terri Murray's son, Clodagh. Murray bedded McGregor in 2017 at his hotel after the Aintree Grand National just four weeks bofore McGregor's girlfriend Dee Devlin gave birth to their son.

Answer: First and second sections: Firstly, dealing with verifiability . It is written in a manner that appears to be acceptable to WP:SUSPECT, since the incident was documented by multiple sources and hence meets WP:BLPPUBLIC, and the sentence is supported by 5 sources. However, the reliability of some of these sources is questionable. WP:TMZ states that the publisher 'publishes articles based on rumour and speculation without named sources', but may be used if attributed. WP:FOXNEWS is generally reliable for topics other than science or politics. RT is generally deprecated, but SCMP is generally accepted as reliable. Since some of these sources are reliable, with some improvement this sentence does pass the Verifiability requirement of WP:BLP, and does not fall into WP:BLPREMOVE, as it passes all four points with some of the sources. If this sentence was all that the article contained, it would fail WP:BALANCING, since it would constitute undue weight on a single event and would leave the rest of the subject's life ignored, but presuming there is another large section of article as well, it is not likely to constitute undue weight. Third section: This section should be removed as it fails WP:BLP. This line is unsourced contentious material. Furthermore WP:LPNAME states "consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value" and that the "presumption in favour of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons", especially since in this case the claim is completely unsourced. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. Good. The last paragraph about Murray is unsourced and is contentious material - ( WP:GOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE). Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

4. As per the texts below, pls explain the if the content is acceptable of inclusive and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213. ^[1] Nyad gained national attention in 1975 when she swam around Manhattan (28 mi or 45 km) and in 1979 when she swam from North Bimini, The Bahamas, to Juno Beach, Florida (102 mi (164 km)). In 2013, on her fifth attempt and at age 64, she became the first person confirmed to swim from Cuba to Florida without the aid of a shark cage, swimming from Havana to Key West (110 mi or 180 km). ^[2]

Answer: Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, personal information of contact phone number and address needs to be removed (with an unassuming edit summary), and oversight should be contacted for edit revision history deletion to fully remove the personal information. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. By the way, the address and tel belong to the White House. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Images copyright

Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Please answer the questions below and (1) with explanation based on Wikipedia guidelines and (2) provide the guidelines/links in your answer.

5. Could this image-1 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: Department of Defence imagery is generally not under copyright ( 'In general, DoD VI that are works of authorship prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States.'), so this image is a freely-licensed resource and could be uploaded into C:Main Page if clearly tagged as such. (That said I cant actually see a CC0 notice clearly on the defense page, but I'm not sure if I'm just missing it?). The uploaded image should still contain all the information requireed by WP:IUP#RI, irrespective of its copyright stats (eg include authorship, description etc if possible) Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: DoD statement Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. The image is located on a US public domain which allows free use of images. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

6. Could this image-2 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: Yes, as it has been transferred to free-images.com from flickr where it is licensed as CC0 public domain, so it can be used on C:Main Page. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: It is a WP:PDI as it has been CC0 licensed by the author. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. Well-done!. Track the image to the original site to confirmed it is a public domain license. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

7. Could this image-3 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia?

Answer- Explanation: The work has been hosted on Pixaby, which is a repository for CC0 only works. The image states that it is under a Pixaby license, which their terms explains to mean is CC0 and in the oublic domain, so falls under the same category as above and can be used. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: pixaby CC0 statement, WP:PDI Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. we need to check the original source as not all the images are free use claimed by the editor who uploaded the images that the images were taken by them and agree to released the right or the upload the photo is a PD. If we follow the link (source) from Wikimdeia here - Pixabay and it is stated "Free for commercial use" and also on Wikimedia it is verify by reviewer. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

8. Could this image-4 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and Why.

Answer- Explanation: No, since the image has not been publicly released under a CC0 or equivalent license so is Non-Free. Displate Terms of Service point 6.8 expressly forbids reproduction/use of images from the site. There is a small potential the image could be used on a non-Wikipedia Commons project (see WP:F) under the WP:NFCI policy 7 if, for example it demonstrated a specific technique/art style, provided it met WP:NFCC, however note that in this use-case it would fail WP:NFC#UUI policy 16. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Falls as a WP:F, so could only be used in very specific circumstances. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Neutral point of view

Please read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/pharses and rewrite the paragraph on Question 9& 10 from a neutral point of view.

9. She is a brilliant boxer with a rare and exceptional beauty. She turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013 where she destroyed her opponent in 20 seconds. Her talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate and she fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014.

Answer: WP:NPOV/ MOS:PUFFERY: “brilliant”, “rare and exceptional”, “destroyed her opponent”, “a fighter to watch right out the gate”

Re-written inline with policies:

She became a professional boxer at the age of 19 after winning an amateur fight in 20 seconds on December 14, 2013. At her next fight in February 2014 she fought under XXX promotion. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 14:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. We can just simple state " She won the fight instead of "winning the fight in 20 seconds" as "20 seconds" to give a little MOS:PUFF and not stray the readers' emotions giving a positive light of the subject when reading the text. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

10. He is a popular, acclaimed Bulgarian actor, who loves by all who have watched his films. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since he was at the tender, innocent of the age of 14 and he has featured in 44 films.

Answer: WP:NPOV/ MOS:PUFFERY: “popular”, “acclaimed”, loved by all”, “tender, innocent”

Re-written inline with policies:

He is a Bulgarian actor from Veliko Tarnovo who has featured in 44 films since he began working in the film industry aged 14. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 14:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

11. Please read WP:DUE and in your own words, please explain why it is important to provide balance and due weight content in an article.

Answer: If an article is not balanced (ie the coverage of different viewpoints is not proportionate to the viewpoints appearance in sources), then it could have the appearance of promoting specific fringe theories, which are not widespread among sources.

Since articles reflect the sources they are based on, articles should also attempt to proportionally reflect the range of views as they are found in source material - giving the most weight to theories and discussions most prominent among sources.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Y. Take Capital punishment article for example - it provides a balance and due weight content, representing all mainstream points of view in reliable sources. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

No original research

Please read WP:OR and WP:NOT and answer the questions below

12. In your own words, why Wikipedia is not a platform to publish original research?

Answer: Any original research in an article is not verifiable, since there would be no reliable sources with which to attribute it to. Wikipedia articles should be entirely verifiable, so by including original research this policy is violated. Furthermore, original research in the form of synthesis/far-reaching interpretation of source material could violate the neutrality policy and might introduce an editor’s biases. It should be noted that a source for information in an article may not need to be directly cited (except for controversial/BLP), as long as it exists for the article information to be verified - it just needs to exist to ensure the article doesn’t constitute OR. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

13. In your own words, please provide one example with explanation when it is appropriate to insert an original research or an opinion in an article.

Answer: If an editor conducted original research which was subsequently published (eg in a reputable journal or book published by a respected publisher), then the published research could be used as a reliable reference for information in an article. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

N.  :N. We could use exact words from the source in the article when (1) it is a public domain sites (2) the author/site has released their copyright and anyone to use the content/image such as " agree to irrevocably agree to release content/image under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL or under the Creative Commons license. (3) a direct quote and provide the source. Example Constitution of the United States and in Robert Whittaker (fighter) page (see below direct quote). Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you - I slightly misinterpreted the question but your response makes sense. I did read the information on WP:OR and saw that PD/released/quotes can be used; I can also see how you have applied this guidance with regard to quotes in the Q14 answer. Thank you! Mxtt.prior ( talk) 13:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

In an interview with GQ Australia, he stated:

I am immensely proud to be an Australian and to be a pioneer in the sport to, you know, lead, lead today's MMA scene against all these other countries, you know, it really, it really does light me up, to see that the Australian flag when I walk out, you know, to hear them called out that I'm Australian and I am very patriotic. I am really proud of my country and proud of where I am from. ^[1]

14. See this video and write the content in the in an article by using the video info as the source.

Answer:

Islamic clothing

According to some Islamic interpretations, clothing for both Muslim men and women must be loose, opaque, non-colourful and non-attractive. ^[1] Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Y. The source indicates Sh. Shady Alsuleiman comment about his interpretation of Islamic religion Islamic beliefs. So we need to state that is what Sh. Shady Alsuleiman said (by who) instead of stating "According to some Islamic interpretations".

Another way to write the content is by "direct quote" - see below for example:

“

Islam demands Islam commands us with our with regards of our clothing for both men and women, our clothing must be first of all baggy, so must be loose with a men or women. It must non see-through whether men or women. It must non colorful attractive that means when someone walks everyone's looking at them. [1]

”

Understood, thank you Mxtt.prior ( talk) 13:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Verifiability

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below

15. If the subject has two sons and it is supported by three independent, reliable sources but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? and why?

Answer: The article should reflect the independent, reliable sources - so it should state that he has 2 sons, unless there is sufficient evidence from other (eg more up-to date) independent, reliable sources, at which point the article should be changed to reflect them. In other words, the article should state what the majority of I,R sources say, whether that is ‘factually accurate’ or not. It can always be updated as different sources come to light. Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Y. very good. Wikipedia is all about verifiability from independent reliable sources (IRS). We correct the content when the source corrected itself (same source or other sources). Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Mxtt.prior See Assignment 3 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hope you're well, apologies for the lack of progress this week, I've managed to get covid and haven't been able to do very much recently. I'm quite a lot better now and am hoping to get most of the assignment done tomorrow. I'll let you know how it's going then! Thank you, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 20:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior So sorry to hear that and glad you are feeling better. I managed to get myself sick the second time just after my recovery. Havent been so sick for the last 15 years and so tired of being sick for the last 3-4 weeks. I am also on my second recovery and I hope next week I will be fully recovered. Take your time to do the assignment, get yourself well first that is the most important thing. Take good care of yourself and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior It has been two weeks since our last message. I hope you are fully recovered from covid and if so, I am looking forward to seeing you working on the assignment above. Take care. Cassiopeia talk 05:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, hi I’ve finished this exercise now, although I’m not entirely sure if I completed Q14 correctly. Once you’ve taken a look I’d be happy to re-do it slightly differently if I didn’t quite interpret the question as intended. I also hope you’re fully better now and are enjoying the summer. Thanks and best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Mxtt.prior See comments above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you for your comments. I have reviewed them and understand the errors I made. I think I am ready for the next section if that is ok. Best wishes, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 13:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion

PART 2

We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notable, policy and type of sources to merit a page in Wikipedia in Part 1 (Assignment 1, 2 & 3). In assignment 4, we look at what type of articles need to be filtered out from our system when reviewing a page. There are many criteria of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Here we discuss (1) General criteria (G1-G14), (2) Article criteria (A1-A11) and R2.

Please do the following

1. Pls set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so I could review your CSD nomination. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
2. Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in computer; and install Earwig Copyvio Detector script. (The "copyvio" will appear on the left panel under "Tools" section on every page in Wikipedia.
3. Install CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

General criteria

1. Please (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Comment by Cass
1	G1	For pages with no understandable, or completely nonsensical text only. Either words are in a random order so no meaning is conveyed and it is unreadable, or random text/characters with no words from a recognised language. Criteria does not apply to articles which are understandable in another language.
2	G2	Pages clearly used to test Wikipedia functionality/editing techniques. For example an abandoned, otherwise blank page with a empty sections and a blank infobox which has clearly only been used as an editing test. Criteria does not apply to WP:SB, user-space test pages or some future-proofing/historic valid but unused templates.
3	G3	Applies only to articles which are very clearly vandalism containing only obvious misinformation. Per WP:DWHOAX, anything less clearly a hoax article should be investigated more thoroughly and not speedily deleted.
4	G4	Applies to articles used to get around deletion policies by identically copying and recreating a legitimately deleted page with only superficial, minor changes. Not applicable if the article has been rewritten in an attempt to comply with the issues raised in the previous deletion. Not applicable to articles previously deleted only by WP:PROD, WP:SOFTDELETE or WP:CSD or for deleted articles draftified into userspace to be improved.
5	G5	Applies to articles created by a user who was, at the time, under a relevant ban or block, where the article has not later been adapted or majorly edited by other unblocked users. Also applies to methods of WP:BANEVASION such as WP:SOCK and similar.
6	G6	Obvious maintenance deletion which has no reason to be contested such as a page clearly created in the wrong namespace.
7	G7	For deletion requests by the article author, where the article has not later been adapted or majorly edited by other users. A (non userspace/talk/category) page blanked by the article author may indicate a desire for G7 speedy deletion.
8	G8	Obvious maintenance deletion where a page has become redundant due to dependence on another page which has been deleted (nb not used on a page redundant due to a page move where they should instead be retargetted). Redirects which can easily be fixed or changed if the target article has moved should be fixed instead of using G8. G8 also does not apply to usertalk pages or archives.
9	G9	Used by WMF Office only
10	G10	For non-neutral, unsourced pages purely used to attack or intimidate a subject
11	G11	Pages which are purely promotional (eg a company which has written an article which is an obvious advert for their product with no encyclopaedic value and not meeting relevant quality/tone/NPOV guidelines - also relevant to promotion of individual or a belief/view etc). If possible to re-write in a NPOV way (and if notable, sourced etc) then this is preferred to deletion, since appropriately expanding the scope of Wikipedia is positive.
12	G12	For complete copyright violations, where there are no earlier page versions which do not have copyright issues. This criteria applies if the entire page is formed of non-free content. In less clean-cut articles (eg which closely match non-free content but are not clearly direct copy-paste of protected content) alternative solutions may be more appropriate than speedy deletion.
13	G13	Abandoned articles in Draft: which have not been edited in over 6 months or abandoned articles in User: with AFC submission template also not edited in over 6 months. I think the G13 process might be partly automated by some bots which automatically tag pages meeting G13 criteria?
14	G14	Extraneous disambiguating pages with zero pages in them or disambiguation pages titled …(disambiguation) with one page in them, rendering them unnecessary. In some situations these can be suitably changed to a redirect.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 21:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Article and R2 criteria

1. Please (A1-A11) criteria at WP:CSD#List of criteria and answer the following questions in your own words.

No	Criterion	Application	Comment by Cass
1	A1
2	A2	For articles not written in english, which are a near-copy of an article in another wikipedia (eg an article copy-pasted from Spanish wikipedia). If the article is original (ie not in another wikipedia project), it may be valuable and so should be kept and translated ie not A2.
3	A3	Articles which do not have any content (other than boilerplate ‘See Also’ heading, WP:EL, cat tags). A potentially valid stub should not be deleted under A3, nor should an article consisting only of a partially filled infobox. WP:DONTBITE - allow time for edits after creation before considering A3.
4	A5	For articles duplicating material already hosted on a more suitable Wikipedia project. Eg a primary source text copied from a 20th century newspaper, which is already hosted on Wikisource.
5	A7	(nb only applies to certain categories of article - people, animals, organizations, web content, events) A lower threshold than WP:N. This criteria can only be used if there is neither a credible claim of significance of the article (any statement which might suggest the subject is at all notable, interesting or significant) nor any evidence from sources in the article that the subject is significant/no discussion of the subject at all in sources. Even if the claim of significance is false, this criteria does not apply (instead delete as a hoax or use other deletion method), since this criteria applies only if there is ‘no’ claim. An article with a claim of significance, but not meeting specific/general notability guidelines should not be deleted this way.
6	A9
7	A10	If a recently created article expands upon an existing article and contains supplementary information or reorders an existent article, then it should potentially be merged to combine the information. Furthermore, if an existing article is duplicated but with a variant or alternative name, then instead of deletion it should become a redirect. However, if a recently created article is simply a duplicate or near-duplicate, with no additional value to the already existing article, then it may qualify for deletion under A10 criteria, especially if the page would not stand as a redirect.
8	A11	A slight distinction from hoax articles (where the article is created in an attempt to mislead audience), A11 applies to articles where the subject has clearly been invented by the author and does not attempt to claim any significance for the article. As with criteria A8 and A9, if the article makes any attempt to justify, with a credible claim - even one not referenced, it's significance, this criteria is not applicable.
9	R2	Applies to redirects to a different namespace. Eg. applies to a redirect to a draft or to a page which has subsequently been moved to draft and hence the redirect should point to draftspace. Does not apply to redirects to Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help: and Portal namespaces.

Mxtt.prior ( talk) 22:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

---

3. Please read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and hist diffs and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i:

Answer ii:

Answer iii:

Answer iv:

Answer v:

---

Pls read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and answer the questions below.

3. When do we nominated a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

Answer: G12 should only be used if copyright violations are so widespread that an article has no non-copyright text or information which can be kept - if the article can be edited or parts removed in order to be in line with copyright policy, then this approach should be taken instead. G12 applies to articles which contain copyright text which has no claim to be free material or public domain. If the copyright issues are not clear-cut, then the offending sections or text should be blanked instead and the issue raised in WP:Copyright Problems. This does not apply to PD text copying. Tools such as Earwigs CopyVio Checker can be useful in checking for potential copyright issues with a page.

Revision-deletion tags should be used to recommend deletion of blatant copyvio page revisions which remain in the article history even if the offending copyright material has been removed from subsequent/current article revisions. Administrators hold judgement as to whether revision deletion from page history is appropriate or necessary.

4. What constitute copyright infringement/violation.

Answer:

5. Why some of the texts found in an article are identical as per its sources and yet they are not considered copyright violation? Please provide three examples.

Answer i:

Answer ii:

Answer iii:

6. Why copyright violation needs to be stamped out from Wikipedia and who determined when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Answer:

---

7. Pls read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD 12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO.

Answer i:

Answer ii:

Answer iii:

Answer iv:

Answer v:

'

---

8. Pls provide 5 successful CSD in any criteria except WP:G11, WP:G12 and WP:G13 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i:

Answer ii:

Answer iii:

Answer iv:

Answer v:

---

9. Pls read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT. Please explain when to a new page (NPP article) can be nominated for CSD R2 and what should be considered when doing such move?

Answer:

---

10. Pls read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY").Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

Answer i CSD A7:

Answer ii CSD A7:

Answer iii CSD R2:

Answer iv CSD R2:

Answer v any criteria:

---

Copyright violation and paid editors

Pls read WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?

Answer:

12. What you should do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?

Answer:

13. Please read WP:PAID. What you should do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?

Answer:

---

Mxtt.prior See Assignment 4 above. Pls note that assignment 4 and 5 are the hardest assignment in this program. So take your time if needed. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 03:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)