Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 14

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 14

PERINGATAN : scam/spam/malware WordPress

Please be careful of any new page about WordPress blog software.
New articles What the Wordpress Plugin Can Do For You is being posted by multiple sock accounts and contains some spam and/or malware links. Expected to continue as some sleep accounts have been found.
Such new pages may have slightly different titles. Please tag such a page immediately with G3 (vandalism) and immediately report it to the admin who is online or to AIV where they will get quick action. Do not under any circumstances click embedded links - to do so may damage your computer. (TonyBallioni please include this warning in your next NPP newsletter). Kudpung ??????? (talk) 00:06, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

I think there is no way to find all the existing concepts for "WordPress"? Timothy Joseph Wood 00:07, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the search you want: [1] E Eng 00:29, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

It was a really horrible search for the reasons behind TonyBallioni's deception 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

we are talking about articles like this: ???????? ??????????? ??????? Allianzgyhozenzapu65210.? I found 3 articles like this. Everything is marked quickly within minutes of making. All creator accounts are named after the girl's name. And I do not think finding a concept is a useful Team, because I believe they do it all at once If there are several more articles found like this, I think the newsletter for NPPR people should be issued soon, what do you think, Tony? - usernamekekan (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

usernamekiran, please check back the link. It does not go anywhere. If the page is removed, I should be able to see it. thanks. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Checking against the UNK CSD log, the link disappeared endlessly. Cabayi (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cabayi. @Kudpung: You should be able to see it now. - usernamekekan (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a classic spam, though it may not be connected. Always list the garbage creator in AIV to block or better keep telling admin, because as in this case I'll check it for socks and sleep. This kind of thing will probably disappear when ACTRIAL is rolled out.Kudpung ??????? (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding always registering in AIV, I have not personally done this, I only use NPP toolbar, and four entries appear in my watchlist, where my eyes are teary, and I do not know if AIV has been notified. (checked before posting AIV not notified) Do I have to tell too? - Roxy dog. skin 12:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Toolbar does not list vandalism authors in AIV. You have to do it manually. But that's a good idea - the newly blocked page creator must be listed quickly to block. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- Must say that the admin is on the ball, the things I have highlighted will be handled quickly , and the mistakes I have noted for me too. - Roxy dog. skin 13:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• In answer to Kiran's question, I am not familiar enough with the conversation to answer the questions I might get from my users if I have to send them separately from the newsletter. If Kudpung feels right to tell everyone now, as the admin and our project emeritus coordinator, he can certainly do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing that can not wait for the next newsletter. Fenonenon is not new. However, these things depend on being able to throw their spontaneous nonsense in the encyclopedia so that it may keep them waiting for four days when ACTRIAL aired may deter them. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 14

What about NPP views from a (almost empty) page or a page with empty skeletons?

I have patrolled at the end of User: namespace (usually 10 to 30 days). One thing I often encounter is pages that are basically empty (may have sandbox templates or something similar) or that only have an article wizard out of an article. So far, I have passed this without marking them as a patrol.

Some of these pages are eligible for quick after one year of inactivity by the creator (eg {{db-blankdraft}}), but that's never true of the page I see.

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- I did not expect this to be a difficult question!

With regard to userspace pages that are essentially blank or blank wizard framework articles, is there any reason not to mark them as "reviewed" with NPP tools? If I can not get a direct answer to this question, I will start doing this so they stop messing up the queue of unreviewed pages in userspace. - jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if they're empty they do not have any malicious content, so what's the problem with just clicking on the 'patrol' link? Kudpung ??????? (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. - jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly if we mark them as Reviews and they are then moved to the main article space by users including the author then they will not appear on the new feed page and can be referenced without being reviewed. Domdeparis (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Domdeparis, you misunderstood. Unless the Foundation is wrong with coding their Mediawiki software, all pages created in, or moving into the main room are listed in the feed. If you're worried, consider running an experiment with a sub-page of users you created yourself for that purpose and see what happens. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I just tested this with the help of Drewmutt. Pages marked as reviewed as my user subpage are marked as unreviewed when moved to article space. It functions as intended. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, TonyBallioni and thank you, Drewmutt. I hope this will solve some problems. - jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok is perfect so if we find sandboxes that have been marked as reviewed, there is no need to review but there is no point in reviewing in the first place when the review disappears as soon as it is moved into the main space and will appear in the feed. Thank you for the info. Domdeparis (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

New features/user privileges for the new page viewer

In the last few days, I found some of the re-created articles I asked for salted. It makes me think so. The new page viewer needs to see the creator (s) of the deleted (or recreated) article. Not content like sys-ops can, but only article creators, now anyone can see sys-op being removed but not the creator. I think this feature will be useful for new page reviewers. Since the reviewers have been carefully selected, I do not think it will be abused in any way. - usernamekekatan (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's another way, but right now I have to this only based on my own knowledge (oh there's an article on this subject), or by skimming over the history of user talk pages; which takes time, so I do not always do it. - usernamekekan (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

usernamekiran Xtools may be helpful. You can see a list of articles you created (including deleted articles) here.

There is talk of adding a feature (small icon or something) to the feed to show a new page with a previously deleted title. It would be more complicated for such a script to show the name of the creator. I would think when clicking on the history the reason for the deletion would be enough. See 55 requests here and if none, please add. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a way to check this using "what links here", but this only works if the user who created does not delete their talk page. - InsertCleverPhraseHere here ^{(or here)} 19:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Yes, xtools shows creations from specific users, but not specific page creators. So it's not very useful if we have some creatots/wayang onboard.Ã,: -/
@Insertcleverphrasedi here: Yes, it only works if the user who created does not delete their talk page. - |
@Kudpung: Thank you. I will add it soon.Ã, :)
- usernamekekan (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

NPP queue and default care of older articles

Today, there are two articles in the queue that were not reviewed from January 2016. One of them, Avatar 2, came up with 54 references. No reviewers have chosen to click on this one. As a result, under limbo, not indexed, is available to experienced WP readers, but not available to general Google users.

The NPP queue serves as a valuable quarantine. This article trap is definitely worthless. This gives the article time immature to improve. Personally, I think the article should remain in user space until it is ready for prime time. The result from this point of view is that the article should hold the review on first appearance in the queue. Maybe short. I'm not sure it should be allowed depending on the undiscovered reference. I know that making article creation is an individual process and not a community process. If the NPP gets PROD or AfP, the community can and does get involved to improve the article. The worst of new articles is removed immediately with the removal of A * or G *.

When the review community returns to the article, what to do? Assume good faith and automatically mark anything checked in the queue for a week, month, or year? Assume that if no reviewer is unwilling to click, that the article has no small intrinsic value, and automatically sends it to the trash?

The least interesting option is what we do now - let the article be in purgatory. Pending review is a review that was rejected. We can start by making the oldest NPP queue first queue view. I know it's fun to see new feeds, but forcing the first old peek will help delete items last year from a list of 14,429 unreviewed articles. Rhadow (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, articles are indexed if they are not rolled after 90 days , so most of what you say is wrong. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC) (see next line)

Halo Primefac - Try this experiment yourself: Into Google type Avatar 2 wiki . I did it and did not get the article in my results. Rhadow (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, please see my comments directly below, as well as comments by TonyBallioni. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, seeing it now, it's significantly expanded earlier today, which puts it back in the "noindexed" heap. Thus, essentially a zero-day untitled article that happens to appear behind the queue. This happens in AFC sometimes when someone changes the time stamp "send". Primefac (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Gah, shoot me to reply before digging. It turns out the article is a copy/paste drag version of pagemove. I will do the appropriate histmerging if necessary. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• To expand what Primefac says, it's changed from redirection to article today. Each time a redirect is converted into an article, it will be listed as a new article and inserted into a new page feed based on the design. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is also a severe copyright infringement. For those who read, I will handle this mess. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Primefac and TonyBallioni - So it looks like I stumbled on a special case. Sorry. I tried to re-experiment an unreviewed item starting in February 2017. I found it on Google. So I gathered this practice de facto reviews on ninety days. Unreviewed items remain in the NPP queue, but this is an indexed article in the main room. I can ignore any item in the list from February 2017 to June 10, 2017, right? Rhadow (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No. An article about Google after 90 days, but still needs to be reviewed in terms of triage: ie is it a copyvio, is it an ad (often, yes), is it necessary to tag for source etc. If you'd like to help ensure that fewer articles get to the 90-day mark, I would recommend using NPP Browser to more effectively search for articles that you feel comfortable viewing without having to scroll through the feed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Triage? That I understand. The people who will die, you give them morphine. People who need attention, you give them care. What can I do about people who are okay? Make them sit in the waiting room again? I have no authority to release them. Rhadow (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Currently, nothing happens, because you do not have the correct reviewer. Once you have a little experience on Wikipedia and feel comfortable with our policies and guidelines, you can apply for it and will have the ability to mark it as a patrol. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

src: res.cloudinary.com

Does a Reviewer Right include getting autopatroll?

If not, it should be. If we trust people to review articles, they must be trusted to create articles that do not need to be reviewed further. Cheers, Sadad (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. You are free to raise issues on Wikipedia: Autopatrolled. The current consensus is that both user rights are different skills. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. As TonyBallioni says, they are different skills. There are still many reviewers who still do not understand things beyond the tutorial. We have also been proven recently even more generously with the rights of an autoplayroll. There are also other serious issues that would make such suggestions strongly discouraged. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Against strong - Skills are very different. And this has been spoken in futile for many times. Respectfulness :) Winged Blades ^Godric 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• ... Umm... My brain can not control this comment. If someone can not be trusted to create articles that do not need to be reviewed, how can they be trusted to review? But after saying that, it's not far from a ten-page argument in any way... so I guess I'll see myself coming out. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I know you'll think - and I've been thinking - but when I go to look at some examples... The only real possibility to implement this is to do so in the opposite Sadads proposal, to cut off all the reviewers will not pass autopatrol. And if we think we are short of hand now... (For my sins I will review 10 articles now.) Innisfree987 (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• My understanding is that it's better to have two separate controls, and it's better to have two pairs of eyes when things are uncertain. Good reviewers do not always translate to good creators. Alex Shih ^Talk 13:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Lex, review other people's creations, and create your own and then review it is a very different matter. Then we have some reviewers who are not smart with all policies. They may create articles that are outside their field of expertise, so it needs to be reviewed. Speaking of myself, I recently got tempted a lot to publish two of my unfinished plans just because I was too lazy, and bored to do it lol. (I think he is very interesting Tim, thanks for introduction. )
  - usernamekekan (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Uhh... Equally? Timothy Joseph Wood 02:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

src: i2.wp.com

Not sure what to do with this one

If someone can see again in Message Post, I will appreciate it.

It appears to have been deleted after AfD, decreased on AfC , received in AfC , and then deleted under G11. The new recreation seems to be a declining AFC submission. My instinct is to describe it, because it is not quite unambiguous, (after all, somebody thinks it's enough to pass AfC) but a second opinion would be appreciated. menaechmi (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Menaechmi: Send it to G4 again. The last AfD is clear about the advertorial content. I'm pretty sure this is getting SALT'ed as well. An SPI might be fine. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

... This is in my watchlist, and for my life I do not know why. W ^talk 17:03, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Just curious... does the same editor create articles? ^{Atsme ??} 22:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The last two creations are by the same editor. Two different editors created the first two versions in '14/'16. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Curiosity

View US History by state & amp; the source code. I have left some comments on the author's discussion page but I am not sure where to take them from here. This is certainly an interesting experiment at least. Cabayi (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think PROD is the best way to go, though it will always end up in AFD. I'm not sure this is the correct use of WP: LST, largely for the reasons you left on the content creator page. Too big, too messy. Even as an article in and of itself, I do not really see it keep it around, because it's more of a meta history. Primefac (talk) 00:34, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Are all the information on this page copied from another page? Otherwise, I would say that we should keep it at least as a concept so that the material can be combined from it into another article (ie compile it and then leave a message on another relevant page indicating that there may be merged material). If any material is merged, it must remain as a redirect for linking purposes per WP: MERGE (probably targeted at History of the United States). I would suggest AfD rather than PROD to get more eyes on this, this is a strange one for sure. - InsertCleverPhraseHere here ^{(or here)} 01:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Insert a patch here, the material is not copied, it is transcluded. So, technically there is no "content" on the page itself; only a group of sections are transcluded from another article. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ignore what I said about the merge. Thank you for your reply. - InsertCleverPhraseHere here ^{(or here)} 01:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a neat technical trick but has no attribution. If material is copied or separated from other articles, there will be {{copy}} templates pointing there for attribution. If it is a template, then it gets the kind of yoiu attribution expect for the template - no. This method leaves the article looking, in its presence (and as pointed out in the comments here), as if written by one author - and there is no attribution to the author of the material. I do not see 50 {{copy}} templates being feasible. Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Cabayi, the attribution is on the page where the content was translated. We do not have a {{copy}} template on every page where the template itself is transcribed, but we have a history of attribution and contributions for that too. As long as there is is attribution (somewhere) I do not really see the problem. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

Autoconfirmed autoconfirmed article experiments

On September 14, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) begins a trial six months to require users to get their status confirmed or confirmed automatically in order to create articles in the main room directly. If you have reviewed the page since then, you may have noticed that no articles are made by a very new user. This is because the test has started . The WMF will collect data on this trial for a period of six months. After the trial is completed, WMF will consult with the community to determine whether the restrictions on the creation of this article should proceed.

This does not mean that new users can not write articles. Unconfirmed or autoconfirmed new users may still create draft articles, and volunteers who participate in Articles for Manufacture may approve or reject this draft. However, users who are not automatically confirmed or confirmed can not create an article without going through this process until it is confirmed or confirmed automatically.

---

What should I expect?

You should expect less number of articles to pass through the New Page Feeds every day. Because it is expected that the authenticated and authenticated users will be more familiar with the Wikipedia content policy, most articles will likely no longer have a clear problem . However, the article may still fail the notability guide, so you should be careful to check whether each article covers an important subject. Remember that even confirmed and autoconfirmed users can still be relatively new to Wikipedia, so you need to be patient with this new user.

Why is there no request for comments or other discussions about this topic?

Proposals for this trial were made in 2011. Several hundred editors participated. The proposal gained consensus, but WMF at that time rejected the proposal. However, after renewal, WMF has agreed to conduct this trial as a research experiment. After several months of consultations with the public, the trial was launched with WMF taking responsibility for collecting statistics.

How can I know more about this trial?

Full details of the trial are available on Wikipedia: Autoconfirmed authenticated article creation experiments. Esquivalience (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Just four points

1. The community will discuss what happened after the trial. Volunteers will welcome any feedback from the Foundation but with the exception of some pure legal issues, WMF is not empowered to make any decisions through the fiat of individual Wikipedia.
2. Due to a 2012 issue involving senior WMF staff and their junior assistants on the community NPP subproject, Wikipedia is conducting its own set of statistics and analysis. We greatly appreciate the Foundation's efforts to provide professional audits of the proceedings, but these safeguards are necessary.
3. Advocacy: While paid pages are not the bulk of unwanted new pages, one of ACTRIAL's main goals is to see if it can block edits paid. It is hoped that the people who exploit our voluntary work for themselves and their clients' profits and cheat the BLP subject will eventually find a solution. Reviewers are required to be especially vigilant for all the advantages of the assigned work and report anything as quickly as possible to COIN and SPI and make liberal use of Template: Uw-paid1 warnings.
4. Since the February election coordinator winners never picked up their posts, I would like to personally thank TonyBallioni who has (unwittingly) been the de facto coord. Please give him all your support.

Kudpung ??????? (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

ACTRIAL and New page feed

Is it possible to change the filter for "Were created by new editor" to be more open. It would be nice to display the new page by a relatively new editor, even if they are now automatically confirmed. This is used to show people with more than a hundred edits. Now sure what's filtered now, but maybe there's one that includes people who are not "renewed confirmed" at this point.-- ? Loriendrew? ? (ring-ring) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

See T175225. This is being done by WMF. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, September 20, 2017 (UTC)

Can we ensure that the terms used to describe the age combinations and edits we configure to "experience" are clear and unambiguous? What intuitively distinguishes 'Learners' from 'Newcomers'? It seems that WMF thinks that we, "those who do not know", (sic) can not distinguish between autoconfirmed and extended confirm and they have decided to find a new description that is not known properly. Mduvekot (talk) 20:36, September 20, 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot, it's done that way because they integrate this filter with other filters that are being launched across multiple WMF wikis. Definition of autoconfirmed and extended confirm change from wiki to wiki so they try to standardize filters. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I know, and it's too late. I should have let this one go. I know you are trying to do the best you can do (it's greatly appreciated), and I guess I can work with it even if the filter is called X and Y. I'm recognized naively about how the page curation tool is being developed, but given the response to T169244 and T169120, my skepticism about the effectiveness of filter development should not be a surpise. I wish I had a better understanding of how the features were designed by WMF. I've read https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_process and become more confused than ever. I have worked on very large software projects, very complex (agile), so you think I should be able to understand it. Mduvekot (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

Creation of a new editor-making backlog

I'm not a backlog drive enthusiast, as I've stated before: but I think with ACTRIAL we have a real chance to remove the backlog of unreviewed pages created by new users. There are currently more than 700 dating back to June. Since there is a 90 day NOINDEX period, we will arrive at the end. I think it would be good to do as the project tries to remove the backlog review from these pages as soon as possible. Also, my standard request that everyone checks copyright issues and not too fast. Thank you for all. Hopefully ACTRIAL will help us move forward to a world where everyone has access to free quality knowledge. TonyBallioni 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I will second to that. A glance at the backlog seems to reveal that they are actually quite easy to patrol, but note TonyBallioni's warning. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm ready for that! It would be very satisfying to see that number go down. It was like trying to empty a tub with a dripping faucet using a teaspoon. Domdeparis (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

June has been cleared, attacking July! Domdeparis (talk) 12:21, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

Good couple! I will help, but rather busy with the current job... - InsertCleverPhraseHere here ^{(or here)} 09:15, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

July is over, I'll take a little break now, good luck with August! Domdeparis (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Are there links to ACTRIAL related logs? If anything I can not find it. Thank you in advance. - Ã, Unsigned preliminary comment added by Steve Quinn (talk o contribs)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- @Steve Quinn: set the filter in Special: NewPagesFeed to be a new editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:39, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: . Sorry for pinging you again. Just wanted to say - I did this for awhile, but not sure this is true. Now I know that. Thanks again. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:45, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

Patrol new page

Kudpung's point about PERM caused me to wonder how we saw new prospective New page patrols. Meet some quality creations in Special: NewPages is a good prompt to check out their other contributions & amp; the number of their Articles creation, and suggest someone to file Autopatroll. Likewise, query quality in User: AnomieBOT/TPERTable for Template Editor. What is the equivalent of finding a new patrol and growing a corps? Cabayi (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not know why people will ask for the right and do not use it, maybe people just really want a choice - I was given the right without registering, and like many people, would never consider implementing, because 1, I do not I know it exists and 2, I've seen people volunteering for things like being an admin, and the process can be brutal so I'll never put myself through something like that. I have done a lot of work on CAT: NN and created many articles; I'm sure there are many such editors who will exercise their rights wisely if they know that and are approached. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The article review flowchart for tutorial pages

Hi friends (and friends). I am not the first to notice that the majority of new page patrols are performed by a very small group of people. The main problem I see is that many articles that end up getting stuck in the backlog are "time-consuming" call-up articles that only experienced annoying reviewers. To help alleviate this problem, I've been working on a flowchart that is meant to facilitate every user with the basics of new page patrols to review new articles to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

This workflow is based on the 'tutorial' NPP page, as well as the CSD criteria page, with my own personal 'rating' dose when it comes to patenting a new page. I'm not a good proofreader, so please point out the mistakes I made so I can fix them. This flow chart is very much in the works, so please indicate any process I have set that you do not approve, or any omissions I may miss.

If you can try the flowchart by using it several times while reviewing some pages, it will be helpful with ironing bugs.

until you try the PROD, you will not know if it's 'not controversial'

I think this is a pretty terrible misunderstanding of WP: PROD, which states that "should only be used if there is no contradiction to the expected abolition". If reviewers think that the article is potentially important, then by definition it is potentially controversial removal. This is a collaborative project, why are we so insistent on insisting that even complex judgments can be inserted in one reviewer? - JoeÃ, (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that 'no' from 'contains useful prose' is directed to AfD rather than in PROD? I can understand the reasoning behind this. I will apply it and see how it looks. - InsertCleverPhraseHere here ^{(or here)} 19:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(conflict edit) I suggest both answers for useful prose? go there, but it will be something. Anyhow, as I said, I know I'm whipping a dead horse. The new pseudo-deletion through draftspace is already in the instructions, so I do not think it makes much difference if it's on the accompanying chart or not. I just thought I would try to make a case to not eliminate deletion based on further consensus for something that has no supervision at all. Otherwise good work: I think the graphics are very clear and will be useful to new reviewers. - JoeÃ, (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried this few days, I really like the direction, but I found some friction points that might need to be addressed:

• The disambiguation page is not discussed. (Obvi is not a big deal, but it needs to be mentioned after the demo is run)
• Merging/translating/spinoff without attribution is a big issue, so just a quick check for proper attribution is a nice touch.
• Specific instructions for a given subject must include all major rewards - so the steps are excessive. (I'm also a bit concerned about "automatic" use of "subject-specific" when the only automatic notability criterion is GNG)

Source of the article : Wikipedia