Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New page reviewer

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

User:Gjb0zWxOb

I am requesting for this permission to help address the backlog of unreviewed pages and to ensure the quality of new content submitted uses encyclopedic language and that the content is accurate and neutral. I have participated in hundreds of AfDs and during that time I have developed a solid understanding of WP:GNG, RS requirements (WP:SIGCOV), and other relevant policies for reviewing pages. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions and your interest in this permission. Reviewing your recent contributions, however, I'm concerned that War on Crypto and the attendant page move discussion demonstrates a weak understanding of WP:TITLE. I'm also doubtful of some other editorial decisions, such as having an entire section on "Views on Bitcoin" in Lyn Alden.  Not done signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, isn't this decision usually determined by a more objective set of criteria than only the subject matter content of the edits? This seems subjective to me and is based on the topics I am interested in and good faith disagreements between me and other parties made on that matter rather than being made strictly on policy. Given my AfD history, I clearly understand what makes a notable, reliable page and what does not.
Would it be possible for another admin to look at my AfD history among other factors to consider if I am eligible for this perm? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that War on Crypto is a pretty clear-cut misapplication of WP:TITLE. By contrast, War on crypto would have been defensible in my evaluation, but that's not the title you chose. signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No issue with this improvement. The page move has already been completed to now be titled "War on crypto" Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone this move, as the ongoing RM should be allowed to unfold and followed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert it back to War on crypto, I agreed with concerns about the capital “C” in “Crypto.” Then we can still discuss which title is best. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a process to appeal a permission decision to have one additional admin review my application? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. I would recommend calibrating to the feedback received, continuing to do good work in NPP-adjacent areas, and re-applying in 3 months if you're still interested. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sophisticatedevening

After a break I would like to get back into reviewing, I'm a regular AfC reviewer and have experience with creating new articles (e.g. Parasitic ant, List of insect orders, Agerafenib, etc.) Sophisticatedevening(talk) 17:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 17:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you requested that the permissions be removed while still undergoing your trial run, so I'm reviewing your past batch of reviews. One review that draws some concern is this revision of Marcus Stokes (football). Sophisticatedevening, could you speak to your review process for this article? signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Sure, I ran it through earwigs with no red flags, I saw some articles like this this and this on him (the fake sources were concerning at the time but I thought it was unlikely to be deleted with the real ones present and other sources out there I found), prose wasn't egregious so I reviewed it. I personally disagreed with the draftification reason by CycloneYoris saying it was machine generated as I see an awful lot of AI slop at AfC and this didn't raise any of those red flags for me. Looking back I should have given more alarm to the number of fake sources and could have draftified based on that, but this was my review process at the time. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 19:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems well-reasoned,  Done. As it turns out, the initial editor was able to repair the broken links after the draftification signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Northernhenge

I've been spending quite a bit of time recently at Special:NewPagesFeed sometimes making small improvements where I think it could be useful. I've noticed the enoromous backlog there, so what I'm currently doing in any case, could also help with the backlog if I have the new page reviewer role. There's a discussion near the end of my talk page about me possibly doing this. I'm still a bit cautious about it but willing to give it a go. Northernhenge (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northernhenge, reviewing your recent article creations, could you comment on your thinking regarding the case for the notability of Jenny Ryan (actress)? Additionally, for Local Nature Recovery Strategy, could you identify which of the cited sources can be considered independent of the subject? signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, I created Jenny Ryan (actress) as a redirect to Woolly and Tig#Cast, to overcome confusion with Jenny Ryan the English quizzer, singer and television personality. Someone recently changed that to an article so I’ve been contributing, hopefully to improve it, but the only independent ref I can find is the Scotsman newspaper interview, so notability is certainly questionable.
For Local Nature Recovery Strategy, the BBC News source is independent. As it's an "official" initiative, most current references are to where the individual schemes are hosted. They're using DEFRA guidelines, so the DEFRA reference is more of a definition than an independent source. As most of them are still at the consultation stage, there isn't much public discussion of them at present. The bigger picture for me is that I've been looking at articles about Site of Special Scientific Interest locations, and – for some now, and for most/all in the future – they will need to mention their local LNRS. I created it after I'd created Skiddaw Group SSSI. I needed to include the LNRS but any amount of detail about the LNRS scheme would end up being repeated across numerous other SSSI articles. Yes, it does need more independent sources, and I’m assuming that more will become available as the scheme continues to roll out. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt answers, I'm satisfied with the explanations and think that given your AfD track record and long tenure, I can confer the full permissions at this time  Done signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Royalesignature

As an experienced Wikipedia editor with over 4,000 edits and more than 2 years of active participation, I've developed a strong foundation in the platform's policies and guidelines. I'm now seeking permission to take on a more significant role in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's content. To achieve this, I aim to utilize my understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and WP:SIGCOV (Significant Coverage), which I've developed through my participation in Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions. My goal is to review pages and ensure that the content is written in an encyclopedic tone, accurate, neutral, and supported by reliable sources. By granting me permission, I believe I can make a meaningful contribution to maintaining the integrity and quality of Wikipedia's content. Royalesignature (talk). 03:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Your article creation statistics appear promising, and you may be granted the right on a trial basis. However, your request reads as somewhat ambiguous. I also observed that your AfD participation is quite limited, and there are no CSD or PROD entries in your logs, this might be due to not using Twinkle, which typically helps track such activities. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your acknowledgement of my article creation statistics. Regarding the ambiguity, kindly let me know which part needs clarification, please. Royalesignature (talk). 10:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions and your interest in this permission. In reviewing your recent articles and AfD participation, I don't think you're quite ready yet for a trial run. Ikirun College of Health Technology has some obvious WP:MOS issues; while in a certain sense they're trivial, it's concerning that you did not notice them before applying here. Meanwhile, as Chippla alludes to, you make a big deal about AfD discussions and how you've developed your understanding of guidelines there, but reviewing the track record of your participation at AfD doesn't demonstrate this: you've participated in 3 discussions, only one of them this year, and in all of them you made a delete !vote piling on after multiple other editors had already laid out the case for deletion. There's not necessarily anything wrong with these !votes, but they don't demonstrate that you have a strong understanding of the relevant guidelines yourself, and it seems odd to assert that you've developed your understanding through these discussions when you've participated in so few and there's no real evidence of learning or improvement in or across these discussions.  Not done signed, Rosguill talk 15:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Junbeesh

Hi again, My NPP flag lapsed last month, and I'd like to request an extension. During the trial I patrolled dozens of new pages, tagging some for CSD and sending others to AfD when sourcing or notability was thin. My CSD and AfD logs should show I understand the relevant policies. I haven't edited as much since the flag dropped, but I'm keen to dive back in and help clear the queue. A renewal would let me start right away. Junbeesh (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Track record looks good,  Done signed, Rosguill talk 16:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Opm581

My trial NPP right expires on August 8, and I would like for it to be extended or made permanent. Thanks. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 00:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 00:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer&oldid=1303946369"