Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed

• Sorted
• NPP Browser

• Easy
• Reports

Reviewers

• Resources
• School
• Top

Curation tool
SuggestionsCoordination

• Talk
• Awards
• Newsletter

• Backlog drives

NPP backlog

Articles

17741 ↑190

Oldest article

6 years old

Redirects

30911

Oldest redirect

5 months old

Article reviews

2267

Redirect reviews

4189

• There is a very large articles backlog
• The articles backlog is growing very rapidly (↑2203 since last week)
• There is a very large redirects backlog

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of July 28, 2025

Reviewing

I’ve just checked the article Georges Moulène. Could you mark it as reviewed? Muirjohnnyes (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Muirjohnnyes. Thanks for help with checking, but new page reviewers typically do their own assessments. If you're interested in this kind of thing, please get more experience (WP:NPPCRITERIA), then read WP:NPP, then visit WP:PERM/NPP in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Wylde Pak

Heyo. I've been working on the Wikipedia page for Wylde Pak for a while, making sure it meets the website's quality standard's. It's been published since early March and still hasn't been patrolled, and thus isn't appearing in any search engines. Can I get some assistance here? Zingo156 (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Zingo156. There is currently a large backlog of articles to be reviewed (over 11,000). Please be patient. --John B123 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Zingo156, I don't myself review pages like that, but I will question whether it passes WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. The lead says "upcoming American animated television series", and to me notability of a future series is highly dubious. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading one. If I was to review this I would draftify it. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The first episode has already released on YouTube as mentioned in the article. The series premieres on Nickelodeon proper in June. It's notable enough to be reviewed. Zingo156 (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

opinion

I mostly do redirects, however there are about 18,000 of them it would be good to do a 'backlog drive' for this...just an idea, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The NPP coordination team has been doing backlog drives that either do both articles and redirects, or just articles. We think strategically (in terms of the damage that unchecked pages can do to the encyclopedia) that articles are more important to patrol than redirects. Probably a bummer to hear for folks that like redirect patrolling, but that is our current thinking.

I think the last... 2?... drives were both article and redirect, so we tried doing an article only one this time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

thanks(for the info)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Autopatrol redirects bolded in the lead?

To reduce the redirect backlog, I've been thinking of anything that can be handled by bot, and this seems like the most obvious cases that will actually catch a nontrivial number of redirects. In my experience, pretty much every single redirect bolded as an alternative name in the lead is a good redirect which should be kept, and if it it isn't then the issue is usually with the lead and not just the redirect. My ideal implementation would wait long enough that any obvious issues with the lead will be caught (perhaps one day?) and then patrol the redirect.

Thoughts? Rusalkii (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If this is done, I think a report should be generated so that these autopatrolled redirects can be skimmed through. There's no guarantee that inappropriate additions or changes to an article's lead will be caught within a day. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles backlog drive

Hot off the heels of our success at reducing the NPP backlog from almost 19,000 articles to just over 10,000 articles, if anyone wants to continue the backlog reduction fun, the unreferenced articles WikiProject has just started a drive to get the number of unreferenced articles below 50,000. Do consider signing up! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Userscript: 404.js

Long story short: I made a mistake during NPP, and while reconciling it I found a user for which many of their articles contain sources that do not exist and have never existed. On articles with bad citations, I wanted to identify those and either find a replacement or remove them. Pouring through all of their articles was a daunting task.

I made a simple script that automatically checks all citations in an article to see if the link 404s.

This tool can have false positives. It outlines links when auto citation fails, however auto citation could fail for many reasons (for example, on facebook urls). I am working to reduce the number of false positives, but you should use this as a quick heuristic, not as religion. With that being said, I ran it on today's FA (David Evans (RAAF officer)) and noticed that almost every reference in "References" 404s! Just a little toy to add to your toolbox!

Let me know if you have any feedback!

Usage: More → Check for 404s, then wait. References in the reference section with 404s will be outlined in a dashed red line. Try it: User:Scaledish/Scripts/404.js Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Nice. Looks useful for detecting references hallucinated by WP:LLM. Please feel free to add your script to WP:NPP/RES. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

have added/very useful, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Requests for comments on notability and scientific churnalism

I have started an informal RfC at WT:N#Requests for comments on notability and scientific churnalism which I think may be of interest to NPP reviewers. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Adding checkuser-temporary-account to rollbackers and NPP folks

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Adding checkuser-temporary-account to rollbackers and NPP folks. Sohom (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

ToneCheck community consultation/QA session

Hi hi, the team behind Tone Check, a feature that will use AI prompt people adding promotional, derogatory, or otherwise subjective language to consider "neutralizing" the tone of what they are writing while they are in the editor, will be hosting a community consultation tomorrow on the Wikimedia Discord voice channels from 16:00 UTC to 17:00 UTC. Folks interested in listening in joining in, asking questions should join the Wikimedia Discord server and subscribe to this event Sohom (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Non English page title

What do I do with non English titles again like this? 总理 ? Govvy (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I would probably turn that into a redirect to Prime minister, with {{R from alternative language}}. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Ooh, this one's complicated. There are several layers here:

1. Generally, redirects from non-English terms are allowed and usually kept at RfD if the language has a close connection to the subject. See WP:RFOREIGN; also recently discussed at the Village Pump. My rule of thumb for DAB pages is if an entry would be a valid redirect target, it's a valid DAB entry, so foreign-language DAB titles are also OK. You can find examples of such pages kept at AfD in the DSDAB archives.
2. In this case, though, the DAB page is not needed, since as SunloungerFrog points out this term simply means "prime minister", which as a general concept has no special connection to the Chinese, Korean, or Japanese languages. (It is especially odd to list the Hangul "총리" here since it could refer either just to the two Korean PMs or all of the world's PMs; it can't logically refer to the five listed here but no more.) So if any of these DAB entries were redirects, they would likely violate RFOREIGN and be deleted. Only specific terms like 中国总理 ('Chinese Prime Minister') or 国务院总理 ('State Council Prime Minister') would be valid foreign-language redirects. Thus, as an NPPer, you would be justified in AfDing this DAB page.
3. However, this DAB is incomplete. It is missing historical uses of "总理", such as the Zongli Yamen of the Qing dynasty. Chinese/Sinosphere terms for "prime minister" are highly varied, often interchangeable, and go back in various iterations for over two thousand years, a topic which we cover in Grand chancellor (China); that position was at times also referred to as "总理". So perhaps that is the best redirect target here, or perhaps we do need a DAB page. Obviously you're not expected to know all of Chinese history as a New Page Patroller, so you're allowed to kick this to AfD, where these points would've been raised by people like me who watch the deletion sorting lists.

Apologies for my long-winded answer. I'll try to deal with this tomorrow, if I don't forget. Next time you see a Chinese-character DAB you could post at WikiProject China, Korea, or Japan, or simply ask at my user talk page. This goes for anyone else here, too – I rather enjoy dealing with Chinese-character DABs and wouldn't mind if folks pointed out all the new ones in the NPP feed to me. Toadspike [Talk] 20:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, okay I leave it alone for you, I am going to bed in a bit, got to get up far too early tomorrow. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

DKOldies G4?

Hi, could an admin compare the content of DKOldies against that which was deleted at AfD a couple of years ago to see if it is G4-eligible? Thanks. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Things change. DKOldies is now notable and has many news coverage about it compared to battle for dream island. SatellaN64 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

SatellaN64 is the author, with 112 edits, so I'd still like an admin to check please. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd just G4 it. If G4 is declined I'd start a fresh AfD. I don't see anything significant has happened since 2023 (the last AfD) to make the company notable. --John B123 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Note that SatellaN64, the article creator, was just blocked as a sockpuppet. λ NegativeMP1 01:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

AFCH tags

Hey folks, as of a few days ago edits made with AFCH will now have an AFCH tag to show that it was made with the tool. From now on, if you see a draft "reviewed" with the old "(AFCH)" link in the edit summary itself it is NOT a review from an actual reviewer (and should be scrutinised as such). As the "balance" to our AFC "check" I thought yall would want to know. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Any chance someone's written up an edit filter to catch those edit-summary ones? -- asilvering (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

In the last three days? Unlikely. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Patrolling in non-mainspace

Patrolling in non-mainspace is a waste of time. The "mark this page as patrolled" button is distracting and creates the false sense that non-mainspace patrolling is a worthwhile activity which results in a better Wikipedia.

I've personally used CSS to hide the button; if there is a software change which can disable the link, that would be great. If nothing else, adding .patrollink {display: none;} to MediaWiki:Group-patroller.css (unless that breaks stuff?). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I am opposed to hiding it. Many users, including myself, rely on this button to patrol articles because the curation toolbar often loads slowly. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Untested, but something like this should hide the button everywhere except mainspace:

body:not(.ns-0) .patrollink {
    display: none;
}

–Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Patrol Request

Hi, could someone look at Protective Allied Army of the Law? Nothing is cited and I can't find any English language sources. Pksois23 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a notable subject, but a very preemptively published article. See es:Ejército Aliado Protector de la Ley. The references in the eswiki article are annoyingly unformatted but searching the titles does come up with results that support the text. I'll expand this a bit. It also looks like the page creator is working on it right now. -- Reconrabbit 13:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You could also draw it to the attention of the WikiProjects mentioned on the article's talk page, which would attract more attention than here, I think. Good luck!Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Add to New Pages Feed link missing

The documentation for the Curation Toolbar makes reference to the ability to restore a reviewed page back to the new pages feed, something that I would like to do to an article. But I don't see the link it refers to in the sidebar. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

On which article? – DreamRimmer ■ 15:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

White Flight in Gary. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If I am understanding your request, all you need do is "unreview" it by clicking off the green check in the toolbar. This marks it as unreviewed, so it should show up in the feed as an unreviewed article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The toolbar isn't there, ostensibly because the page must be in the NPF for the toolbar to load. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

When I go to the article, the toolbar is there for me. Even after being reviewed, the toolbar stays available for a period of time. I will boldly unreview the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

A potential problem may be that you are the author, not the reviewer.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That is weird, because I did not author it. I moved the article (or a version of it) to draftspace, and then a new mainspace article was created. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

When you moved to draft, it created the redirect which is authored by you. The "true" article author then proceeded to continue authoring the mainspace article rather than the draft. A good solution would be to update the draft article with the current version of mainspace, then re-ask for deletion, and leave a note on the author's talk to incubate in draft.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Thank you for figuring that out. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RFC: New CSD for unreviewed LLM content

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RFC: New CSD for unreviewed LLM content. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Noorullah21 wheel warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Battle+of+Manupur

Noorullah21, who has both autopatrolled and NPP rights, has marked their own article as reviewed twice after two different new page reviewers marked it as unreviewed. The first time was a believable misunderstanding of the process. The second time is egregious misconduct and cause to remove autopatrolled, new page reviewer, or both. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I was under the impression that since the speedy nom was declined, it was fine to do so. [1] It seems that it was not, so I apologize for that. Noorullah (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

An article being NPP-acceptable it a much higher standard than not being speedy deletable and hence a speedy deletion being declined does not make the implication you want it to make. As a new page reviewer you should know this, and the fact that you don't is very concerning. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn’t even mark your created article as reviewed. It goes against the Wikipedia spirit at best; you’re autopatrolled, your created article was unreviewed by a reviewer, it must have had problems that need fix, marking it as reviewed back is two-sided unethical; first your own article, and second you’re autopatrolled and it was unreviewed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The user who unreviewed it put it up for nom due to the fact that it might've been similar to it's former article when it was deleted? I tried to inquire with them about this but no response. [2] ... and the nom was declined because there was no such issue relating to that. [3] But yes, I do recognize that doing it back was not the correct decision to make there. Noorullah (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This all looks blown way out of proportion. Non-admin perms don't come under WP:WHEEL. It's, I guess, log-warring, with the proper analog to it being run-of-the-mill edit-warring. At best, it's people getting a bit silly with their buttons instead of starting a discussion. Let's break it down:
1. Noorullah recreated a previously deleted article. It's advisable to write a draft first and go to deletion review if one expects controversy but one is not disallowed from recreating directly if one wishes, esp. an autopatrolled editor. Plus, one is advised to not bother deletion review unnecessarily.
2. Pppery unreviews the article. But they haven't nominated it for deletion or started a discussion, not on Noor's talk, not on the article's talk. It would be entirely unreasonable to fault Noor for not respecting that.
3. Noor marks the article reviewed. Entirely understandable, reasonable even, per 2. Except, Noor is recreating a previously deleted article, so they should expect controversy, invite scrutiny and facilitate review, which they've comprehensively failed to do.
4. Slatersteven CSDs the article and marks it as unreviewed. Also reasonable. If they think the article deserves deletion, they would want it to remain unreviewed in case CSD is declined and they are not able to get back to the article to follow it up. Reasonable as it was, that's still just one reviewer using their judgement. It's neither an office action, nor consensus enforcement.
5. Speedy is declined by an admin, and Noor marks the article reviewed again. Again perfectly understandable since no one has talked to them or started a discussion anywhere. If they had done it soon as Slater left, one could question their motive. But they contested deletion on the talk page, waited for an admin to decline CSD and at that point understandably thought the matter was resolved.
So, here's the sanctions I'd support.
;Editors reminded

1. Reviewers, please communicate, and no review-warring.
2. Noor, when you are recreating a previously deleted article, don't use your advanced perms to avoid scrutiny.

—Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I did explain why I unreviewed at User_talk:Pppery#Unreview?. So Noorulah21 must have known that new page reviewers thought it should go through the queue, and thus their unreview was inappropriate. I can believe you for the first action, but not the second one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

As it reads, they would have to be forgiven for thinking you wanted review, not reviewers, to which they raised the point that that's in conflict with the fact that they are autopatrolled and as such already trusted to produce satisfactory articles without review. Then it just ends there. Anyway, as I noted, they waited for CSD to be declined, so I don't question their good faith.
They kinda had a point. At the end of the day, they're an editor who's trusted to start new articles, and they've done so. So, the choice is to either take it AFD or leave it alone, what are the actual odds, left in the queue, it gets reviewed by someone more familiar with the issues than you and more thorough? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I really didn't want to make it seem like I did this in bad faith or anything by re-reviewing it after the CSD nom was denied. I thought it'd be perfectly okay to do so, especially as an autopatrolled (Pppery has now added further additions to AP to clarify for the future [4]) It wasn't and I apologize for that as I've stated.

I'd like to point out that the draft was partially reviewed by other editors (and Administrators if that matters), and a built consensus to use that draft for the page see relevant discussion here for the redirect undeletion request; Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 15#Battle of Manupur (1748)

Nonetheless, I hope I can be forgiven and this moves on, and I understand the mistakes made here by me. Noorullah (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Beyond this, is there anyone who can take a look at the article and review it on whether it can pass or not?

I don't think there are a lot of military history NPP reviewers, and I'm afraid it might just be stuck in queue purgatory. Noorullah (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The article will be reviewed when someone gets to it. The NPP process should reject out-of-hand requests for specific articles to be reviewed out of the normal sequence, as that's unfair to everyone else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

What to do with a mess?

I recently ran across Cezmi Akdis. He definitely passes WP:NPROF, but before a few edits I made there was a host of "awards" all sourced to a non-existent page. There remain many claims in the page all sourced to some self-published CV. The page is clearly too established for draftification; I cannot justify AfD so what? I have cleaned some and tagged, I could be harsher and delete more but I am reluctant. It is not my fields so I don't know enough to judge if all the awards are notable. Any suggestions? Feel free to be bold with the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

If the non-existent page is the EAACI one, it's available from archive.org. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the uncited awards. They seemed a bit excessive and WP:NOTRESUME. If you want to be strict, insisting that the award have a blue wikilinked article is a good way to filter out less important awards. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the award from Wayback which was not in fact one on the page, go figure! I am not happy with a self-published CV as a source for other awards. I may later remove the unsourced editor positions etc, he has enough without them. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

New page reviewers blocked

Heads up that Cinder painter and Old-AgedKid, both of which had NPP rights, were blocked as UPE socks. I'm in the process of adding the about 1000 articles (combined) that they patrolled back to the queue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery - I'm a little puzzled by this, as a newbie to NPP. A page I created Pleasant Valley, Pembrokeshire has been unreviewed as a result of this sock issue. Is un-reviewing an inevitable consequence, as (in this case) the article was created by an experienced creator (me) and so was autopatrolled. Sorry if I am misunderstanding this. Finally, can I mark the article myself as reviewed? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Tony Holkham, assuming you have the right article, for our purposes, you did not "create" it, you "expanded" it. You are not "autopatrolled", so the article was not "autopatrolled". These words are part of our technical jargon, so should not be used informally to mean other things.

Admins have the option to mass undo reviews of editors who are later found out to have been untrustworthy. As a new new page reviewer who is not autopatrolled, it would be best if you review articles created by others and wait for your own articles (including ones that you significantly expanded soon after creation) to be reviewed by someone else. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool - Thank you for that advice. I mistakenly believed I had created the article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I marked it reviewed, FWIW! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

NPP review help with Jeff Firewalker Schmitt

The page claims that he is

"an American scientist, educator, folk healer, ceremonialist, and musician.[1][2][3][4] His career spans over forty years and has made contributions in medical research, molecular biophysics, education, native healing and music.[1][3][5] He creates bridges of understanding between native mysticism and contemporary Western thought and science"

Most of the page is about him as a scientist, and does not come close to passing WP:NPROF -- that is where I mainly review. I have never reviewed on WP:NMUSIC and I am not comfortable starting now. I would like an opinion from a NPP who is comfortable with musicians. If he is a fail there, then please AfD (their was a prior, declined CSD A7). If he passes on music then please do whatever edits are needed for that and I will clean the academic stuff. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)