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

7996 ↑278

Oldest article

23 months old

Redirects

38822

Oldest redirect

5 months old

Article reviews

2162

Redirect reviews

4332

• There is a large articles backlog
• The articles backlog is growing rapidly (↑325 since last week)
• There is a very large redirects backlog

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of September 29, 2025

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)

(Newbie here...) I noticed that ToadetteEdit is another example of a banned NPP. I've unreviewed (and tagged for notability) the articles I first spotted because they were part of a group (in Category:Itel smartphones) that appeared to be mainly promotional, but I haven't looked at TE's other contributions. If a NPP is blocked/banned, would all their reviews normally be unreviewed or is it a case-by-case basis as any individual issues come to light? --Northernhenge (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Edits by socks of blocked users are eligible to be reverted on sight in order to disincentivize sockpuppetry, and reviews by those later found to be UPEs need to be mass-undone because there may be no way to determine which reviews were subject to a conflict of interest. AFAIK sockpuppetry and UPE were not issues with Toadette. I always thought there were CIR issues in their editing, particularly around mastery of English, but I don't know to what extent that affected their new page reviewing. Regardless, I'd suggest unreviewing on a case-by-case basis, not mass unreviewing, unless evidence emerges that Toadette was making significant errors or is found to meet conditions for mass unreviewing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

NPP review help with Jeff Firewalker Schmitt

The page Jeff Firewalker Schmitt 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)

I don't think there's much hope for notability as a musician here so you're probably clear to AfD this one. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to WikiBooks

I am new to this - does a redirect (e.g. Belfast Bomber) to WikiBooks need to be reviewed? I don't see anything untoward in the page's history. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect needs reviewing the same as any other. The criteria for this would be satisfying Template:Wikibooks redirect's instructions that "This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikibooks and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form." It seems more appropriate to add info on this cocktail to Irish car bomb (cocktail) as a variation of that drink and then set the redirect to target that article, rather than forcing the reader off enwiki, but I will leave that to your judgement. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@ViridianPenguin - thanks for that. There are a number of other NPP cocktails redirected to WikiBooks, so I will take each on its own merits. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Specific actions for really old stuff in New pages feed-Bleeding Brain, Teknekt

Hi Fellows, New to the NPP, checking out the Oldest backlogs in the New pages feed to help as recommended from the basic tutorials, Unsure what to do about these examples of old pages. they seem to have been converted to Wikibooks, are these resolved then? or should we take any action at all in these cases? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teknekt

Much appreciate any advice! Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Lorraine Crane, ref the page history, each has been converted earlier this week from an ancient generic Redirect to a much better WP:SOFTREDIRECT; such a conversion of a redirect puts it back into the back of the queue because of how long ago they were created. If such a conversion is sane and non-controversial, just approve (I've done that for these). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! much thanks for the prompt response, will take note and look into it. Lorraine Crane (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

COI tags while reviewing

Hello NPP community, I've a few questions:

• Is it mandatory to add reasoning on the talk page if I suspect that a user who created an article may have a COI or be involved in undisclosed paid editing, and I add tags like COI, UPE? I've read WP:DRIVEBYTAG, which recommends adding reasoning on the talk page, but this is not part of our policies and guidelines. I understand that it is good practice to provide a reason on the talk page (much like when we review an article and some NPP editors leave comments), but in some cases, where WP:BEANS are involved or evidence is private, I think it may be better not to post anything on the talkpage. To be honest, in practice, I have seen only a limited number of editors follow this advice and reasoning on the talkpage. Could you please clarify if it is mandatory to add reasoning?
• Can I add the [paid contributions] to a draft to make the paid status clear to AfC reviewers, or do I still need to give reasoning on the talk page? Some paid editors disclose their status in an edit summary, and in such cases it may not be obvious to reviewers (as in this example). I suppose this template's only purpose is to make that disclosure visible.

I will follow the advice given here. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I mostly do AfC, not NPP.)

1. I don’t think the COI tag requires an explanation, but I believe it can be removed at any time without reason if none is provided (from Template:COI).
2. As an AfC reviewer, I would be totally ok if you did that, but if it was clearly declared elsewhere I don’t see why you wouldn’t include a note like “declared on my user’s talk page” or something :).

GoldRomean (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean, I know @Gheus was referring to their tagging COI as part of NPP, not an editor stating that they had a COI. (Your typo correction indicates that you realised this.)

To me, tagging with COI without explanation is not as severe as calling someone a sock, but is not polite/WP:5P4. My opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 (and typo, fixed!) GoldRomean (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-coi on the creator's talk page? — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Sasol Birds of Southern Africa

Hello. I have moved the article: Sasol Birds of Southern Africa from the main space to the draft space here. The issues are that no acceptable citations are used to support the topic of the article; I cannot find reliable sources and only primary sources for WP:BEFORE; and I suspect this is an attempt to promote this publication. It is a field guide that seems to be produced by Sasol Limited, which is "an integrated energy and chemical company based in Sandton, South Africa."

Although the Wikipedia article says, in so many words, that this is or was a very popular guide for birding, I cannot verify these claims with reliable independent sources. Also, I notified the creator of this article of problems with this article on July 4, 2025 here. So, that was ten days ago. Just wanted to let everybody here know because I used WP:Twinkle to send this to draft space, rather than our NPP tools. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

One more thing - I also tagged the article for notability [1] on July 4th, which the article's creator removed that same day [2], while adding more unacceptable sources. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn, I don't think you did anything wrong.The page is pure promo/advertising which fails WP:NBOOKS. Rewritten with reviews and independent WP:SIGCOV and paying attention to WP concensus it might pass. I will trust your BEFORE. If the editor moves it to main then AfD.

N.B., I added some tags, as I felt a third opinion was worth it. Perhaps overkill on the tags... Ldm1954 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Ldm1954, after taking a look at the article again, I agree that it is pure promo at this point. Especially, when taking into account the sources used by this Wikipedia article. I think all the sources link to web pages that merely promote this field guide, including an unacceptable YouTube page.

At the same time, I feel the same way - if this could be rewritten with reviews and independent SIGCOV it could pass. I get the sense that this is a quality publication, but so far I am unable to find sources that would allow this to pass. I am hoping that at some point sources can be found. As an aside, your tagging this article is appropriate and not overkill. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

LDM1954 and others: in a quirky manner Google provided a link to reviews for this publication. I found three reviews, but I am not sure if these are acceptable sources for Wikipedia. I am opening a discussion on the talk page of the article to get some opinions on these sources. Everyone is welcome to this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Page needing review

John Ferry is a page written by a brand new editor, overwriting an existing dab page. It was reverted twice, but it looks to me as if the article belongs at the base name, and I've created the missing hatnotes to the two people who were on the dab page. So far so good.

But I'm not sure the page ought to exist, as his notability seems uncertain: a lot of refs, one exhibit in RA Summer Exhibition 2025, but the only article about him as a person is a 2018 review on his own web page by artist Karen Strang on whom we have no article. Is there a way to get it added to the NPP feed so that a reviewer can check it over? PamD 14:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I added it. Because it was created some time ago it may not be reviewed that quickly -- I won't, it is in one if my many areas of incompetence. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Backlog drive in September

The next regularly scheduled backlog drive is coming up. The only place I have seen anyone mention it so far is on the New pages patrol Discord server. Around now seems like a good time to send out notifications or at least turn Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/September 2025 into a blue link. -- Reconrabbit 16:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the preference of the NPP folks, an articles-only drive or a combination of redirects and articles? cc @Hey man im josh, @Novem Linguae – DreamRimmer ■ 16:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I lean towards article only backlog drives since the article queue is more important, and we haven't had success in getting it to zero for years. However, playing devil's advocate, the argument for article+redirect backlog drives is that some reviewers enjoy them more. I'd prefer article-only, but happy to go with the consensus. Some stats in case folks want to alternate or something: the last 5 backlog drives (in order from most recent to less recent) have been article-only, article+redirect, article+redirect, article-only, article-only (Source: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives#Past drives) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with an articles-only drive. The drive page has been created, and I will send a mass message shortly. This time, we do not have much time to wait for more comments to decide the drive preference, so I will make sure to start a thread a month before the next drive so that everyone can share what they prefer. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Including emojis in G15

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Including emojis in G15. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

new patroller check: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities

Hello, I'm a new reviewer looking at Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. This was originally a redirect that recently became an article. I don't believe this subject will meet the notability guidelines and I would like to revert it back to a redirect. Is that the right interpretation of the flow chart in Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Basic steps? And after I do that, do I mark the page as reviewed? — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You can do a one-time redirect per WP:BLAR but if the editor who undid the redirect reverts or objects, you'd need to seek a consensus to restore a redirect and AfD is the place that happens. You can mark your restored redirect as reviewed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am very tempted to revert/contest your change. A quick WP:BEFORE here indicates a decent number of mentions, plus a good number of member colleges/universities. There is also information/sources in the redirect page that could be used. The prior version had three secondary sources. While the old page needs work, it is not clear to me on what basis you are questioning notability. I would also suggest a slower approach given that the page was only 2 days old and written by a newbie. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The middle of the article (in its prior version) looks like preliminary notes but the opening paragraph makes sense, and notability looks likely to be established. I’ve not been here very long, but think I’d have advised the article creator, left it alone for a bit longer, and then draftified it if it remained like this for a couple of days. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in general if it looks like a good-faith effort to create an article from a redirect with valid sources, it's much less bitey to leave it alone for a couple days and see if the page creator will polish it more before reverting. Immediate reverting is appropriate when the new article is malformed, when it's a bright-line policy violation, or when there's a controlling AfD consensus that it should be a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback @Ldm1954 @Dclemens1971 @Northernhenge. I will revert, mark the page as unreviewed, and leave a note on the creator's talk page.

Concerning notability: I searched on WP:BEFORE and I looked at the article sources. If this were on WP:AFD, I would vote to delete. Most of the mentions are from partner organizations or member universities, which would not qualify as independent sources. The article from Independent is not significant coverage, and the Candid/Philanthropy News Digest does not appear to be a reliable source. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This article can be reverted to redirect or returned to draftspace to my knowledge, as the page has only been an article since September 2 (less than 90 days in mainspace). Alternatively, an AfD is acceptable as the article is almost entirely unsourced. I did WP:PROD, however it was removed by another reviewer due to controversy (which I was unaware of at the time). 11WB (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I've just added some sources (from published journals, but I'll leave others to judge their quality). Is it time to move this discussion to the article talkpage, now that it's not looking at the NPP process. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities is now up at AfD. GTrang (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

NPP tool

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T404405
Resolved

I find in the last few days that while I can click the buttons on the NPP tool, when I try to enter text into the tool (like leaving a comment or searching for a tag), it won't let me? Is that unique to me, or is something wrong with the NPP tool? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm experiencing the same thing with the page curation tool. Twinkle has a review tool that works well (although it doesn't have the exact same menu of message options). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I've been having this problem too. I can mark articles as reviewed but can't leave comments Zzz plant (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Snap. I think it may be Android related. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This is probably phab:T404405. Should be fixed shortly. In the meantime, one workaround is to use right click. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The bugfix is scheduled for today. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Great - thanks all ! Aszx5000 (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This should work now? (Please hard refresh if you don't see the fix). Sohom (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is working now - thanks again, Aszx5000 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I got around it by using tab until I got into the text box Noxoug1 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Trial of Patrick Eugene Prendergast

I think this article is too long, but is still over-tagged. The trial was notable, however the article is screening +80% on copyvio, and I am not sure that I understand the copyvio results (it is so big, they are spread all over). Would appreciate somebody else taking a look at it to assess how serious the copyvio is? thanks. 19:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It passed the CopyPatrol report alright. I checked Earwig's copyvio search and the only matches were quotations. /over.throws/^✎ 20:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be marked as reviewed, as long and overly detailed as it is. It's a notable topic, no copyvio, core NPP questions thus addressed; issues have been tagged for others to address. Normal editorial processes can handle the article's problems. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that both. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Why is this page in Easy Reviews not in the New Page Feed?

The pages Idaho Family Policy Center and Salakaar are in the list Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Easy reviews#Unreviewed AFC-accepted articles, but they are not in the New Page Feed and the Page Curation Tool does not show up. Why? — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The Idaho one has, in its log, "08:23, 1 September 2025 AstrooKai talk contribs marked the article Idaho Family Policy Center as reviewed". Maybe it depends on when the lists get updated and how the lists are cached?? --Northernhenge (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

In this case it looks like that section of the Easy reviews page hasn't updated since 1st September. I'll check if I can prod it to update. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you move it to a subpage? Were there too many queries on the main page so the bot got angry? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That is one possibility, yes. Another is that a malformed template from the Page excerpt column of "Unreviewed politicians" wasn't allowing the bot to continue with the rest of the reports. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer blocked as sock

Hi NPP, Taabii was blocked as a sock (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity) and they had been granted NPP on a temporary basis a couple times. MER-C unreviewed articles they reviewed so good there, but I think someone keeps a list of these that should be updated. S0091 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Somewhere in Novem Linguae’s subpage, yeah. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Just UPEs. User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Advanced permission holders connected to UPE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Novem. I see MER-C updated it earlier today. S0091 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

When I first made that userpage, I was trying to gather some data on the UPE shadow war going on. Was it just a couple a year, or a bunch? How pernicious is their infiltration of NPE-related perms? Sadly the answer is... Quite pernicious. More than I thought. Although I suspect we eventually catch them and clean up their damage, so maybe that offsets it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's worrisome to say the least and I don't think your list is updated every time. I admittedly forget about it. In this instance, it appears AfD was more so the target than NPP (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Taabii which is still open) but most of those AfDs are closed. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make a shortcut since people are using this and having trouble finding it: WP:UPELIST. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that on the whole these folks do more good than they do harm, if we're only thinking in terms of "number of good actions" vs "number of bad actions". But the breach of trust, and the amount of time the rest of us have to spend cleaning it all up... sheesh. -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I wonder how many "delete per GNG"'s they spam at AFD to build up their AFD track record though... :( –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I think most of us just ignore those, so, there's that. -- asilvering (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment That Afd list will be magically appearing at Afd in the next week or two, the ones that are not deleted anyway along with some of the associated ones as well. Look out for them. scope_creep^Talk 10:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Very helpful list above. Do we also keep lists of the articles that UPEs edit (as they are almost certainly going to re-appear with other UPE socks). I do find that this is a particular problem with Indian bio articles being created by new editors in perfect WP format (plus images) - they really fight their case (as a result of being a UPE I guess), and it can be a real time-sink imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  If an article reappears, you'll be able to see the deletion log saying it's already been removed before. You can look at the page creation logs to see who made it that time, and follow that back to the relevant block/SPI. -- asilvering (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Asilvering, and I note that. I was wondering if we keep lists of non-notable Bios that the subject repeadly gets UPEs to try and re-post, as it would expose new UPEs that perhaps didn't realise the history? i.e. like a WP honey-trap? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's basically the argument against WP:SALTing the pages. But I don't understand the need for a list? -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  A confidential list might (?) be useful for speeding up the recognition / quick warning sign that the editor is most likely a UPE (especially when the UPEs alter the name to avoid being able to see the past creation history)? Aszx5000 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hm, personally I think that would probably get chaotically unhelpful pretty fast, but maybe others would disagree. If you're not already using User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/DetectG4G5.js, I really recommend it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Understand and thanks for that - will check it out. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Call to participate in Wikimedia Foundation research study

Hello,

I’m Jahnavi, a design researcher at the Wikimedia Foundation and we’re currently running a research study on guided article and section creation. As a part of this study, we’re looking to conduct a 75 mins session with reviewers and patrollers to understand how new articles are reviewed, the process for reviewing, and pain points in this process. We would also like inputs on some very early stage design concepts. We are pleased to offer a digital thank you gift through our partner service, Tremendous, for completing the interview. If you would like to participate, please complete this short form. Please note that we have limited capacity so unfortunately we may not have the time to schedule sessions with everyone who expresses interest.

If you have any questions or concerns about this research, please feel free to ask me!

I look forward to hearing from you,

Jahnavi MJahnavi-WMF (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from new NPP reviewer: contentious topics

Are we supposed to tag articles on contentious topics when reviewing them? Are there any guidelines specifically for this? For instance, I came across Anti-fascist Bulldozer March which clearly falls under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia - should I be sending alerts to the editors or placing a tag on the talk page or something? I know very little about the politics of the region so am not sure I would even spot problematic edits. Lijil (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there. Nope, neither is required. And in general I'd recommend against doing a user talk alert unless an editor is clearly misbehaving. Although adding an article talk page alert banner is reasonable if you have extra time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Great job backlog drive participants

The backlog graph at the top of this page is looking really good. Looks like we've reviewed about 10,000 more articles than normal thanks to this backlog drive, which is more than the last 3 backlog drives. Woohoo. Keep up the good work. Keep pushing -- one of these days we can get to zero backlog again :)

Also, it's not too late to get in on the action. If you want to join the backlog drive, you can do so at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/September 2025. Thanks everyone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Dealing with LLM tags

I’m coming across articles in the new pages feed that have been tagged as ai-generated without discussion on the talkpage. James Simpson Love is the example I’ve just been looking at. If (very unusually) I can see and fix any obvious problems, I do so and then mark the article as reviewed. Almost always, though, I don’t yet have enough ai-detecting radar in my head to be able to spot the problem. Without any clues on the talkpage, my options include

1. ask the editor who added the tag to explain it
2. assume the tag is correct and move myself away
3. assume it’s incorrect because it’s unexplained and treat the article at face value, or
4. draftify the article until the creator of the article, or other editors, have assessed and dealt with the problem.

So my questions are, (a) what is the appropriate course of action, and (b) is it appropriate to simply remove the tag if it’s unexplained and not there for an obvious (to me) reason? --Northernhenge (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I checked the article before you started editing, and https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector certainly thinks significant parts were LLM; I did not check the sources which is a big indicator of problems. Unfortunately {{ai}} does not have a "reason=" in it. I think it would be good to have one, perhaps even have the template require a reason. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks – that’s a useful link. Yes, a "reason=" would be a useful addition! --Northernhenge (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

So I checked the first reference. It purports to be Allingham, Anne. "Love, James Simpson (1863–1933)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Retrieved 27 September 2025. That is, a biography of the subject. If you follow the link, it is actually a biography of Henry Tasman Lovell (1878–1958) by W. M. O'Neill. The fifth reference, also to the Australian Dictionary of Biography, is similarly bogus. I have tagged the article for {{db-g15}}. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

More generally, I always look at the sources. If three or more are non existent, especially if they have an access-date entry, then I tag for G15. If it is less clear, but I still think it's AI (maybe the sources are OK but don't specifically or completely back up the claims), I generally draftify with a reason of machine generated per WP:DRAFTREASON. I wouldn't remove an {{ai}} tag without being really sure or contacting the tagging editor. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the sources can be a good clue. I know the sapling tool (linked above) isn't definitive, but it's giving some very clear pointers on a couple of articles I've now tried it on. I've draftified the one I mentioned above and another one. If I see an article that is tagged but I can't work out why, I'll leave it alone. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Northernhenge and @SunloungerFrog In the example article you cited a quick one-second glance at the short lead makes it glaringly obvious that the text is LLM generated, and that's the main clue of clues. To the editor using the LLM (and often to the patroller) the article looks perfect - and it often is - but LLMs are not trained in producing the style and tone required for an encyclopedia. The only solution is often a complete rewrite. Checking the sources might indeed reveal more evidence to back up the claim for applying the tag but sources are often added manually. Check the images for licence and and relevance. Here's another very recent and understandable example of the use of the tag but it's use in this instance might be debatable. More information available here.

Other things to do: Check the author's user page, talk page messages, edit history and other creations. Previously deleted articles also often have a prominent piece of evidence which is often missed. One needs to do a lot of patrolling to learn the tell-tale signs of LLM and even then it's not always obvious. I don't use the {{Template:AI-generated}} tag myself, I add the article to my watchlist and see what other patrollers do with it because a) I'm building up some stats, and b) the reason why so many patrollers lose interest in NPP and the additional work it generates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Concern about Agent VII's reviews

We are planning to mass unreview over 2500 pages reviewed by Agent VII during the backlog drive. You are invited to share your opinion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/September 2025#Concern about Agent VII's reviews. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:GS/KURD

Hi everybody, this is just a reminder that under WP:GS/KURD is under extended-confirmed restriction, which means that if you come across new articles written about Kurds and/or Kurdistan, you can CSD them as WP:G5 if their creator is not yet XC. Please also leave {{subst:Gs/alert|topic=kurd}} on the talk pages of editors who haven't received it yet. I'm bringing this up because a single (non-NPP) editor has been doing most of the sock-wrangling and tagging in this topic area, which isn't sustainable. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood and thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As of right now, the list of topics under ECR is:

1. Kurds and Kurdistan (WP:GS/KURD)
2. Armenia and Azerbaijan (WP:GS/AA)
3. Russia–Ukraine war (WP:RUSUKR)
4. Arab–Israeli conflict (WP:PIA)
5. Indian military history (WP:ARBIMH)
6. South Asian social groups (WP:ECRCASTE)
7. Antisemitism in Poland (WP:APL)
8. Zak Smith (WP:CT/ZAK)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

HouseBlaster, do you think it would be possible to have this list readily available at WP:ECR? Or a link to such a list, very obviously placed? I honestly don't think I've ever seen them all conveniently laid out together. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Apparently this list exists at Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection#As arbitration enforcement. I've linked that from AC/P and updated that section to note Zak Smith. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

You're a hero. -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)