User:Callanecc/AFCA/Jianhui67

Jianhui67 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · page moves · deleted contribs · filter log) (Edits to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent)

Competency	Fail	Pass	Instructor sign off
Knowledge and Understanding of Concepts Able to correctly define and describe: How to identify Copyright Violations, Attack pages, and Hoaxes. The importance of assuming good faith Differentiate between spam, vandalism, nonsense, foreign language pages, and good faith page creations The purpose and correct use of warning templates The best way of dealing with corporate spammers The Username policy and how to report infringements.	Cannot describe these concepts at a comprehensible level. Unable to differentiate the difference between vandalism and good faith edits Does not understand the key purpose of reverting vandalism	Can concisely and elaborately describe each of these concepts. Can describe the proper use of warning templates.	1. 2. Y RPL 3. 4. Y RRL 5. 6. Y RPL
Critical Thinking	Correctly assessed fewer than 85% of the examples provided by their instructor.	Correctly assessed at least 85% of the examples provided by their instructor.
Communication Able to effectively communicate with other editors regarding proposed and speedy deletions.	Communicates inconsistently with editors via talk page comments or in response to editors who question or challenge their contested deletions.	Communicates in a polite and professional manner and avoids biting other editors and harsh comments.
Application Effectively applies the concepts and tools of page reviewing in a productive and proficient manner.	Cannot consistently assess submissions correctly. Is inconsistent in use of comments/advice on user talk pages. Has reviewed fewer than 10 new pages in the two weeks prior to graduation - or – has reviewed more than 10 pages with a high degree of inaccuracy.	Demonstrates proficiency in performing reviews, either manually or with a tool (Helper Script, etc.). Consistently leaves the correct messages where appropriate on creators' talk pages explaining the reason for tagging, and is able to further explain the reasoning for tagging if prompted.

(not sure yet)

Notability

Discussion copied from User talk:Callanecc permalink

Yo Callanecc! I wonder if you can accept me as your first student in the AFC/A. I would want to be a AFC reviewer. I'm not sure about some the things listed in WP:AFC/A, like notability. I got screwed 3 times by notability. 3 of my created articles got deleted in the past due to notability. I do know how to find copyvios, spam and promotional articles. I am very familiar in those kind of counter-vandalism stuff, like good faith and all those (I work in CVUA as an instructor). I would like to start reviewing AFC, but not sure where to start. I have only a little knowledge of AFC. Would you guide me through in AFC/A? Thanks. I have way over 500 mainspace edits. I believe your job would be small here because I have a big grasp of counter-vandalism knowledge. This can also show people your talent, hey even nice during your RfA. JianhuiMobile talk 13:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) The first step is to read the WP:GNG and WP:SNGs. It's also a good idea to have a good idea of when it'd be appropriate to tag a new article with {{db-a7}}, PROD it for notability concerns, take it to AFD or tag with with {{notability}}. WP:42 is also something which, in the beginning, is very helpful to understand and know when to apply. However, it's probably better to wait until we see what the requirements are for reviewers. But in the meantime I'm happy to give advice if you want to have a look at some of the submissions. There are plenty there which don't meet the requirements of a myriad of other policies and so could be declined because of reasons even before notability needs to be considered. My suggestion would be that you just don't accept any. If you think I notability check is all that is holding it back then let me know and I'll have a look (though it'd probably be easier if you came to me with a few so I can talk about the differences in establishing between them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I definitely know what is WP:42 and when to tag db-a7. A7 comes in when that article totally don't claim notability and has no significance. WP:42 is about what sources which are applicable to put. Facebook and blogs are not reliable sources. For AFD, I have only little experience in that. I have never ask for an article to be deleted in AFD or tag an article with notability isues because I am not very sure about that. Lots of new articles just look the same. I have been in NPP since July. For AFC, I am blur. JianhuiMobile talk 14:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC) It's probably worth getting some experience at AFD before trying AFC, because that's the standard people expect of AFCs moved into mainspace. Read through the notability guidelines above, then find a few AFDs which have been nominated for notability concerns and read the comments of those voting to keep. This is probably the best way to find out about the application of notability. In terms of the theory of notability (I should have said read WP:N more broadly not just the GNG) I think the WP:GNG does the best job of summing up what notability is and how it should be applied. But the best way to understand is to see it at action at AFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC) So in simpler words, determining whether an article is notable is through looking at how well it is sourced? JianhuiMobile talk 14:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Yes and no. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources (like news articles, assuming the person didn't write them). So if you were to write an article about a business owner but all of the sources were from that person's business or things they've written, that doesn't meet the GNG but would (depending on what they were referencing) be verifiable. The SNG for people complicates it a bit, the various discussions in Mentoz86's RFA are pretty good at explaining the relationship between the GNG and SNGs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC) And those are about secondary sources? I know an article cannot rely just on primary sources. JianhuiMobile talk 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Yep independent=third party=secondary source. Notability is one of the (big) reasons why. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Why don't you again create another page called User:Callanecc/AFCA/Jianhui67 where we again work through tasks about AFD, notability and AFC. I can try to find some articles and tag them with AFD and then let you see whether it is okay or not? I know there is no AFCA tasks page. JianhuiMobile talk 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I probably will at some point in the next 24-48 hours, but have a go at the tasks I've suggested above and we can discuss them then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Probably tomorrow. It is already nighttime here. I bet it is 1.48am for you. Sorry to keep you up so late in the night. JianhuiMobile talk 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

List AFDs about notability here. Look for how the people voting support supported their case and explain how they did it and why their argument was valid.

Do I have to look for opened or closed cases? Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 10:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter a great deal as long as people have made arguments and justified why they believe the article is notable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have listed down 1 AFD here. It is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political messages of Dr. Seuss. Mdann52 nominated this article to be deleted because 'it's very out of place and doesn't serve much of a purpose' and 'was written as part of a college assignment'. Three editors voted for 'delete' because it is a research paper. However, there were many editors who voted for 'keep'. Warden mentioned that the topic was notable with a source from [1] and it is a good educational material. Thincat mentioned that the article was well referenced and also the topic meets the notability guildlines with some appropriate sources. There were two who voted for 'keep' subjected that it is merged with another article. But it cannot be merged per WP:SIZE without losing a lot of content. The article also passes WP:GNG, as it has significant coverage that addresses the topic in detail. Carrite mentioned that it 'is a topic covered in the scholarly literature' and 'passes GNG as a subject dealt with substantially in multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability'. The outcome of the AFD was to keep the article. Their argument was valid because it contains reliable sources with some secondary sources. The sources are published by different authors. It is also independent of the subject and presumed, as it contains significant coverage of reliable sources. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 12:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok give me some time and I'll find a couple for you to go through and explain, though I may be busy for a few days at least. In the meantime, find a few which the voters have talked about notability ONLY in their votes and comment on the reason they have voted that way. Looking specifically at the reason they voted either keep or delete regarding the notability of the argument and the evidence they used to back up their vote. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So is my answer and AFD good or not? JianhuiMobile ^talk 14:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I just want to focus strictly on the notabilty arguments so we can discuss them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)