Wikipedia:Quick guide to reviewing new articles
![]() | This is an WP:QGRNA |
This page contains short guides and advice for reviewing various types of articles as part of
If you feel like you're out of your depth evaluating an article, add the article to your watchlist and move on to the next article. Note what the next editor to review it does, and if it varies significantly from what your hunch was, start a discussion about it.
Summary of outcomes
Accept – articles that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be marked as reviewed and thus accepted into the encyclopedia. Articles should be further tagged with WikiProjects, (consider using
General advice for evaluating sources
The
Sources not included in existing source guides can be brought to
The
Inaccessible and non-English sources
Remember that when evaluating articles,
For most languages other than English that you're likely to come across in article submissions, Google Translate is sufficient for assessing whether a reference has significant coverage of a subject and verifying important claims. It may be insufficient for assessing the reliability of a source, and it may also be difficult to search for additional coverage of a subject in a language that you lack proficiency in. Consider leaving articles in unfamiliar languages to editors that are more proficient, although at a certain point our team of reviewers only has so many language proficiencies and you may need to make decisions about such articles with incomplete information. Editors interested in spending a significant amount of time reviewing pages may want to consider studying additional languages. Even minimal proficiency in a language can be extremely helpful. In the case of languages that use other alphabets, it can be useful even just to learn how to phonetically read the alphabet so that you can identify names.
Subject-specific guides
Biographies
Biographies of living people are one of the most problem-rife types of new articles due to people attempting to use the site as an outlet for self-promotion. A dead giveaway for likely COI is an infobox photo that looks like a glossy professional headshot instead of a more candid photo, especially if the headshot is attributed to the editor that wrote the article as "own work", which suggests that either the editor met the subject in person or filed the image permissions incorrectly for an image that they were given (provided that a reverse-image search confirms that the image is not available elsewhere online). When dealing with potentially-promotional articles about subjects that are notable, be sure to check for additional sources online, as a draft written by a paid editor may intentionally skip over significant controversies or scandals involving the subject. Accurately updating the article may in some cases be a more fitting punishment for would-be promotionalists than deleting it.
Biographies for long-dead figures are much less likely to be created for promotional reasons. Notability guidelines are often relaxed for historical figures for whom there may be few surviving sources despite having clear claims to importance.
For biographical subjects that do not meet notability guidelines but who are associated with a notable creative work or company, redirecting to the notable article may be preferable to deletion.
Companies and organizations
Companies and organizations are subject to some of the most stringent notability guidelines on Wikipedia due to the subject matter's propensity for hiring
Educational institutions
Schools
Educational institutions below the university level are expected to meet
Local newspapers are the most likely sources to cover schools, although larger publications may also cover particularly notable schools.
Universities
Virtually all accredited universities are notable. Colleges or other institutions within a university may be notable, but notability should not be assumed even for institutes at prestigious universities (although many will be). When not notable, content can often be merged into the article of the university.
University-level student publications are often not considered reliable sources, but may be considered marginally reliable for information about student groups.
Food
Academic journals, newspapers and magazines may have reliable coverage of food. While some recipe books may include information about recipes, bare recipe instructions are primary (and often self-published) and thus don't contribute toward notability. Food articles often contain original research, and claims about a recipe's origins may be contentious; depending on the author, a cook book may be able to provide reliable information about ingredients or variations, but not necessarily its history. When evaluating articles about dishes, make sure to search for any listed synonyms, likely misspellings, or non-English names to verify that we don't already have an article about the subject. Similarly, the article may have been created at a title that is not actually the most
National or ethnic cuisine articles, such as Mexican cuisine or Jewish cuisine, are almost always notable, although they may be poorly sourced, non-neutral, or far from complete
Geography
For many types of geography articles, primary sources published by governments are often reliable, and can be considered when assessing notability. Articles passed on such a standard should be tagged with {{more citations needed}}
Inhabited places
Distinct inhabited places are virtually always notable per the subject-specific notability guideline, although neighborhoods, suburbs, commercial parks and other divisions without legal recognition are not considered to be automatically notable.
Roads
Major roads in cities and highways are highly likely to meet
Music
For most music-related subjects, any source with a fully professional editorial board and bylines on its articles can be considered reliable provided that it is not writing obviously promotional coverage. Note that many reliable sources will also run articles that promote an upcoming concert or that hype a recent release without providing much in the way of significant coverage.
Music-related topics see a fair amount of paid editing, as well as editing by fans. Non-neutral language and excessively long quotes are common problems for articles about this topic.
Songs and albums
The bread and butter of reliable coverage for songs and albums are critical reviews. When assessing notability, be careful to check that the reviews are not paid placements or self-published. The subject-specific notability guides for these subjects specifies that charting is a likely indicator of notability: in practice, unless there are several reasons to suspect that significant coverage does not exist of an album or song that has charted, an article about an album that has charted is extremely unlikely to be found not notable at AfD. Note that even RS sometimes run short pieces that are more of a promotional piece than a real review; such pieces should be assessed for their depth of coverage, and are marginally more acceptable for songs than for albums. You should also be mindful of
Songs that are not notable should be pointed to albums, and albums that are not notable should be converted to redirects pointing to either the recording artist, or if applicable, a discography page for the recording artist. Songs should only be pointed to the recording artist if they are mentioned in the article and no album article is available. If the conversion to redirect is contested, AfD is an appropriate forum to resolve the matter.
Albums that have not been released yet are very rarely notable, although if a release is days away for a major recording artist and has already generated anticipatory coverage in major music publications it's often not worth the hassle of redirecting or deleting. Songs are virtually never notable in advance of their release, and redirects from speculative songtitles to albums or artists should not be created.
Science
When evaluating the notability of a scientific concept, the main thing is to check that papers have been published on the subject by scientists working independently of each other: cross check the full authors list of cited papers. Google Scholar is a good place to search for coverage. Many papers will be paywalled, and in some cases you may have to make educated guesses based only on a paper's title and abstract.
Ethnic groups
Most ethnic groups that are verifiably distinct subjects are notable, but poorly sourced articles on these subjects may be better off merged into a higher-level article, if one is available. Immigrant groups in a specific region (e.g.
Medicine
Medical claims in articles are subject to some of the strictest sourcing requirements, which are detailed at
Sports
Sports biographies
Following the removal of appearance-based SNG criteria for sports biographies, subjects of such articles are expected to demonstrably meet GNG. Winning or medalling in top-level tournaments is still considered a valid SNG for these topics. Given that the prior SNGs conferring notability to nearly all fully-professional players were in force for many years, it is advised to move slowly when nominating such articles for deletion, starting with {{notability}} tags and nominating towards AfD if no improvement follows the tagging.
Seasons and tournaments
Sports seasons are nominally subject to GNG, but enforcement is fairly lax as information in the articles is usually trivially verifiable and neutral. This is particularly true for league-level articles, assuming that the league is fully professional or in the NCAA.
Tournament events may be covered by
Rivalries
Sports rivalry articles are very often full of original research. Make sure that there are reliable sources that cover the rivalry itself, beyond simply confirming that the teams played each other.
See also
- The new pages patrol guide to reviewing redirects
- The new page reviewer noticeboard
Notes
- in the NPP tutorial. In the interest of steering new page reviewers clear of disputes with other editors, this guide includes a very sparing list of use-cases for draftification, as the process's usage in other contexts can be controversial.