Wikipedia:New pages patrol

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Congratulations on becoming a New Page Reviewer. Reviewing new pages is the one of the most important single maintenance tasks on the whole site. It's what keeps bad pages out, and equally important, it gives a boost to new, good faith users creating their first genuine articles. Reviewing new pages needs a thorough knowledge of deletion and notability guidelines.

New Page Review is a vital function as the front line of interaction between new authors and community members devoted to policing the quality of the project. It has a variety of detailed, quite complex possible actions for patrolling pages in all namespaces. Only New Page Reviewers can mark pages as 'Reviewed' or 'Patrolled' which releases them for indexing by search engines. Any reviewing action done through the page curation toolbar by a reviewer marks an article as reviewed (adding maintenance tags, nominating for deletion, etc.). If you don't want the article marked as reviewed, you can unreview it by opening the review panel and clicking "Mark as unreviewed".

Basic flow chart

If you are new to New Page Reviewing, it is essential that you also read Page Curation Help, view its video tour and read WP:FIELD. Reviewing needs a near-admin knowledge of deletion and notability policies.

It is important to review correctly and seriously. The sheer volume of articles created is immense. Even a few percentage points more of erroneous or bitey reviewing can adversely affect hundreds of articles or deter many new users a day. It is critical that editors don't review sloppily nor treat it as a game or contest.

Reviewing is entirely voluntary and carries no obligation.

Watch a quick video tour
New Pages Feed screenshot

Tools: Unlike other web sites, blogs and forums, Wikipedia already puts powerful editing tools at the hands of all readers and users. New pages review is our first line of defense against unwanted pages or for quick, on-the-fly improvement of poorly written or constructed pages and it must be done accurately. Some useful reviewing tools can automate parts of the process. The Page Curation tool, launched in September 2012 after a year of analysis and development in direct collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation, combines the New Pages Feed with a dedicated tagging, messaging, and logging system for routine reviewing. It replaces Twinkle for new page reviewing, which nevertheless provides tagging and deletion tools (as well as other tools useful for general maintenance) for pages that do not show in the New Pages Feed. New page reviewers have the option of using a user script that combines the two main Page Curation features, namely the Special:NewPagesFeed and the curation toolbar. The old Special:NewPages feed can be accessed using this script.

Tools such as Huggle and Stiki are specifically designed for counter-vandalism and are fine for vandalism patrollers; they should never be used for reviewing new pages.

If you have a question or concern, post a message at the New pages patrol noticeboard, and an experienced reviewer or editor will be along soon to help you. For other help using the tools, see the related tabs above.

The purpose of reviewing new pages

The primary purposes of new page patrolling are to identify articles which do not meet the criteria for inclusion and/or to tag them for any glaring issues that need attention. Most critical are copyright violations and defamatory material about living persons, followed closely by pages whose creators seek to exploit our voluntary work for financial gain. Other pages may also need to be deleted, but deletion for other reasons may be less urgent – pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines.

A new feature (not yet implemented) of the Curation tool will enable reviewers to move to the Draft namespace any new articles that, while not being suitable for immediate publication, show the potential for being accepted if the creator is allowed more time for development. Note: This 'Move to Draft' tool is to be used with discretion, it is not a catchall for not knowing what to do with a new page. Reviewers are encouraged to make frequent use of the existing message to creator tool. It is essential that new creators are encouraged to continue with their acceptable new articles.


New Page Review is essentially the first (and only) firewall against totally unwanted content and the place to broadly accept articles that may not be perfect but do not need to be deleted. New Page Reviews should not feel obligated to mentor new users or complete their articles. There are other venues better suited for these tasks such as the Teahouse question forum, help desk and Articles for Creation to which new editors should be directed for in depth help. Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, the Wikipedia:Tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure, and other help pages are also available. When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will need a final check through New Pages Review. It is very possible that regular reviewers from the AfC team will apply for the New Page Reviewer flag; this is highly desirable given their related expertise.

Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginally poor. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later.

Care should be exercised when reviewing very new pages. Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may only serve to annoy the page author.

Reviewers must read and fully understand Wikipedia's deletion policy and preferably consign it to memory. A page may be nominated for speedy deletion only if it meets one of the strict criteria and no independent editor could reasonably be expected to contest the deletion. If a reviewer thinks a page should be deleted but it is not a candidate for speedy deletion, AfD, PROD or WP:BLPPROD must be used instead. Spurious nominations for speedy deletion, even if the article is later deleted at AfD, are damaging to Wikipedia and may quickly result in the reviewer losing their 'reviewer' flag and in the worst case scenarios, being blocked from editing.

If the page is not a candidate for deletion but has other problems, add appropriate tags and use the message feature of the curation tool to inform the creator of the issues (see the patroller checklists section below for more information).

User names and vandalism

In some cases, the creator of a new page may need to be blocked to prevent further disruption, a breach of policy, or damage to Wikipedia's reputation. Familiarise yourself with the WP:UAA and WP:AIV systems and their policies and report such cases as necessary.

Wikipedia forensics

Page reviewers are also detectives and are often credited with the discovery of serious breaches of policy such as sockpuppetry, advocacy, serial copyright violations, undisclosed paid editing (see Orangemoody), and Child protection issues. Check the content of new article for inline external links and apparently harmless sources. Familiarise yourself with these policies and what to do.

Your patrol log and Watchlist

Check your patrol log frequently for articles that you tagged for deletion but which are still blue linked - it could be that the creator or his sock has removed the the PROD or CSD tag. You may also wish to set your Watchlist preferences to display all pages that you edit.

Monitoring the system

A New Page Reviewer is the second set of eyes. Remember that page tagging can still be carried out by any user. Although they don't have access to the features of New Pages Feed, even IP users can tag pages. Tagged pages remain listed in the feed until patrolled by a reviewer, enabling New Page Reviewers to identify and isolate poor patrolling. Use the 'Unreview' feature for good faith errors and see the templates that can be used to encourage users to do less demanding maintenance tasks until they have more experience. Generally, Template 'Stop #1' is friendly enough and the effort is to be supportive rather than assertive. In persistent cases however, it will be necessary to escalate through the warning levels. At Level 4, a block is usually appropriate at the very next tagging. Preferably notify an admin. Only post a case at WP:ANI if no admin is available to stop a disruptive spree. See: User Warnings.