Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

New page reviewer

(add request · view requests)

User:Equivalent-Text2598

• Equivalent-Text2598 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I have now done quite a lot on AFC and reviewed quite a few articles, showing that I understand content policies. Furthermore, if you look at my interactions, you can see that I have always acted civilly and resolved any disputes. From my Counter Vandalism Work, you can see that I always inform a user when I revert their edit; the same happens with AFC (through the AFC helper).

I would primarily like this role as a counter-vandalism tool so that I can remove pages that are obviously vandalism, as I think that this is an important thing to do. I would also review other pages in order to help ease the backlog.

I would finally like to thank anyone who reviews this request.

Cheers,
Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for new page reviewer declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot ^talk 07:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

based on your AFC track record, conferring for 1 month as a trial run, after which you may reapply  Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@RosguillThank you very much. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill I am very sorry to disturb you. I am just re-reading your message, I would just like to clarify one thing. When you say based on my AFC track record, have I made any mistakes there (just in the context of the wording) and if so, could you please tell me where in order for me to improve?

Thanks so much and I really appreciate the time. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

It wasn’t in response to any mistake, but I would normally expect more AFD or article creation experience from applicants. Your AFC experience made up for that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

OK thank you so much for your reply.

I really appreciate it. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Haggis MacHaggis

• Haggis MacHaggis (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

hi, I would like to renew my NPP rights witch are about to expire. Different articles were reviewed over the last month, often after I added additional refs, images, or added/rephrased some text. After my adjustments, a few articles also got reviewed... by others :o) _regards Haggis MacHaggis (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Dclemens1971 (expires 00:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot ^talk 18:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Haggis MacHaggis, can you comment on your reviews of 418 (film), Sleepwalk (album), The Legend (2005 film), The Tank Man (2004), Dead Company, Sky Scrappers? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

hi, regarding my reviews, in hindsight...

• 418 is based entirely on trailer coverage/promotional sites, not the film -> independent reviews/critics should be added, among others.

• Sleepwalk lacks extra independent sources + 3 of the 6 refs all link to AllMusic... -> Again, extra reviews (that discuss the album) should be added here -if available...

• The Legend and The Tank Man both have production company sources: not neutral. The Legend also lacks extra reliable independent sources.

To my opinion :o)

• Dead Company and Sky Scrappers were already reviewed in August. The first one was discussed earlier: too many sources based on the same press release, yet the "reviewed" status was not removed afterwards... Sky Scrappers appears notable, but the article needs expanding.

In summary, most articles should have had additional neutral sources ...

regards, Haggis MacHaggis (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, while your assessments now are reasonable, this doesn't explain why you marked any of these reviewed at the time. I'm also a bit concerned by the way you have written "neutral" several times where the correct term is "independent". Taken together, I'm going to mark this request  Not done, but do consider applying again in the future. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Lynngol

• Lynngol (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: I have been editing since January 2025 and have over 1600 edits, among them 16 new articles that I wrote. I have also contributed to AfDs and DYKs and am familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I would like to help new editors improve their newly added content to Wikipedia and reduce the backlog of new articles. Lynngol (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions and your interest in this permission. Unfortunately, I see that you have received repeat warnings related to copyright use in the past 6 months, so I think conferring new page reviewer status would be premature. There also appear to be some machine-generate text concerns that at first you accepted but which you later disputed; be sure to remain above board with respect to the use of AI tools.  Not done for now, but consider reapplying in the future. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:59, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User:WikipediholicRat

• WikipediholicRat (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I am currently a temporary new page reviewer, but it seems this is about to run out. I am looking to extend for longer (hopefully indefinitely). WikipediholicRat (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot ^talk 14:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

WikipediholicRat, can you comment on your review of Tarahne Provincial Park? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems there was LLM content involved there; I tend to assume that an article is good until evidence shows it isn't, and it seems I wasn't able to detect the particular evidence showing LLM usage. WikipediholicRat (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

WikipediholicRat, LLM concerns aside, could you comment on how you assessed that page's claim to notability? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I do think I remember finding significant coverage, but after looking again, I can't find it again. I seem to have been mistaken there. WikipediholicRat (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that leaves me on the fence, so I'm going to extend your trial run for another month. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done for another month _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Sharkeston

• Sharkeston (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hello,

I believe I am eligible to obtain reviewer status. My account is over the minimum of 90 days old (been here since December), and has a history of I believe at least 500 undeleted edits (reaching around 6000 edits in general in total). I have also not engaged in incivil behavior to others, and I understand WP's policies in regarding matters.

One mistake I made prior to submitting a request here, was that I declined one draft myself without knowing you needed to apply first until now. Will this exempt me now from being able to review?

Please let me know. Thank you for taking your time. Sharkeston (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done for 1 month as a trial run, after which you may reapply _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User:TNM101

• TNM101 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

My trial rights are about to expire, and I would like to request them either on another trial or on a permanent basis. I think I have done well for my first few weeks as a NPP reviewer, making a few errors here and there but overall, I believe I have grasped the essence of patrolling. A slight error of judgement that I made along the way was also kindly corrected by Thilsebatti TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 17:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 17:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Track record looks good,  Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User:AriuCH

• AriuCH (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

My temporary New Pages Reviewer access is due to expire at 00:00 on 18 October 2026. If I am eligible, I would like to request permanent access before it expires, so that there is no break in my NPP workflow. Thank you. AriuCH (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 01:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

AriuCH, can you comment on your review of Remmie Milner? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Rosguill, Sure. I reviewed Remmie Milner as part of NPP because the article had two independent The Guardian theatre reviews with substantive coverage of her performances. Both discuss her individual roles and acting, rather than simply mentioning her in the cast. I considered this sufficient under WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. AriuCH (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I think in this context you're overweighting the depth of the coverage in question. A single line of analysis in a theatre review can contribute to notability, but two such examples do not add up to GNG in the absence of sources that actually provide biographical coverage of the subject. Particularly concerning in this article's case is the obvious lacuna in the article's own framing: the lead asserts that Milner is best known for her roles in Silo and Save Me, but neither of the actual cited sources even mention them. Looking online, however, there is additional coverage of Milner, so I don't think the article needs to go to AFD.

Given that slight miscalibration, I'm going to extend your trial run for another month. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

trial extended for another month.  Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosguill. That makes sense. AriuCH (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Emmanbotan

• Emmanbotan (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: i make articles of flora of vegatation zones, and i did my first good article Flora of Samoa Emmanbotan (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done for 1 month as a trial run, after which you may reapply _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)