![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
While reviewing the new pages Hatchie (artist) and Sugar & Spice (EP), I had trouble determining if they fit the criteria for speedy deletion and/or if they did or did not fulfill the notability criteria regarding musicians and bands. The musician, Hatchie, was mentioned in the bare minimum of two published works, which means this should be enough to avoid speedy deletion. However, the article itself does not establish notability, and only kind of fulfills 1 of 12 criteria for notability (it has a minimum of two sources to credible published works, which is technically "multiple" sources).
I looked the artist up and I believe that she is not (yet) notable enough to warrant an article. I am however, unsure if the article should be deleted or if it is technically passable. If another more experienced reviewer could check the pages too it would be greatly appreciated. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to move articles that were created in other languages to draft? They clearly aren't ready to be an article, in that they are in the english wikipedia and aren't english. I don't have a specific article in mind, I'm just wondering about the policy of this. Natureium ( talk) 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Jac16888:, I'm paging you here because of this with the edit summary "non english drafts should just be declined". Is this policy? Because if so, we have two conflicting instructions and should figure it out here. Natureium ( talk) 18:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we add to the tutorial page (or anywhere official, such as WP:DRAFTIFY) a brief list of examples where draftifying articles is standard? Such as article with acceptable topics that are in a foreign language, consisting just of an infobox, etc.? I've been seeing questions on when draftifying is appropriate here (by me and others) and elsewhere such as at WP:AN today. Natureium ( talk) 18:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
Maybe we should hold a push in first or second week of June, emphasising on "just 5 to 10 reviews per day to destroy the entire backlog."? That way, almost every reviewer who has seen/read about that push might participate, as the numbers arent big. I mean, they would be like "5 reviews per day? I can easily do that". Considering only 100 reviewers would review 7 pages per day, that would be 700 per day, and 7000 in the week. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I unreviewed an article, and left a note to editor who reviewed it; using the curation toolbar. Then I took the article to AfD, and page creator received this on his talkpage. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 06:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Please could someone check List of school mass shootings in the United States. Earwig gives it as a massive copyvio of this site. I cannot access the source because it is not available in the EU, so I am unable to assess whether this is an unambiguous copyvio. The article creator has no history of copyvios on his talk page. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 20:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The copyvio tool appears to be broken. Is there a backup plan for when this happens, or is NPP at a halt? Natureium ( talk) 15:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion here about a speedy that was declined at Skandha (disambiguation), which is linking to Skandha (Jainism) and Skandha.
The new page curation tool says:
Whereas WP:CSD says:
I didn't know there was a difference and have been going by the NPP curation tool explanation and have never had a speedy declined before. I assumed that a disambig page was unnecessary because a hat note could just be added to the article without a parenthetical descriptor in the title. Please advise. Natureium ( talk) 15:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11 and WP:COIN#Mar11 reviews. – Joe ( talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just getting paranoid - but a monolithic, highly structured article dump like Access to information rings some alarm bells. I can't find any obvious copyvios with search engine pasting and Earwig; still, I somehow doubt that the editor just prepared this entire oeuvre in her mind's eye and then posted it picture-perfect. Particularly since a) there's no sandboxing of this thing in her history whatsoever, and b) looking at her talk page, she's been in some hot water before for copyright violations via text dump. - Left it unreviewed for the time being; if someone wants to have a look, that'd be welcome. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi I came across this Tattooed On My Brain that was created by this IP Special:Contributions/188.174.175.144 but they only have 2 live edits and no notifications on their talk page (so no deleted pages I suppose). They can't be autoconfirmed can they? I saw that User:Firefly moved the talk page to mainspace, does that mean a non autoconfirmed user can create a talk page in mainspace and if it gets moved then this bypasses what was decided in ACTRIAL? Dom from Paris ( talk) 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody please take a look at List of professed religious? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I started wading through this article but it is way too heavy. I am sure this is in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK this can only interest a very very small audience. Can ayone suggest the best way of treating this because the article creator has created other highly detailed and heavy articles on the same subject Thought-Forms (book) Christianity and Theosophy. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I was just about to move this to draftspace as something that seemed dubiously notable and insufficiently in comportment with sourcing and content standards, put potentially resuable. Then I noted that the article author appears to be the same person as the author of the only (and almost certainly non-reliable) source, which increased my concerns about promotion, however non-self-serving the organization may be, by its nature. This is a close call and I have not been exercising the reviewer permission for long, so I thought I would get some outside input. All factors considered, I think CSD or at least AfD may be appropriate here, but there may be an argument for moving to draft space and giving the author a chance to provide additional sourcing--it's just that I have serious doubts that there is a realistic chance said source would be forthcoming. Thoughts on the best approach in such a borderline case? Snow let's rap 07:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The call signs for radio stations periodically change. There seem to be a couple of editors who are taking formerly used call signs that were turned into redirects and (re)creating article pages. The first time I had restored the redirect, this process was then explained to me, and I've seen marked as reviewed a couple others. But since there seem to be even more (one that is in the feed as I write this is KYPY) thought I would see what others think as it seems like it might be an undesirable contentfork. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Is thee any reason for tagging unsubmitted drafts using NPP for routine problems, as for example at Draft:TBM_QLN_Express? I can see checking them as submitted for copyvio, but otherwise it's only going to complicate the work of AfC. (Accepted drafts are another matter--they need to be checked like any other article, rather than just assuming the AfC reviewers got it right.) DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hullo. I was granted New Page Reviewer rights a while back and I did a few but I never showed up in the statistics. I held off for a while trying to figure if I was doing something wrong. I am trying again, any page I review drops off the queue but if you look at the Page Patrol log for my username, it doesn't show any since 2014. I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong. Thanks, in advance. Ifnord ( talk) 03:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with a bunch of articles that were all created by the same author in the last two months. Helpfully they have also created a dedicated list article that enumerates the lot:
(Based on that, we also can look forward to
)
All of these articles lean very heavily on the essay side and have scarce sourcing. Each individual one I would have treated as previous reviewers apparently have - tag as in need of better sourcing and de-essaying, and trust in the Wiki process to clean it up. What gives me pause is the bulk addition of a whole group of these, all with the same problems. This looks like a "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" thing - lots of articles, with individual problems that are possibly fixable; seen as a group, they add up to a larger problem that is unlikely to be fixed.
I haven't encountered this before, so I'd like some input. Not sure what options exist here, and if any action is even considered necessary. I just feel that letting all of these slide in individually is like trickle-feeding castor oil - no single drop is going to mess you up, but you'll be regretting the aggregate. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 11:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for their recent contributions. The backlog is just about to dip below 1500, with the number of unreviewed redirects also rapidly shrinking (under 2400). Looks like we could have the entire backlog gone by the end of the month. I've been focusing a bit more of my time towards vetting and inviting people to become new reviewers, so that the project will be stable in the long term, but thanks again for all of you that have resolutely been chipping away at the coal face. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Inspired by Natureium in the Hoax section above, I have put down in writing the checklist I use for dealing with pages in the queue that frequently occur when using the sort by oldest. This includes some procedures I've made up wholesale for things like dealing with new dabs or articles already tagged for deletion for which I could find no existing policy or procedures. I welcome any thoughts/comments/additions/changes. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
We have already experienced the effect of new reviewers: the backlog dropped massively when ICPH invited editors to become reviewers. As I stated a few times previously, after a period most of the editors lose interest from reviewing articles, even if they remain active on enwiki.
Currently we are on such a turn, where the "opportunity" of reviewing article might become occasional, like PCR. a few weeks ago, the average number of new articles being created was around 600-700 per day (before AC-REQ), I dont know about now. Also, i dont know about PCR rate either. The point is, editors becoming reviewers under current circumstances will lose the interest a lot later than previous ones, maybe even never. Till now, most of the active reviewers were under pressure/burden and/or obligation (whether conscious and/or subconscious/subliminal). But if the backlog stays below 500, reviewing would become fun (ie not under pressure). But to keep the backlog under 500, we will need more number of active reviewers for two or three weeks. If we recruit a lot of (number of) competent reviewers, then I think we will manage to keep the backlog under 500 or maybe even less, like PCR. So the bottomline is: I think along with the reviewing, we should always keep a lookout for worthy editors, and invite them. These are just my thoughts though. —usernamekiran
(talk) 18:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
In this month's issue of The Signpost is a report on ongoing technical developments to the New Pages Feed. The magazine now goes out regularly, usually to be published on the last Friday of the month with copy deadline a week before. It often includes reports on NPR and related issues which can sometimes avoid the need of duplication and/or too frequent issues of the NPP newsletter. As The Signpost has a wide readership and reports are usually in-depth, the editorial team welcomes suggestions and submissions from New Page Reviewers on the topic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
At 16:40 (04:40PM UTC) 28 June, the backlog dropped to 700 during the concentrated backlog drive. Down from around 17,000 a year ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
We started with almost 3000 articles in the backlog, and now there are less than 500.
With only 500 unreviewd articles left, I think we can stop calling it a backlog, and start calling it 'the queue' or something else. If it wasn't for the bug that resulted in autopatrolled articles ending up in the NPP feed, I think we would have reveiwed all of the articles, but nevertheless it is hard to call this anything but an unmitigated success. Thanks to everyone that contributed to reviewing during the backlog drive since I sent out the announcement on the 16th (together we reviewed 17193 pages!), and special thanks especially to Onel5969, who reviewed 4649 pages by himself during the drive. I'll be sending out Barnstars to the 32 editors that reviewed >100 articles during the drive.
Keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I know we had tentatively scheduled a backlog push for 10th to the 20th June. Sorry for not making that happen, I had my birthday last weekend, and during the week have been off on remote site work for my IRL job.
We have had a bit of a backlog reduction since the drive was proposed, so I'm not certain that it is currently necessary. However, if people are still keen to have a push to eliminate the backlog, I propose that we push it back to 20th-30th June, and I will put together a newsletter this weekend with regards to this if people are keen. I'm thinking that anyone who reviews at least 50 articles over the 10 days gets a Special Edition NPP Barnstar (the silver and gold ones that are only given out in backlog drives). Additionally, there will specialised tiers for those who reach 100/200/500/1000 reviews. Note that there are currently 3100 unreviewed articles and 7500 total unreviewed pages, including redirects. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 08:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It can be found at Special:Log/create. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
While reviewing the new pages Hatchie (artist) and Sugar & Spice (EP), I had trouble determining if they fit the criteria for speedy deletion and/or if they did or did not fulfill the notability criteria regarding musicians and bands. The musician, Hatchie, was mentioned in the bare minimum of two published works, which means this should be enough to avoid speedy deletion. However, the article itself does not establish notability, and only kind of fulfills 1 of 12 criteria for notability (it has a minimum of two sources to credible published works, which is technically "multiple" sources).
I looked the artist up and I believe that she is not (yet) notable enough to warrant an article. I am however, unsure if the article should be deleted or if it is technically passable. If another more experienced reviewer could check the pages too it would be greatly appreciated. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to move articles that were created in other languages to draft? They clearly aren't ready to be an article, in that they are in the english wikipedia and aren't english. I don't have a specific article in mind, I'm just wondering about the policy of this. Natureium ( talk) 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Jac16888:, I'm paging you here because of this with the edit summary "non english drafts should just be declined". Is this policy? Because if so, we have two conflicting instructions and should figure it out here. Natureium ( talk) 18:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we add to the tutorial page (or anywhere official, such as WP:DRAFTIFY) a brief list of examples where draftifying articles is standard? Such as article with acceptable topics that are in a foreign language, consisting just of an infobox, etc.? I've been seeing questions on when draftifying is appropriate here (by me and others) and elsewhere such as at WP:AN today. Natureium ( talk) 18:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
|
Maybe we should hold a push in first or second week of June, emphasising on "just 5 to 10 reviews per day to destroy the entire backlog."? That way, almost every reviewer who has seen/read about that push might participate, as the numbers arent big. I mean, they would be like "5 reviews per day? I can easily do that". Considering only 100 reviewers would review 7 pages per day, that would be 700 per day, and 7000 in the week. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I unreviewed an article, and left a note to editor who reviewed it; using the curation toolbar. Then I took the article to AfD, and page creator received this on his talkpage. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 06:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Please could someone check List of school mass shootings in the United States. Earwig gives it as a massive copyvio of this site. I cannot access the source because it is not available in the EU, so I am unable to assess whether this is an unambiguous copyvio. The article creator has no history of copyvios on his talk page. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 20:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The copyvio tool appears to be broken. Is there a backup plan for when this happens, or is NPP at a halt? Natureium ( talk) 15:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion here about a speedy that was declined at Skandha (disambiguation), which is linking to Skandha (Jainism) and Skandha.
The new page curation tool says:
Whereas WP:CSD says:
I didn't know there was a difference and have been going by the NPP curation tool explanation and have never had a speedy declined before. I assumed that a disambig page was unnecessary because a hat note could just be added to the article without a parenthetical descriptor in the title. Please advise. Natureium ( talk) 15:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11 and WP:COIN#Mar11 reviews. – Joe ( talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just getting paranoid - but a monolithic, highly structured article dump like Access to information rings some alarm bells. I can't find any obvious copyvios with search engine pasting and Earwig; still, I somehow doubt that the editor just prepared this entire oeuvre in her mind's eye and then posted it picture-perfect. Particularly since a) there's no sandboxing of this thing in her history whatsoever, and b) looking at her talk page, she's been in some hot water before for copyright violations via text dump. - Left it unreviewed for the time being; if someone wants to have a look, that'd be welcome. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi I came across this Tattooed On My Brain that was created by this IP Special:Contributions/188.174.175.144 but they only have 2 live edits and no notifications on their talk page (so no deleted pages I suppose). They can't be autoconfirmed can they? I saw that User:Firefly moved the talk page to mainspace, does that mean a non autoconfirmed user can create a talk page in mainspace and if it gets moved then this bypasses what was decided in ACTRIAL? Dom from Paris ( talk) 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody please take a look at List of professed religious? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I started wading through this article but it is way too heavy. I am sure this is in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK this can only interest a very very small audience. Can ayone suggest the best way of treating this because the article creator has created other highly detailed and heavy articles on the same subject Thought-Forms (book) Christianity and Theosophy. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I was just about to move this to draftspace as something that seemed dubiously notable and insufficiently in comportment with sourcing and content standards, put potentially resuable. Then I noted that the article author appears to be the same person as the author of the only (and almost certainly non-reliable) source, which increased my concerns about promotion, however non-self-serving the organization may be, by its nature. This is a close call and I have not been exercising the reviewer permission for long, so I thought I would get some outside input. All factors considered, I think CSD or at least AfD may be appropriate here, but there may be an argument for moving to draft space and giving the author a chance to provide additional sourcing--it's just that I have serious doubts that there is a realistic chance said source would be forthcoming. Thoughts on the best approach in such a borderline case? Snow let's rap 07:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The call signs for radio stations periodically change. There seem to be a couple of editors who are taking formerly used call signs that were turned into redirects and (re)creating article pages. The first time I had restored the redirect, this process was then explained to me, and I've seen marked as reviewed a couple others. But since there seem to be even more (one that is in the feed as I write this is KYPY) thought I would see what others think as it seems like it might be an undesirable contentfork. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Is thee any reason for tagging unsubmitted drafts using NPP for routine problems, as for example at Draft:TBM_QLN_Express? I can see checking them as submitted for copyvio, but otherwise it's only going to complicate the work of AfC. (Accepted drafts are another matter--they need to be checked like any other article, rather than just assuming the AfC reviewers got it right.) DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hullo. I was granted New Page Reviewer rights a while back and I did a few but I never showed up in the statistics. I held off for a while trying to figure if I was doing something wrong. I am trying again, any page I review drops off the queue but if you look at the Page Patrol log for my username, it doesn't show any since 2014. I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong. Thanks, in advance. Ifnord ( talk) 03:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with a bunch of articles that were all created by the same author in the last two months. Helpfully they have also created a dedicated list article that enumerates the lot:
(Based on that, we also can look forward to
)
All of these articles lean very heavily on the essay side and have scarce sourcing. Each individual one I would have treated as previous reviewers apparently have - tag as in need of better sourcing and de-essaying, and trust in the Wiki process to clean it up. What gives me pause is the bulk addition of a whole group of these, all with the same problems. This looks like a "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" thing - lots of articles, with individual problems that are possibly fixable; seen as a group, they add up to a larger problem that is unlikely to be fixed.
I haven't encountered this before, so I'd like some input. Not sure what options exist here, and if any action is even considered necessary. I just feel that letting all of these slide in individually is like trickle-feeding castor oil - no single drop is going to mess you up, but you'll be regretting the aggregate. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 11:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for their recent contributions. The backlog is just about to dip below 1500, with the number of unreviewed redirects also rapidly shrinking (under 2400). Looks like we could have the entire backlog gone by the end of the month. I've been focusing a bit more of my time towards vetting and inviting people to become new reviewers, so that the project will be stable in the long term, but thanks again for all of you that have resolutely been chipping away at the coal face. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Inspired by Natureium in the Hoax section above, I have put down in writing the checklist I use for dealing with pages in the queue that frequently occur when using the sort by oldest. This includes some procedures I've made up wholesale for things like dealing with new dabs or articles already tagged for deletion for which I could find no existing policy or procedures. I welcome any thoughts/comments/additions/changes. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
We have already experienced the effect of new reviewers: the backlog dropped massively when ICPH invited editors to become reviewers. As I stated a few times previously, after a period most of the editors lose interest from reviewing articles, even if they remain active on enwiki.
Currently we are on such a turn, where the "opportunity" of reviewing article might become occasional, like PCR. a few weeks ago, the average number of new articles being created was around 600-700 per day (before AC-REQ), I dont know about now. Also, i dont know about PCR rate either. The point is, editors becoming reviewers under current circumstances will lose the interest a lot later than previous ones, maybe even never. Till now, most of the active reviewers were under pressure/burden and/or obligation (whether conscious and/or subconscious/subliminal). But if the backlog stays below 500, reviewing would become fun (ie not under pressure). But to keep the backlog under 500, we will need more number of active reviewers for two or three weeks. If we recruit a lot of (number of) competent reviewers, then I think we will manage to keep the backlog under 500 or maybe even less, like PCR. So the bottomline is: I think along with the reviewing, we should always keep a lookout for worthy editors, and invite them. These are just my thoughts though. —usernamekiran
(talk) 18:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
In this month's issue of The Signpost is a report on ongoing technical developments to the New Pages Feed. The magazine now goes out regularly, usually to be published on the last Friday of the month with copy deadline a week before. It often includes reports on NPR and related issues which can sometimes avoid the need of duplication and/or too frequent issues of the NPP newsletter. As The Signpost has a wide readership and reports are usually in-depth, the editorial team welcomes suggestions and submissions from New Page Reviewers on the topic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
At 16:40 (04:40PM UTC) 28 June, the backlog dropped to 700 during the concentrated backlog drive. Down from around 17,000 a year ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
We started with almost 3000 articles in the backlog, and now there are less than 500.
With only 500 unreviewd articles left, I think we can stop calling it a backlog, and start calling it 'the queue' or something else. If it wasn't for the bug that resulted in autopatrolled articles ending up in the NPP feed, I think we would have reveiwed all of the articles, but nevertheless it is hard to call this anything but an unmitigated success. Thanks to everyone that contributed to reviewing during the backlog drive since I sent out the announcement on the 16th (together we reviewed 17193 pages!), and special thanks especially to Onel5969, who reviewed 4649 pages by himself during the drive. I'll be sending out Barnstars to the 32 editors that reviewed >100 articles during the drive.
Keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I know we had tentatively scheduled a backlog push for 10th to the 20th June. Sorry for not making that happen, I had my birthday last weekend, and during the week have been off on remote site work for my IRL job.
We have had a bit of a backlog reduction since the drive was proposed, so I'm not certain that it is currently necessary. However, if people are still keen to have a push to eliminate the backlog, I propose that we push it back to 20th-30th June, and I will put together a newsletter this weekend with regards to this if people are keen. I'm thinking that anyone who reviews at least 50 articles over the 10 days gets a Special Edition NPP Barnstar (the silver and gold ones that are only given out in backlog drives). Additionally, there will specialised tiers for those who reach 100/200/500/1000 reviews. Note that there are currently 3100 unreviewed articles and 7500 total unreviewed pages, including redirects. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 08:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It can be found at Special:Log/create. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)