This process is neither mandatory nor binding. Rather, it is a means to request an informal review of a new page patroller by an uninvolved third party. See also: WP:Dispute resolution and WP:Requests for undeletion

Shortcuts WP:NPP/N WP:NPPN

The New pages patrol noticeboard or NPP/N exists to provide a simple means for editors to request review of and provide feedback on the performance of an individual new page patroller. Unlike many other forms of dispute resolution, providing a notification of the discussion on the patroller's user talk page is not required.

How to list a new request[edit]

• Be civil, as is expected of everyone who edits Wikipedia.
• Start a new section at the bottom of this page, with the title matching the user name of the patroller.
• Provide your question or comment, why you are requesting review and/or feedback, and any other information that may be relevant to the person reviewing your post.
• Sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~

Providing a NPP review[edit]

• Be civil.
• Use plain language. Do not assume that the person requesting the review is familiar with Wikipedia's lexicon.
• Review the relevant article(s) history; the requesting editor's contributions and talk page history; and the reviewer's page curation log, talk page, and contributions.
• Provide a brief (2-3 sentence) analysis of the reviewer's actions. If any follow-up is performed elsewhere, provide a link or diff for reference.
• Avoid long, drawn out threads, instead sticking to a terse question/answer format. If request already has an answer, consider not chiming in.

Anyone except the original page patroller may provide a NPP review. However, reviews are most likely to be useful if they are performed by users with a good understanding of patrolling new pages and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you receive feedback from another editor that your review of an issue listed here was not adequate, please consider whether it is a good idea for you to continue performing reviews.

Common NPP outcomes[edit]

Note - please update these outcomes as conjecture yields to experience.

• Explain the issues - if the patroller's actions appear to have been correct, explain why each action, and particularly each tag, was performed on or added to the article.
• Provide feedback to the patroller - for minor issues, a simple talkback notice on the patroller's talk page linking to the review may suffice. For repeated or widespread violations, a sterner warning or formal warning template may be warranted.
• Escalate the issue - if the patroller's actions are particularly problematic or ongoing, escalation to more formal means of dispute resolution may be necessary.
• Remove the request - NPP review requests should be removed if they are clearly abusive. Closed good-faith requests will be archived after a period of time.