Wikipedia:Articles written by a single editor (WP:ASE)

Articles written by a single editor have a higher probability of needing attention than those which have received contributions from several editors. So, we generate a list of articles that have been written by an inexperienced editor and have not yet received any collaboration. Some of the articles are good, but others need to be fixed or flagged appropriately, so that the topic experts can enhance them. When reviewing an article, the underlying idea is: Fix what you can fix and tag the rest, so that more experienced editors can find and fix them. Helping is easy, fast and even entertaining, if you are curious. First open the Articles list in a new window, and begin reviewing the articles. When you're done, delete the article(s) from the articles list. Feedback is always welcome on the talk page.  For each article, check all of the following things:  If the article contains insults, random characters, such as "dkhgdsklhskl" or any other nonsense, then revert the problems or delete the nonsense. If there are no good revisions to revert back to, then nominate for speedy deletion. If the article appears to be a blatant advertisement, then place {{advert}}, or if it's irredeemable, add {{db-g11}} at the top of the article. If the article does not have enough wikilinks, then place {{dead end}}, for no links or {{underlinked}}, for few links at the top of the article. If the article is about something that might not be notable enough, then place {{notability}} at the top of the article. If you feel the article needs a topic expert's attention, then place {{expert-subject}} at the top of the article. In any other cases of problematic content, place {{cleanup}}, and explain the problems in the tag or on the talk page, at the top of the article.Please also check:  Stubs: If the article is very short, perhaps only a few sentences and needs to be developed, then it is a stub. If the article is not yet tagged as a stub, then place {{stub}} at the bottom of the article. First sentence: The first sentence of the article must introduce the context. For instance, the Jazz article's first sentence must at least explain that Jazz is a kind of music, with a wikilink to the Music article. If it does not, please fix it. If fixing it is too difficult, place {{lead rewrite}} at the top of the article. Sources: If the article does not cite any sources or references for facts that are likely to be challenged, then paste {{unreferenced}} at the top of the article. If it has some sources, but you think it needs more, place {{citations missing}} at the top of the article. If there are sources, open them and check that the content of the article matches. Take note of the "magic number" which can be found at the bottom of the articles list (for instance: 1050). Go to https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/48504 Log in (you can use your Wikimedia account). Press "Fork". At the first line of the script (which starts with "SET @MAGIC"), replace the number with the one you got in step 1. Press "Submit Query". Wait until the query completes, it can take up to 30 minutes. A list of page titles appears at the bottom. Press "Download" and "TSV". Open the TSV file with any text editor. Copy the content to the articles list (just the line after "List:"). Increment the magic number by 50, for instance if it was 1050 replace it with 1100, and save.If anything does not work as expected, please detail the problem on my talk page, thanks!  You may be interested in placing the userbox shown below onto your userpage with the following code:   {{Wikipedia:Articles written by a single editor/Userbox}}      If you would like an article to be checked, simply add it to any section of the articles list. Some of the listed articles may already have more than one author, because the list is not updated that often. It does not matter, just check them like the others. Technophiles might be interested in collaborating on the source code used to generate the list: SQL script, currently used: See the link above Groovy script, abandoned because it was inefficient, taking a lot of server resources Dump-based approach, abandoned because the list would become stale before half of it is reviewed.