Talk:Angel Rich

I think your work is good and tells us the basics of who angel rich was and what did they do. Ericabpap (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the article is good and it tells all of the basic stuff about Angel Rich. Cayleeloft123!!! (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 19 October 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spring05 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Iheartpizza, Kiryui.Kazuma.

— Assignment last updated by CuriousKurti (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa - We noticed the unusual activity as well and are glad that you blocked access to that. We have a student who began working on filling a content gap before all of this happened and is getting ready to publish her additions. What is the process for her to be able to do this, given the block on the page? We can share her sandbox draft page where she's editing if that would be helpful. Thank you! -ProfK CuriousKurti (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The draft is User:AngelicaManz/Angel Rich. There's several problems with the proposed additions.

• The content in the first paragraph is copied/too closely paraphrased from Andscape
• The second proposed paragraph is written by a large language model (it's AI generated content)
• Regardless of the above two issues, the proposed content has a promotional advertorial tone and is unsuitable for that reason.

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'm assessing the content currently but was asking about the process if we can get it edited in the appropriate manner. CuriousKurti (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Good morning Dianna I made the three chnages that you said and I wanted to see if I can go live in oder to complete my project for my CIS101 class? Spring05 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

No, this content is still not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Here are the reasons:

• Substituting words while still presenting the same ideas in the same order and keeping the sentence stucture intact is still too-close paraphrasing and is not acceptable. It's a violation of our copyrignt policy to do that.
• The second proposed paragraph still shows strong evidence as being written by a chatbot.
• The promotional/advertorial tone is still present.

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)