User talk:ChrysGalley

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hello, User:ChrysGalley, I am a new user on Wikipedia I want add more articles related to history prefer Punjab. I am using AI to find detail can i convert it to human write or write myself.Please help me in this situation. Thanks, Regards Prabhbajwa0 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Prabhbajwa0 - The problem with those two articles - Draft:Hamir Singh of Nabha and Draft:Jaswant Singh of Nabha is that they are very clearly 100% LLM in origin. There is no evidence of a human re-write other than one or two words swapped over. LLM is not your friend. What we have found, in a recent survey of this, is that LLM kind of contaminates articles, you can't just alter what LLM has done, it take so long that you may as well start again without LLM. See also this essay WP:BACKWARDS. And you may want to initially amend existing articles to get practice, but do this editing without LLM. Don't worry about how your English looks, that is very easy to fix, LLM is a nightmare to fix.

Here is how I write a new article (it's hard work, by the way). I find say 3 good sources. Yes you can use LLM just for that task, but the danger is LLM puts some obscure rubbish as one of the 3 sources just because LLM is lazy and it's the first thing they find. I use Google, my university library and WorldCat a lot to find sources. So I then read those sources, perhaps twice. What you were doing was letting LLM do that reading for you, and that's wrong. Having read the sources I then put them out of sight and write some bullet points, maybe three bullet points, maybe ten, depending on how detailed the sourcing is. You don't want too many bullet points, you are just summarising the information. Being bullet points you don't need to worry about language. Then I open the source again and double check what my summary says is close to what the source said, to prevent errors. The old guide of Who? What? When? Where? Why? - that has its own article: Five Ws. With that in mind the bullet points should be easy.

Here is a recent example of my bullet points (though I wrote them on pen and paper originally)

a) She was born x, she married in y to z. She died in 1922 and is buried in Hampstead Cemetery. She had one son, also a writer.

b) She wrote x books, the one most known is book z, translated into n languages, and a school text book in the UK until 1940.

c) She found out her husband was stealing her royalty payments in 1899 and divorced him for adultery, though she confirmed in 1920 that there was no adultery.

d) Her book z dealt with European history in the Middle Ages, it has been out of print since 1960. It has been more recently criticised by historians, for focusing too heavily on certain areas of Europe to support her narrative.

Now if I did that to the other two sources I would quickly have 3 summaries in bullet points, probably some overlaps. Then I can shuffle the bullet points around to get a chronological order, though actually Wikipedia does not require articles to be written like that. Then the last stage, doing the draft, should be quite quick: do the references first, give each one a "ref name=sourceA", then put in the bullet points but this time in flowing English. Then use the ref names to allocate a source to the text. Read up about ref names, it makes life so much easier if you do that early in the process, see WP:REFNAME.

And to repeat, it's hard work! ChrysGalley (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I need help finding reliable sources to help improve my draft for Enigma (book). Can you lend a hand? Because I need a good idea where to look. ZanyDragon (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZanyDragon The easiest route, for most books, are book reviews. For a single book then it needs two independent reviews from reliable sources. So the newspapers in the area where the book came out may have carried a review. The publisher of the book would normally publicise any good reviews, or give a cunningly edited snippet of any bad reviews, but actually bad reviews are good and show balance. The alternative is if the book won a notable book prize (and realistically it is best that prize has its own Wikipedia entry). It isn't easy, most books won't qualify. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought you might be able to help finish what I started. It's not often that I write whole articles here, and I'm pretty much inexperienced in this sort of thing. There are so many things I've yet to understand. ZanyDragon (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZanyDragon I am also inexperienced in writing about children's books, in fact I've never written an article on a children's book, and I have no clue where to look for reliable sources. So I am probably not your best helper here. However use the link on your own Talk page to go to the Teahouse, where you may get better help / advice. It just need reliable sources for both notability and verification. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you think WordPress, Abebooks, or GoodReads would do? ZanyDragon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZanyDragon, no they are not normally good sources since there is no real check on independence, no editorial oversight. However it is just possible that you will find a clue in these reviews, such as someone saying "I bought this book after seeing a review in newspaper X" or some such. It is hard work, I know that. Bear in mind also if you can't find something today, something may happen tomorrow or next week. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'll just let someone else make the article...or remake it. ZanyDragon (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I find it highly suspicious that User:Counterpain99's first action on Wikipedia was to submit a draft for which they had no prior association, and that they changed the short description of that page to "polo4d login website terpercaya", a spam website also linked by them on their user talk page. Submitting an unrelated draft is an action often undertaken by COI or spam accounts in order to establish an appearance of participation and build a record of activity in preparation for undertaking COI or spam editing. BD2412 T 19:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: thanks to User:GhostInTheMachine for removing the spam content from the short description. BD2412 T 19:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@BD2412 Yes I recognised that at the time too, it was certainly an odd one to come up and I remember that impression distinctly. I assumed that some project was pushing this one out as something way overdue. However suspicion isn't in the review guidelines, I checked the sources, changed some details, and beyond that I have to assume good faith. It's my job to review articles, not editors. I didn't spot the short description though, which would be on me, but I am not sure it appeared in the relevant review box since it would have stuck out like a sore thumb. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I do appreciate that the draft was in a state where promotion was a reasonable decision. It just saddens me that we live in a world where spammers abuse Wikipedia in this way – obviously not for any reason to do with you. BD2412 T 19:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@BD2412 Yes I certainly agree with that, and the frustrating thing about that is that the perceived holiness of potential anonymity in editing means we don't get the information to make accurate calls in this domain, other than launching a SPI. And for that there is an evidence requirement, which in a literal sense we cannot have with a single use account. Eternal vigilance, as someone once said (though we don't quite know who). At least the Justice Chapman has a new home. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I had just reverted User talk:~2026-19639-87 to get rid of the draft content, and was writing a message to the user, but it seems you moved the page meanwhile. When I reverted, I also undid one or two of your edits, sorry about that.

This whole thing is a bit of a mess, I think that was the fifth draft they've submitted today, some in English some in Kyrgyz (?), and there are at least two registered users and a TA in the loop. They clearly don't quite understand how the system works. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Yes, I think I worked out what was going on (eventually!) and certainly no need to apologise, I can see we were both at it at the same time. It wasn't going anywhere, as a draft, regardless of our edits. Thank you for looking into this. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing - just did a technical decline on the draft, just to get it out of the queue / stop anyone else looking at it. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I literally feel like a dog chasing its tail. I've now redirected a couple of the drafts to Draft:Daniyar Bostonov, trying to consolidate it all in one place.

I've also blocked that TA for 24h, to stop it causing more havoc. In any case, that's either one of the two registered users who have paid PAID disclosures, or it's a different individual who hasn't, and either way they can stay blocked and cool their engines for a while. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChrysGalley, hope you are well! I came across Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago in the new pages feed. The article looks great, but then I found Draft:University of Otago Faculty of Dentistry - an article from 2008 which seems to have been recently drafitified to make room for a new AFC submission. Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding here! I'm just a bit confused; I know redirects without history and sometimes stubs are deleted uncontroversially all the time to make way for polished drafts, but in this case it seems unusual to completely replace it given the decade+ of history at the original article. Sometimes people will dramatically rework an article (like if they want to bring it up to FA) with accompanying communication on the talk page, but I don't think I've seen the original get deleted in these instances. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zzz plant - this was tactical. The new article was written by a Wikipedian In Residence to Otago University, so technically a Paid COI would apply. Therefore the new article has to go via AFC and therefore via Draft format, that editor is not free to amend the old version. I've parked the old version into Draft for the moment, to avoid having two articles in mainspace, but I don't think it is the end of the matter. I did think about merging but if you see the text of the older-now-draft version, almost completely unsourced, then it does seem to me within scope for deletion. If I took the hardline view of deleting all unsourced material then there would be very little left. So this was a pragmatic/temporary solution. If you have a better suggestion then I'm all ears, and by all means go ahead on a BRD basis. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see. Hmm, I think a lot of even vital articles were probably in poor shape in 2008, but that doesn't necessitate the removal of the old versions. On the other hand, I understand the COI editor needing to work through AFC. The only solution I can think of would be a history merge, but I'm not super well-informed about those. I will ask around and see if it may be appropriate. Thanks for the explanation, Zzz plant (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Well there is only one sentence in the old article, related to a specific time in 2015, which is sourced, so a merge wouldn't be too tricky. A good chunk of the history is bots, minor template stuff, there didn't seem much worth saving, but I left in draft (and put some comments in the Talk page) in order to have this debate. By all means let me know if there is anything more that I should do here. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I came across this website with an interview with Graeme Base: https://www.authormagazine.org/.

Let me know what you think. ZanyDragon (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZanyDragon Youtube interviews can be a tricky area, see WP:YOUTUBE. As it's an interview it counts as "self published". This may be OK to source uncontroversial material, but not for notability, since it appears to be an official channel of Author Magazine. So if he said that he gets inspiration from the books by author X and Y then that would probably not be a controversial statement so you could "mine" that video for content like that. But the notability issue remains unsolved by this. Sometimes - and this is where the detective in you may come out - he or the interviewer will say something that then allows you to hunt somewhere else. So if he said he went to a book festival, then maybe the local newspaper covered that festival, as an example. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about Wikipedia and how to be a editor, plus one thing, your user page can somehow be edited by me and I learned how to make a user page using that. Plus I submitted the draft because I want to learn. FullYellow (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That is all good, and I hope you enjoy editing. It is easier to start by checking existing articles, and seeing, for example, if a fact is mentioned and there is no source to back it up. Amending articles is a good way to learn, writing articles is very hard! ChrysGalley (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Sheppard (architect), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clockwork Orange was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi can you please re-review the draft Draft:Jabb Zodiacs Met and review Draft:Aasim Khan? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@ITVStoryWeaver I normally let another set of eyes do second reviews so that you get an independent perspective. But in the case of Jabb, there have only been a few words amended, and there is still a fake category. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

What about Aasim? So I should make changes in Jabb? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It's up to you if you think the article to decide if the article is OK or not. Aasim, well I didn't review that one, but on a quick look that looks OK. A reviewer will spend more time on it, so may find something. 18:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC) ChrysGalley (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

OK I will continue to make changes in Jabb and then sumbit it for review. ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi can you review the Draft:Abhishek Kumar? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes I reviewed it, but it's LLM and we don't accept LLM drafts. 10:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC) ChrysGalley (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay I am sorry I will improve it ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Eraeyyc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:World Benchrest Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you be more specific what that even means because I have written the content myself, so I do not understand where that is coming from. The original person who declined the draft never even flagged that issue, only the fact there was not enough independent sources, which I have since addressed.

How is one supposed to resolve this, if the content has already been written by a human? None of the information is "hallucinated" because it was written by me. None of it is a direct copy of the wording from another article, therefore no copyright issues. And the content is both neutral and factual. Is there specific wording or something that is the problem? Eraeyyc (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Eraeyyc - See the reply on your Talk page. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Directorgokuldeivasigamani (talk · contribs)
  • User:Directorgokuldeivasigamani/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"I have updated the draft with secondary sources, including a National Award citation, a major newspaper review from The Hindu, and a reference to the book 'To Let: Making Book'. Requesting a re-review."

Directorgokuldeivasigamani (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful review of the Fargeon draft and for adding the Gallica URL to the Becker source. I have revised the draft substantially in response to your comments:

• The Masonic lodge reference has been removed — it was indeed absent from Becker at p. 22 and from all other pages of the article;
• All Becker page numbers have been verified against the original PDF (Gallica);
• The Almanach des Gourmands reference has been removed — it concerned Jean-Jacques Fargeon of Grasse, a different member of the family, not Jean-Louis;
• The date of death has been corrected to 9 July 1806, confirmed by the post-mortem inventory (Archives nationales, ET/VII/578, dated 14 July 1806);
• The Comte d'Artois has been correctly identified as the future Charles X, not Louis XVIII;
• The Musée Carnavalet references now point directly to Paris Musées Collections rather than being attributed to Becker.

Would you be willing to conduct a second review of the updated draft? Thank you for your time. Augustaboulanger2 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Augustaboulanger2, I would certainly have another look, but I would prefer to do so tomorrow (Tuesday) UK time. Another reviewer may get there before me. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I draftified the article so I won't review it, but the above comment as well as the edit summary are both clearly AI generated - this does not give much confidence as to the article content. Fermiboson (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I have now rejected that article @Augustaboulanger2. It can't proceed further. I think if there had been a clear explanation of what you were doing here, I may have taken another path with this, but you will know that LLM cannot be used like this, and so I lost confidence in the article. Interestingly I reached this conclusion before I realised that @Fermiboson had spotted this issue earlier - I didn't see the edit summary until today. I can't say I am sorry about doing this, since I am not, but if you want to do this again I suggest you do not scope something so big, and stick to summarising via human endeavour. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. This is my first Wikipedia entry created for my teacher. English is not my first language and I am not familiar with the syntax of Wikipedia, so I used AI to help me through the languages and the submission process. I did not realise the review came that soon as it said it may take two months. I was thinking I still have time to get it right. All the information I submitted is correct as it is reconfirmed with John and I will get all the references correct. Samngwp (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes @Samngwp, but the problem here is that it still looks like an AI submission, with strange bold sections and promotional language. AI is banned, but not-so-perfect English is absolutely fine, so it isn't the right way to do things. It just doesn't look like a human effort. Though articles can take a long time to review, some reviewers such as myself go through early submissions to see if they are obviously not suitable, so that people don't wait 2 months to find out that their article has problems. I better not review it a second time but I still feel it needs some more work on it. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of ChatGPT App draft. Im very thankful for your advice. This is my first ever Wikipedia post, so I made some mistakes. I would be very thankful if you review my publication again, and give me new comments or approve it! MykytaK (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately the problem with LLM is that once you have started with it, you end up just polishing a set of words which should never have been used. So another reviewer has decline the article, and I can certainly see why. But there would be a perhaps bigger issue. See WP:WEBCRIT, with the stress on reliable sources that discuss the product in significant coverage. I am not sure it's there. Most such products do not get an article because the notability is just not there. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. All of the information in this article was written by me, and all of the sources are relevant. I didn't use an LLM to write this text, so it doesn't have hallucinations or incorrect information. I used it only for structuring purposes. But in last version I change this mistake, and rewrite the article by my hands MykytaK (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback again. I rewrote this article on my own without using LLMs. I used MCP, GPT Store, and GPTs articles as reference points. Tried to track down as many official sources as I could.

I'm really into this topic and want to keep building on it. What's especially interesting is that it's constantly evolving, unlike GPTs. MykytaK (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Sheppard (architect), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnet was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello ChrysGalley, I have updated the draft for Shri 1008 Mallinath Digambar Jain Temple with official 1967 Gazetteer sources. This article is already approved on Hindi Wikipedia. Please guide me on what else is needed for English approval. Thank you. Ritesh1008 (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you used LLM to do it, removing the logging files in the process. So I've declined again. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChrysGalley, thank you for your review and for the note on my talk page. I would like to explain what happened here, because (I think) the history matters.

There is one article, Draft:Human Intervention Motivation Study, which went through a seven-month editorial process. The two other drafts are spinouts from it, created at the suggestion of peer reviewers.

The main article was submitted to AfC in September 2025, declined for tone and weak sourcing, and substantially rewritten over four months. I moved it to mainspace in January 2026 with 63 reliable-source citations. It passed New Page Patrol (reviewed by Reconrabbit), was submitted for peer review, and posted to WikiProjects Aviation, Medicine, Law, and Occupational Safety. Jan olieslagers gave feedback on title scope and MOS compliance. Avatar317 conducted a primary-source audit, lead restructure, and tone review, concluding "Good work!" on February 12 after I implemented the feedback. Z1720 and Avatar317 both flagged WP:TOOBIG and recommended spinouts. Headbomb removed a predatory journal citation in February, and I re-sourced all eight affected locations with reliable alternatives. Bearian assessed it C-Class, Mid-importance for WikiProject Law on January 25. I was in the process of converting the infobox (as this was the final outstanding 'to-do') to a facts-only format per Avatar317's peer review feedback when, on April 9, GarciaH1978 draftified both mainspace articles.

The two spinouts were created following that peer review guidance. Draft:Legal challenges to the Human Intervention Motivation Study was spun out in February 2026. Draft:HIMS Aviation Medical Examiner was created on March 23, 2026. Both are documented on the parent article's talk page.

GarciaH1978's rationale was "AI-authored and attempt to spam highaltitudehealthandwellness.com." That link appears in both articles as a primary-source citation in tables documenting commercial HIMS AME practices that publish unverified outcome claims. The links are there strictly as primary-source citations to verify the claims being discussed. A reading of the surrounding text makes clear the article is documenting unverified marketing, not endorsing it. GarciaH1978 filed an AIV report; administrator Spencer declined it at 01:10 UTC on April 10, stating: "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only." I invoked WP:DRAFTOBJECT and restored both articles. Headbomb reversed the restoration and directed me to go through AfC. I accepted and submitted all three drafts.

On the AI allegation: a similar concern was raised earlier this year and resolved at the time. WP:AISIGNS states that surface features are signs of a possible problem, not the problem itself, and that reviewers should look to underlying content policies. I wrote the article myself over many months. It may contain mistakes (or, perhaps some type of 'stilted' stylings that seem suspect?), and if you or any editor identifies specific problems, I will address them at the article talk page.

I understand you handle a high volume of AfC submissions, and I personally appreciate the work that that must take. All three drafts were declined within 11 minutes (07:26, 07:34, 07:37 UTC), and I would respectfully ask whether that was enough time to engage with articles of this length and sourcing depth. Your declines cite hallucinations, promotional language, personal commentary, and agenda pushing, but I have not been able to find specific examples of any of these in the feedback. If you could point to particular passages that concern you, I would be glad to address them. That is the kind of concrete feedback I can act on, and that would help me understand what actually occurred here.

Thank you for your time. LumenStoneEditor (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@LumenStoneEditor, I was not aware that there were previous LLM concerns, so it is interesting that I independently reached the view of another editor. It just has all the hallmarks of LLM textual support, and I get to see plenty of that daily. But the fundamental issue that I have with these three articles was not so much the LLM (I can see there was indeed plenty of human intervention), but there is a clear agenda is being pursued here, to pass significant questions on HIMS and related areas. This is a monster personal essay being pushed here. You cannot read any of, let alone all three essays, without thinking "this editor has a real beef with HIMS". Moreover the other work done by you seems exclusively involved in this. You have said you have no COI, that therefore you are neutral of the topic. Consequently it really should not matter to you that the article is short and neutral. The hallmarks here are of someone deeply invested in the issue, which is absolutely OK, but the resultant essays are all going down one particular narrative, which is absolutely not OK. But equally it is absolutely OK that these sort of articles go through AFC, so that there is a proper review process, rather than being put directly into mainspace. And I stand by my reviews.

You are welcome to make further changes to these drafts, and to resubmit. I will leave it to another reviewer to see if they agree. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I will be blunt and say that I have not gone deep in on these articles and do not especially plan to, but with specific regard to Draft:Legal challenges to the Human Intervention Motivation Study I think that the entire "Common themes" section is wholly inappropriate. While it is fine to state with attribution what sources write about the subject, it reads as original research to take the corpus of information and draw parallels between them in this manner. -- Reconrabbit 13:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I have not done any in-depth checks on the original article; I did not check that any sources were reasonably paraphrased.

Upon seeing this article in main space, I did note the essay-like (and rant-like) tone, and tried to point that out. To be clear, an article with a strong Point-Of-View (POV) is completely fine as long as that POV is what the majority of mainstream sources say about the subject.

I don't have the interest or time to work on improving this article, but I felt like there were several suggestions that I made to hopefully help LumenStoneEditor fix the issues with the article.

The best suggestion I can offer going forward is to shrink this article by SUMMARIZATION. For many topics in scientific fields, there exist huge scientific studies/analyses on many minutiae relating to each subject; a Wikipedia article should be a BEGINNER'S OVERVIEW. Here's maybe a relevant example: Crash of American Airlines Flight 191; I would bet that the text length of our Wikipedia article is less than 1/1000th of the length of the combination of all FAA/NHTSA reports on the crash. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Ritesh1008 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Ritesh1008 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not at all sure what you are trying to do or ask me. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

​"I am asking you to re-review my draft: [[Draft:Shri 1008 Mallinath Digambar Jain Atishay Kshetra,shiradshahapur.

I have uploaded original photos of the temple to Wikimedia Commons to prove it is a real place and I am a real person. I have also added the 1967 Government Gazetteer as a reliable source. Please check the draft again as the previous 'LLM' concern is incorrect. Thank you. --Ritesh1008 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)"

If you mean this draft:

Draft:Shri 1008 Mallinath Digambar Jain Temple

then you need to press the Submit button, it then goes into a queue and a random reviewer will look at it. I usually don't do a second review, since it's best to get another pair of eyes look at the draft. But at the moment it does look like you used AI / LLM to assist with writing the article, and we do not allow this. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChrysGalley, thank you for your review on this draft article, your feedback is greatly appreciated. Just reaching out to seek a bit further details in regards to the references, especially the more independent reliable sources. I have found a few articles that will fit this category but are only valid for small parts of the article, most others are in relation to the existing Euromarque Motorsport Park page. Given New Zealand mainstream media have a long history of snubbing Motorsport coverage unless it actually matters to them, is there any recommendations you may have for sources I could look for that would fit the independent reliable sources category? Eg: what else could I be looking for outside of news coverage? ConcordeAAIB (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes I recognise the issue here. One option is to strip back - for now - to a fairly short article based on good independent sources, then to build back to roughly where you are now, whenever the good sources start to appear, and later on after the short article was accepted. We can't get away from the significant coverage requirement (unless it's a protected or heritage site? Probably grasping at straws here). Have there been any biographies written on any of the key users? You are looking for someone writing 100 plus words on the Speedway. Local newspapers are OK in this context, and they don't have to be online. It may be that a call / email to the sports editor of the nearest half-decent newspaper to the location will throw up some ideas. Or the local councillor. Keep at it, I've been there myself with subjects which are "potentially notable" but unable to find in-depth sources, then I found some article in a 1960s newspaper, in a bingo! moment. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep totally see your point there. When you were going through the article were there specific sections you could point out to me that would most require those independent reliable sources or was it a whole article thing? Just thinking logistically if I've got a bit of a starting point to hunt for some sources that may help in keeping the bulk of the information on there. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@ConcordeAAIB I'm slightly familiar with the venue (family is from Greymouth). I started looking at all the sources, saw the Facebook link and what it was supporting and realised that there was a general sourcing issue here. Notability is fundamentally driven by the WP:GOLDENRULE and the sources weren't really ticking that box. I also saw the short paragraph in the Euromarque entry, the usual advice would actually be to try and develop that paragraph first, then spin out to a separate entry only after there was too much material and good sourcing that a standalone entry makes more sense. If I was starting from ground zero, I would start with the Five Ws and think "when was it constructed, by whom, why" etc and then find sources for the basic location, basic key events, anything that did get some significant coverage. Not sure if there are any specialist Kiwi sports magazines in this area? ChrysGalley (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

NZ Dirt Track Magazine was around for years until recently, I only have a handful of copies personally from more recent times up until the magazine was discontinued. I can go through those but no guarantees they'll have anything useful. If it helps at all I can go through the facebook and get the exact wording of what is being referenced eg the exact post talking about things that are referenced in that article, and link it to that just so it's got base support. I have updated quite a few sources so its a lot more supported now but I am still concerned from the independent reliable sources section there are some now but aren't enough to physically support the entire article. I found it difficult to build out of the Euromarque Page as it doesn't give much detail at all towards the speedway mostly just simply saying its a dirt track (very vague) and hosted the Speedway World Championships for motorcycles a couple of times - this is out of my knowledge base and given the track is entirely open wheel focused now it's something better left to those who are more familiar with it. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I'd be trying (perhaps via social media) to have a discussion with someone in NZ Dirt Track Racing, they may know where to find material. But yes it's ok to work backwards via Facebook to whatever was the original source. It's just anything substantially sourced via social media isn't going to survive long in mainspace Wikipedia. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok ill have a look into Facebook and get some accurate sourcing going on there. If I can find one or two more independent sources it should hopefully cover the remaining major bits. Crossing fingers something will pop up. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to bother you I would like to know if you can take a look at my draft again I removed all the parties that were over-developed because of the AI and I tried to bring back more sources by removing the previous ones and I also improved the infobox and the layout by being inspired by other pages, it is because I am new that I had used the AI the first time now I understand how to use Wikipedia properly -> Draft:Ayyubid campaign in Jazira (1235) Karakocanî23 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Karakocanî23 but I'll let another reviewer have a go with your draft, since I see you have changed it since my review. This is to make sure you get a fair review rather than getting stuck with whatever I think. Just have some patience, it may take a while. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks Karakocanî23 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)