User talk:Tyler17B

Concern regarding Draft:Anthony Hill

Hello, Tyler17B. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anthony Hill, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ariana Biermann has been accepted

Ariana Biermann, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brooks Marks (December 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fermiboson was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

WP:REFBOMBed churnalism. No evidence of significant reliable coverage. Please note interviews do not count towards GNG.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brooks Marks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fermiboson (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Tyler17B! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Fermiboson (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brooks Marks (December 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ktkvtsh were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Reads as overly promotional.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brooks Marks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome!

Thanks for creating a draft!

Hello Tyler17B, welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

If you have general editing questions, the Teahouse is where you can seek help from experienced editors. Questions about the draft creation and publishing process should be directed to the Articles for creation Help Desk instead, where you can get assistance directly from reviewers. Don't hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome – I hope you enjoy your time here! Ktkvtsh (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Manual of Style and Draft:Charlie Zakkour

Hello Tyler17B, I reverted your recent edit of Draft:Charlie Zakkour because it didn't follow the manual of style convention for section headings. Headings use sentence case - meaning first word is capitalized and other are not unless they are proper nouns. See MOS:HEAD for further guidance. Gab4gab (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charlie Zakkour (December 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Htanaungg were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Charlie Zakkour and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Htanaungg (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georgia McCann (December 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by TheObsidianGriffon were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Georgia McCann and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Monica Garcia has been accepted

Monica Garcia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

João^hola 06:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Erika Jayne: Bet It All on Blonde has been accepted

Erika Jayne: Bet It All on Blonde, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nil🥝 02:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Confusion with Switch Hitter GAN

Copying my sentence i put somewhere else here since I’m not sure I pinged you correctly before: Hello, first of all, thank you for reviewing my nomination. I would just like to say im confused by your failing, you cite no citations in the plot as an example when citing sources in a plot is not needed (they’re supported by the episode, see any other episode article). The themes and analysis section uses all possible information available, same with reception. There are multiple good television articles much shorter than this one, im not sure you’re familiar with how television episode good articles usually work, but im not trying to discredit your opinion, it’s fine to fail the article, but the reasons you give are very odd Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the main thing I’m curious about is that it quickfailed when, even if the issues you gave had solutions I could offer, a review going through them is much easier than simply failing since they are not substantial problems Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I thought you might want extra time to fix the themes & analysis section, but if you'd like, please feel free to re-nominate the article and I can pass it once you're finished. Happy to commit to reviewing it ASAP when you're done. Tyler17B (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, have a good day (or night!) :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, you as well! Tyler17B (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I think Themes and analysis should be fixed. I removed the MLB sentence, as I agree it’s not really a theme or offers any analysis, and used the MLB article to create another sentence for Reception. I also lumped each commonly-shared sentiment together, so the first paragraph focuses mostly on George Sr. and the Bluth family, the second focuses on incest (I found another source to back up the incest claim), and the third is on the Bluth homes. I also cleaned up some wording to add some context for readers unfamiliar with the series. Thank you for the suggestions, they have really strengthened the article, so I have renominated the article at Talk:Switch Hitter Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I updated it to reflect GA status, thanks for your hard work! Tyler17B (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:The Amazing Race 10/GA1

Good Afternoon! While I appreciate your kind words, these reviews do not come close to meeting the standards of a Good Article review. Please see the discussion here, as well as the criteria listed here. Reviews consisting of one or two sentences are viewed as drive-by reviews, and while appreciated, are not sufficient. I will send the articles you passed as GA back to the queue; if you should choose to revisit any of them, simply start the review again as you did the first time, and please let any of us at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations know if you have questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to this, more GA reviewers are always needed, so it's great that you want to help, but I suggest you read a few reviews by more experienced editors to get an idea of what they're supposed to look like. In full reviews, the reviewer generally includes a list of issues identified in the prose (spelling, clarity), which sources they've checked to see if they support the facts they've been cited for, perhaps comments on the copyright status of images or suggestions for how to further improve the article... The green badge is not to be given out lightly, and there's a reason there's such a large backlog of nominations! Best of luck.

P.S. You might also be interested in the WP:GANMENTOR programme. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Tyler17B! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Requesting Assessment in WP:TV, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brooks Marks (December 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Somepinkdude was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Aside from ref #52, I am only seeing more interviews and churnalism.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brooks Marks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Somepinkdude (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annemarie Wiley (December 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MelbourneIdentity was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Annemarie Wiley and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MelbourneIdentity (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Brielle Biermann has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Brielle Biermann. Thanks! Jô^hola 05:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Riley Burruss has been accepted

Riley Burruss, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jô^hola 06:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charlie Zakkour (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) but presently it is not clear that it does.

As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject. Please note that some of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc). Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO and WP:EXCESSDETAIL), which Wikipedia is not; and contains writing and spelling errors that are not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK). Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid or being the subject, you must declare that on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please see WP:COI and/or WP:PAID). In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Charlie Zakkour and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brielle Biermann (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brielle Biermann and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gia Giudice has been accepted

Gia Giudice, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

NeoGaze (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I was looking at the oldest drafts in the articles for creation, and found yours. It was well sourced, well detailed, and I can see you write many other things as well. (And because you haven't received any barnstars yet) I give you this barnstar! Zxilef (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Porsha's Family Matters has been accepted

Porsha's Family Matters, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nighfidelity (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles