Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2026 May 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
May 13
00:52, 13 May 2026 review of submission by SoGuys881
I can’t move it to mainspace SoGuys881 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Rejection means thar it cannot be resubmitted. That's typically the end of the line for a draft, but if you fundamentally changed it to address the reason for rejection, the first step is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly and ask that they reconsider the rejection. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- My name is Suin Kwon, and I work as the artist’s archivist.
- In January, I attempted to update the artist’s Wikipedia page. The article was later moved to Draft space due to concerns regarding sourcing and compliance with Wikipedia guidelines.
- At this point, I am no longer requesting additional revisions or promotional changes. Instead, I would simply like to restore the previously stable published version of the article that had existed before the draftification process.
- The current draft status has resulted in the complete disappearance of the article from Google search results for several months, which creates significant confusion for readers seeking basic factual information about the artist.
- Could you please clarify:
- -why the article remains in Draft space despite the request to revert to the former published version; and
- -what specific step is now required in order to either restore the prior version or complete the review process?
- I would appreciate any guidance on how this can be resolved appropriately within Wikipedia procedure.
- Thank you for your time and assistance.
- Best regards,
- Suin Kwon Suinkwon (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
03:29, 13 May 2026 review of submission by Churchcoyote
- Churchcoyote (talk · contribs)
Hello, my draft has been rejected for it's lack of citation, which is understandable. However, as someone new to writing for Wikipedia, I think I am a bit confused on formatting citations in a table. I've included a citation at the top "This is a list of snakes found in Wyoming, United States" which cites the Wyoming Game & Fish. I've also added a separate column citing the Game & Fish for each snake that resides in Wyoming, which cites the same source. Is one of these (citing the "this is a list... line vs the citation column in the table) more appropriate formatting? Thanks! Churchcoyote (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Churchcoyote, the list is looking good if you wanted to resubmit it! Normally in tables the references are in the last column, but I've moved those for you (and some other small tidy ups). In terms of referencing, inline citations / footnotes are preferred by most editors, but in this scenario a WP:GENREF would have been perfectly acceptable. nil nz 11:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
08:24, 13 May 2026 review of submission by Saqlain1321
- Saqlain1321 (talk · contribs)
I submitted a draft article in my sandbox and it was declined. I would like help understanding the specific issues so I can improve it according to Wikipedia guidelines and resubmit it correctly. Saqlain1321 (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Your draft is a statement about your intentions, not an encyclopedia article. I think that you intended to put that content on your user page, which you are free to edit(User:Saqlain1321). You do not need to submit a draft to create a user page. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- oky thank you for fully guidence.
- And first of all article for new for my reason, i'm a new user for wiki pedia, and my account is atleast 3 month old. Saqlain1321 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Welcome. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Writing a new article is challenging, and it is not the only or even best way to contribute here. People who dive right in to creating articles often end up frustrated and angry, which we don't want you to be. If you would still like to attempt writing a new article anyway, using the Article Wizard is best. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- oky the best of luck and more info for again help now ok. Saqlain1321 (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Welcome. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Writing a new article is challenging, and it is not the only or even best way to contribute here. People who dive right in to creating articles often end up frustrated and angry, which we don't want you to be. If you would still like to attempt writing a new article anyway, using the Article Wizard is best. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
11:20, 13 May 2026 review of submission by Cefiroman
Hi, I appear to be persistently blocked from publishing changes to my submission. The following error appears each time: 'There was an error while loading the form. To continue, you will need to reload the page.' The draft is at: Draft:Ellen Dunn The full URL is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ellen_Dunn And the talk page, if you want to post the revised text there for a volunteer to action, is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Ellen_Dunn Cefiroman (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that you're partially blocked. Have you tried restarting your device or using a different browser? BSH (talk) - (she/her) 11:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Cefiroman The draft looks OK to me for both further work and for future submission. And a fascinating story really, so I hope you can complete it. It's just incredible to think these sporting pioneers had to hide their own identity, when today's equivalents really are household names. Have you used AI / LLM or some similar tool here? That may explain that message, and there are one or two aspects to the current draft which raises that question in my mind.ChrysGalley (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @ChrysGalley — thank you for your response and your kind words about Ellen's story.
- To answer your question directly: yes, I used Claude (Anthropic's AI assistant) to help structure and format the Wikipedia draft. However, all the underlying research is entirely my own — six years of original primary-source investigation across newspaper archives, census records, shipping manifests, civil registration records, and genealogical sources. The AI helped with citation formatting, article structure, and ensuring the draft met Wikipedia's style guidelines. It did not generate the research findings.
- The identification of Ellen Dunn as Ruth Coupland is credited to football historian Stuart Gibbs, whose published article in Playing Pasts (2020) is cited in the draft. The European press sources — Berliner Tageblatt, Berliner Volkszeitung, Reynolds's Newspaper, Le Journal and others — are scans of original newspaper cuttings from my own archive.
- I would welcome your thoughts on any specific aspects of the draft that give you pause. The two previous declines were on notability and sourcing grounds, both of which I have addressed in the current revision. If there are remaining concerns I am very willing to work through them.
- Many thanks — Cefiroman Cefiroman (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Cefiroman, yes I had a feeling it was something like that. Unfortunately the trouble with AI is that it tends to lead you down particular pathways and wording, and that (among many other reasons) is why LLM cannot be used like this. We have daily dreadful, appalling problems with LLM. There are only 2 narrow exceptions, under WP:NEWLLM. and they don't seem to apply here (possible exception: translating the German newspapers). I think it's bonkers that anyone would use Claude since it can save no time - there are various tools that you can use for citations, and there is no requirement for perfection on formats or the Manual of Style, and AI often gets it wrong anyway (e.g. the capitalisation of short coordinating conjunctions). We have a vast army of lovely gnomes who can sort all that out in a trice. But there is a requirement not to use LLM, with those 2 exceptions. By the time you've removed LLM's dread hand then it would have been easier not to have used it all. To give an example, there is quite a fair bit of WP:AIATTR - so a fact is introduced / name checked by the source, and not really summarised, rather than a good summary and the source just quietly referenced. The other issue is that we can't do original research here either, sourcing Gibbs is great, digging out shipping manifests isn't what we do. Luckily if you consider the core story and what secondary sources you have, then I think you can dial back to that invaluable core story quite soundly. Just stick to summarising secondary sources, minimise primary sources to just uncontroversial points. Please keep at it. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @ChrysGalley — thank you for taking the time to explain this so clearly. I take the point entirely. I wanted the submission to be as good as I could make it, and at 69 years of age, my computer literacy may be modest at best!
- The revised draft already centres the Stuart Gibbs Playing Pasts (2020) article and Patrick Brennan's Donmouth research as the primary narrative sources, with primary records used only to anchor uncontroversial facts like birth, marriage, and death.
- I should say that the underlying research is entirely my own. I have built two tribute websites — one for Ellen Dunn/Lily Flexmore, and one for the British Ladies Football Club, the original Lionesses of 1895. I have constructed nine Ancestry family trees for the lady footballers, an Excel workbook documenting Ellen's performing career year by year from the 1890s to 1925, and assembled a large archive of newspaper advertisements, playbills, and reviews from Britain, Ireland, the United States, and continental Europe.
- My difficulty is knowing how best to draw on this material within Wikipedia's guidelines. Any advice you could give on that would be very gratefully received. — Cefiroman Cefiroman (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Cefiroman - it's probably been a somewhat fraught process so far. I would say that in terms of this AFC review talk-board, we've probably covered the decline aspects and the reasons why. In terms of further work on the article, that's a harder question to which I don't yet know the answer. But give me a few days to think about this, and I'll revert on the talk page for the draft (and ping you) since that's probably where this discussion should now go. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Cefiroman, yes I had a feeling it was something like that. Unfortunately the trouble with AI is that it tends to lead you down particular pathways and wording, and that (among many other reasons) is why LLM cannot be used like this. We have daily dreadful, appalling problems with LLM. There are only 2 narrow exceptions, under WP:NEWLLM. and they don't seem to apply here (possible exception: translating the German newspapers). I think it's bonkers that anyone would use Claude since it can save no time - there are various tools that you can use for citations, and there is no requirement for perfection on formats or the Manual of Style, and AI often gets it wrong anyway (e.g. the capitalisation of short coordinating conjunctions). We have a vast army of lovely gnomes who can sort all that out in a trice. But there is a requirement not to use LLM, with those 2 exceptions. By the time you've removed LLM's dread hand then it would have been easier not to have used it all. To give an example, there is quite a fair bit of WP:AIATTR - so a fact is introduced / name checked by the source, and not really summarised, rather than a good summary and the source just quietly referenced. The other issue is that we can't do original research here either, sourcing Gibbs is great, digging out shipping manifests isn't what we do. Luckily if you consider the core story and what secondary sources you have, then I think you can dial back to that invaluable core story quite soundly. Just stick to summarising secondary sources, minimise primary sources to just uncontroversial points. Please keep at it. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
13:28, 13 May 2026 review of submission by Revathyradhakrishnan2412
Hello,
Thank you for reviewing my draft article.
I would like to understand the specific reasons for the decline so I can improve the article properly and align it with Wikipedia’s content policies.
Could you please clarify:
1. Which exact sections or statements do not meet Wikipedia guidelines? 2. Is the primary issue related to notability, sourcing, tone, conflict of interest, or article structure? 3. Which references are considered unreliable or insufficient? 4. Are there specific claims that require stronger independent secondary sources? 5. Does the article currently appear too promotional or company-driven? If yes, which parts specifically should be rewritten? 6. Are there formatting or citation issues that need correction? 7. What are the minimum improvements required before resubmission would be appropriate?
I would appreciate direct and specific feedback so I can make the necessary edits correctly instead of resubmitting without understanding the problems.
Thank you. Revathyradhakrishnan2412 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Revathyradhakrishnan2412 Did you use an AI to write this? Please don't.
- Your draft is actually in your sandbox, I changed your header to indicate this so the link works. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- It's largely AI-generated, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. It uses many inline external links instead of citations, which is also unacceptable. It goes into great detail about WP:CORPROUTINE activities, which are irrelevant for establishing notability. It seems to exist for the purpose of publicity, which is also prohibited.
- Finally, is this company an employer or client of yours? If so, it is mandatory that you disclose this per WP:PAID. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Thank you for the feedback and for reviewing the draft.
- I understand the concerns raised regarding promotional tone, excessive operational detail, sourcing quality, and formatting issues.
- I did use AI assistance during drafting and editing, which in hindsight contributed to the overly polished and non-encyclopedic writing style. I understand now that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia article creation, especially when it affects neutrality and sourcing quality.
- I am affiliated with the company and should have disclosed that earlier. I will make the appropriate conflict-of-interest / paid-editing disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
- I do not intend to use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. I will substantially reduce the draft, remove routine operational and product-detail sections, replace inline external links with proper citations where appropriate, and rely only on independent reliable secondary sources.
- Thank you again for the guidance. Revathyradhakrishnan2412 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Revathyradhakrishnan2412 - I would suggest that using AI / LLM, for an essentially simple message that acknowledges your LLM usage, is not a convincing approach. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
14:27, 13 May 2026 review of submission by Fury0011
What's my page missing and how to fix it please? Fury0011 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps actually read the feedback messages and comments you got. The draft has been rejected, which means stop, don't try to fix it, don't waste any more reviewer time on it, it will not be considered further. You can try to appeal to the rejecting reviewer to allow it to be resubmitted if you can address the concerns raised. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
18:01, 13 May 2026 review of submission by BEVERAGEPLANETT
What needs fixing? BEVERAGEPLANETT (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @BEVERAGEPLANETT: the draft has been rejected, so it can't be resubmitted. Is there anything specific in the decline notices that was unclear? --bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Well, the article isn't written like an encyclopedia article, everything's unsourced, and the only two references are just indications that the group exists. So...everything? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
19:27, 13 May 2026 review of submission by Princedb
Hello,
Could I please ask for help from someone who could provide the correct citations style for this draft article.
Thank you in advance for your time and help. Princedb (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- You have bare URLs in your references. See WP:CITEHOW, which explains how to use citation templates, which let you give more information than simply a URL, such as author, title, date, publication name, and so on. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- Forgive me if it's out of line but I don't think just bare URLs is enough to decline a draft; I resubmitted and accepted it (and take responsibility if it's not appropriate to keep in mainspace). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- One of the boilerplate reasons given for declining a draft is "improperly cited". I agree that's a valid reason in the event that the author submits a mess that wastes reviewer time. The OP's question, however, wasn't about the draft being declined, it was about how to cite properly, and that's why I answered like I did. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- I see, my bad. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- One of the boilerplate reasons given for declining a draft is "improperly cited". I agree that's a valid reason in the event that the author submits a mess that wastes reviewer time. The OP's question, however, wasn't about the draft being declined, it was about how to cite properly, and that's why I answered like I did. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- Forgive me if it's out of line but I don't think just bare URLs is enough to decline a draft; I resubmitted and accepted it (and take responsibility if it's not appropriate to keep in mainspace). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)