This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.
AFC backlog
AFC unreviewed article statistics as of November 04, 2024
AfC-tailored Welcome template
Hey folks - I'm looking to get some feedback on potentially introducing a new welcome template specifically tailored to AfC submitters who have already begun creating draft articles. I created User:Liance/s/afcwelcome around 3-4 months ago after noticing the lack of a welcome message suitable for users who have already gone through the process of creating a draft, but still may need help with getting it suitable for mainspace. I've been reviewing drafts at AfC for several years now and included links to resources which I've found have been most helpful to submitters from experience.
AfC welcome message
Thanks for creating a draft!
Hello WELCOMEUSER, welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Liance, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Sample to WikiProject Articles for Creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia! 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:
The Teahouse - ask Wikipedians for general editing help
I highly recommend visiting The Teahouse if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here.
In using this template over the past several months I've seen very good rates of engagement from recipients (far above what I usually get with welcome templates) and users have let me know that the resources have been helpful. I've started leaving the welcome message almost always prior to declining with AFCH in hopes that submitters don't get discouraged.
With encouragement from S0091 I wanted to post the template here to gather any feedback other reviewers might have regarding the template, and am hoping that it could be more widely adopted by AfC reviewers. Eventually I'd also like to see an option added to AFCH to leave the welcome message prior to a decline to soften the blow new editors might get after their hard work is denied. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated! Best, ~Liance20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another wonderful idea - unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how the process for that works, likely we'd have to contact a Twinkle maintainer? ~Liance20:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the template also and will prefer that it'd be navigated easily through the AFC accept and decline buttons just as the TeaHouse invitation check box, which can be auto-unchecked if it already exist. It's good especially when we usually have new unwelcomed users submit drafts daily. Cheers! Safari Scribe21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I was thinking, Safari. Either replace the current 'hook on' that invites the User to the Teahouse or an additional one. One step at a time, though. Thanks for creating it @Liance! S0091 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a +1 from me, this is pretty much what I envisioned as well. If it'd be possible to slip the welcome message in before the draft accept/decline one is left, that would be best. ~Liance16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the template, it's friendly and welcoming, and conveys many important points succinctly. The one thing I would like to see is making it even clearer when to go to the Teahouse vs. the AfC help desk (general editing questions vs. questions specifically about the review process). We don't get so many general questions at the HD (although we do get some occasionally), but I often see questions at the Teahouse which (I think) would be better asked at the HD. And perhaps also make in this context the point that they should ask at either one venue or the other, not that they post the same question in quick succession at both (and then the general help desk, and the reviewer's talk page, and...). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe take out the manual of style link to reduce information overload, or replace it with a link to MoS/Layout, which might be more immediately useful to a new user (to know what the bones and structure of a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got around to making a revised version of the template (User:Liance/s/afcwelcomerevision2), specifically implementing the suggestions about making it clearer where to ask questions and linking to the simplified MOS. This version also has a named parameter for the linked article to conform to other welcome templates (hopefully making Twinkle implementation easier).
Revised ver.
Thanks for creating a draft!
Hello Example, welcome to Wikipedia! I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Example to Articles for creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia. 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! ~Liance17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we think this is a good starting point I can go ahead and move it to the Template namespace and submit requests for AFCH/Twinkle integration. Thanks all!! ~Liance17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published as Template:Welcome draft and submitted a request at WT:TWINKLE to add it to the welcome menu. @Novem Linguae, apologies for the ping, but I'd like to move forward with getting this added to AFCH (with implementation as proposed above), would appreciate some next steps as I don't have a Github account right now! Thanks, ~Liance16:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested by SafariScribe and seconded by some other editors, a checkbox with functionality similar to the Teahouse invite option currently implemented in AFCH that would leave the welcome template above the AfC accept/decline message would be fantastic. Welcome message should only be left if the user has not been welcomed by another editor yet. ~Liance16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making this, Liance. I think it's a good idea; it seems likely to improve editor retention. My one concern is "We appreciate your contributions"; if the AfC then gets declined, I'm worried it could come off as insincere ("we appreciate the contribs we rejected"). Perhaps something similar like "We're glad you've decided to contribute" instead?
A param for human-written or at least human-chosen comments about their contributions would be good, because personal responses are always nicer than bot messages and also seem to get a better response from new users. New users actually seem to respond well to negative personal feedback, as long as it's constructive; they take it as praise ("they wouldn't want me to improve them if my edits weren't somewhat useful") and are more likely to stick around. Yes, I wrote a lot of that essay I linked. HLHJ (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are these actually presenting new ideas that have never been previously published? If not, then it's not OR. OR==no source has ever published that before. In my experience, that is very uncommon for undergraduates to come up with completely novel ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WAID is correct that undergraduates rarely make an original cntribution—it's effectively impossible for them to do so—but the converse of this is that most of what they write is summarising/picked out from established academic authors on a reading list. these, we usually call reliable secondary sources. So if it's possible, they should be able to go back and source most of what they have written, or insert inline citations where they have listed sources. In fact it's odd that they are allowed to submit unsourced papers, but maybe that reflects the philosphy (ahem) of their institution. SerialNumber54129
It is problematic if a script is editing outside of expected norms. It should really be fixed or withdrawn — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor format issue, on talk pages, in draft space that would be fixed if accepted via AFCH. Also if I remember correctly a bot will get around to fixing any issues. If you junked the wizard you get more problems including more people putting what they want on the talk page which is very unlikely to follow your "expected norms". Hopefully someone will fix, but as far as I can see it has almost zero affect on main-space articles and then only on talk pages, so to suggest it should be withdrawn and remove the benefits of the wizard for the sake of a rare, temporary issue only in draft makes no sense. KylieTastic (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This happens so often. A reviewer declines a draft with the words "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" or the like, intended to mean "there aren't enough good references". But the submitter reads it as "there aren't enough references", and adds many more references, often of even lower quality than the ones that were there already. I used to think that the submitters were trying to disguise the lack of good references by putting up a smokescreen of garbage. I now realise that the submitter is acting in good faith, but the templates "not adequately supported" are misleading, and should be rewritten
.
@Nick Moyes has agreed, and I also agree strongly; but I think this is a better place for the discussion, so I'm moving it here.
I see a further issue beside the one Maproom pointed out: that the message mentions "reliable sources", but doesn't mention "independent" sources. Often, as Maproom says, people add poor references to reliable sources and feel justifiably aggrieved when those aren't successful.
I realise that the message has to have a degree of concision, but I think we would reduce the pain for both submitters and reviewers if we find a way to improve the message. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have raised this here before, that the decline reason v - Submission is improperly sourced (= "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources...") can be ambiguous. It can mean the sources are not reliable, or the draft isn't adequately supported by them (as in, a lot of unreferenced content), or even that the sources don't actually verify the information they're cited against. That's why I try to (not always succeeding) remember to include a clarifying comment with the decline, if declining only for this reason.
Mind you, sometimes it's pretty clear-cut, eg. when the draft is completely unreferenced, or only cites Twitter etc. as its sources.
Context note: this is about Draft:John James (businessman and philanthropist) and both times the reviewers did not rely on the template but added that "claims are unsourced". The first decline also used 'bio' so included the need for "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I think it's an assumption that the submitter read "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" and read it as "there aren't enough references", they may have just read "Most claims are unsourced" and "Many claims are still unsourced" and thought they had to add more as that is what was requested. As has come up many times articles should not be declined if notable just for having parts unsourced - those issues should be tagged or removed as appropriate. Also ColinFine and Maproom feel free suggest any changes to Template:AfC submission/comments to make them better - especially 'v' that has been discussed before as bad to use alone and often used incorrectly. Lots of those decline reasons can/should be improved, the best improvements I think have been to 'nn' and 'org' when we added clear bullet lists of the requirements but still many never read and ask the reviewer, the AfC Help desk, Teahouse etc. I've never liked that wording, but no one has yet suggested wording that has got agreement... maybe this time.... KylieTastic (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people get a boilerplate decline and further comments indicating issues that clarify the boilerplate, and are still somehow confused, we can't really help that or fix stupid... (this is not to say we shouldn't work to make our decline 'plates as clear as possible, this is just snark about people who don't pay attention)Primefac (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit more charitable than that. The concept of getting significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't appear to be intuitive, and is a result of trying to write a new article before improving an existing one. Ritchie33309:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly ever use v on it's own as a decline, but maybe merge it with ilc now that that doesn't mention BLP any more? Or I suppose just explicitly mention something like however, excessive citations (for example, more than 2 or 3 in a single place) is rarely helpful.Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template language should mention that the quality of the sources is vastly more important than the quantity, and that the only sources that help establish notability are those that are reliable and that are independent of the topic, and that devote significant coverage to the topic. If I had a dime for every time I have explained those basic concepts at the Teahouse or the Help Desk or at WP:AFCHD, I could take my wife out to dinner at a Michelin-starred restaurant. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "Wikipedia articles are required to have multiple published, reliable sources that are independent of the subject."? Removing the "sufficiently" helps, I think. -- asilvering (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but sigcov doesn't fit with the others in that sentence without making it a bunch longer (it's the subject of the article, not the article itself, that needs "significant coverage", whereas everything else hangs on "articles are required to have ... sources"), so I'm on the side of brevity. -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the matter with major internet personalities rarely meeting notability?
If you compare this to the requirements under WP:ACADEMIC - remembering that millions of people watch these peoples' channels - the standards here, frankly, seem laughable. What could be done to fast-track such cases? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Herrera would have been accepted had he actually won the election, but otherwise? Find three good sources. They would be reviewed faster if they are absolutely unimpeachable on all four of the criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACADEMIC is purposefully very generous. I think the goal when creating that was to make sure that we squeezed in some academics into the encyclopedia, instead of just all soccer players. Internet personalities do seem to have a lot of trouble meeting WP:GNG. The fairness of the various WP:SNG notability guidelines might better be discussed at WT:N. Although the trend lately has been to get stricter, not looser. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subscriber figures/viewership aren't accurate indicators of notability and can be gamed. That's at least part of why those aren't hard notability criteria. It's possible for someone with 5 viewers to be notable, and someone with 5 million to not be notable. It depends on the coverage in independent sources. Someone with 5 million viewers may be more likely to draw coverage, but it's not a guarantee. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2007 as a new AfC reviewer who came across a lot of articles about social media personalities I felt there should be guidance on notability of such people. I started an essay to document my findings on policy and consensus around YouTubers, having trawled through hundreds of AfDs. I later moved it to WP:NYOUTUBE. I didn't keep the list up to date, but I suspect the pattern still holds. Given the impact of YouTube on how many people access entertainment, I think the Wikipedia community's distaste for YouTuber bios seems out of step. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oldest unreviewed draft is 6 weeks old
I noticed an unusual yellow color at the top of this page, and when I went to investigate, I notice our "oldest draft" color scale had turned from red to yellow, indicating the oldest unreviewed draft is only 6 weeks old. Nice work team :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The glorious thing about this is that I believe that AFC is now working as we always wished it to work. Please let us continue to review at this broad pace. 🇺🇦 FiddleFaddle 🇺🇦 10:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of well-written articles of 15th-19th century battles that purportedly occurred in the Pontic–Caspian steppe have been submitted by Enver Ottoman. I approved Avar-Kabardian campaign (1618) earlier today based on accidental conflation with a different event during my background investigation. I have now nominated it for deletion.
Two other articles by the same user have also been declined. In the case of Draft:Battle of Adji-Gozle, I wasn't able to verify that some of the sources even existed, let alone that they supported the content in the article. Killarnee also declined an article by this editor (Draft:Battle of River Khabl).
Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through these as thoroughly as I'd like at the moment and, without doing that, I can't definitely say they are part of an elaborate WP:HOAX. However, if someone has a few minutes to spare I think a detailed audit of the sources on this user's articles would be warranted. Assuming good faith, but with a measure of caution, this very well may simply be a misunderstanding by me or a case of some very obscure, offline sources that might be verifiable with a more thorough check. Chetsford (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that the link format for the purported Eastern Herald link is not their current link format or close to it by any means seems to suggest that source may be fabricated. I'm also concerned about the fact that the three book sources seem to have been published in Russia, two of them in the 1800s, yet have English titles and authors. The user obviously isn't opposed to using Cyrillic text in references, as they've done so in at least one other submittion. Lastly, the user has blatantly fabricated a DOI for two completely separate "journals" - the Journal of Ethnographic Studies and the Journal of Caucasian Studies - I'll email my reason for believing this to Chetsford directly per BEANS but I do not believe there is any way this was a mistake. All in all, even if the events are not hoaxes, this user is fabricating references at a minimum. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!04:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to verify any source, which isn't a surprise because the references included minimal information only about the sources used. I'm really careful with articles about ancient battles/sieges because hoaxes around this topic have been common in the past. Killarnee (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have an increasing feeling that this draft ought to have not been accepted, and yet I viewed it as having a better than 50% chance of survival. It may be that it is edited drastically by the community. I will not quarrel with AfD. 🇺🇦 FiddleFaddle 🇺🇦 16:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my intention, and I think it will have sufficient attention now. I hadn't realised there were pro and anti Gertoux factions. 🇺🇦 FiddleFaddle 🇺🇦 17:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CopyPatrolBot
I declined Draft:Kogbagidi for poor sourcing etc., and luckily happened to look at the logs where it said
07:51, 30 October 2024 CopyPatrolBot marked revision 1254284179 on Draft:Kogbagidi as a potential copyright violation (Tag: PageTriage)
...so I ran Earwig's detector on it, and sure enough, over 90% copyvio.
I don't know where this CopyPatrolBot reports its findings, but is there any way this could be flagged up on the draft page somehow, or otherwise made a bit more obvious? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really normal that these get accepted? Both User:SafariScribe and User:I dream of horses accepted lists where none of the entries were referenced, and User:CoconutOctopus accepted a third one despite only 2 of the entries being referenced, and a 3rd entry being contradicted by the source. I first took it up with the first two editors, but as one denies there being any issues, and the third editor has now joined their ranks, this looks to be something systematic and not a problem with a specific editor or one careless moment. The articles are Draft:List of Indian state reptiles, Draft:List of Indian state fishes (both no sources for the subject when accepted) and Draft:List of Indian state butterflies (one source confirming 2 entries and contradicting a 3rd, the other 30 or so entries unsourced). I have redraftified all three. Fram (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this wasn't the point of Fram's message, but I noticed that someone (ironically, a major sock producer!) had opened SPI on the author of these articles, 80.2.6.163(talk·contribs·WHOIS), suspecting them of being the same user as 91.235.65.22(talk·contribs·WHOIS) who is now blocked for two years. They asked for CU to confirm, which was obviously declined, but both IPs do geolocate very near each other, and both seem to have interest in these 'national symbol' type articles. If I had to guess, I'd say it's one person editing, maybe from a term-time vs. holiday location, hence the different IPs. IP 80 was already blocked for BE for 6 months... which expired today. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain the troll-like creation of talk pages without articles and the "thank you" messages when you explain issues, which are afterwards completely ignored / repeated. But, indeed, not the reason I posted here. Fram (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If every entry in a list has its own article, then in practice it's mostly alright for the list to rely on the referenced content of those linked articles. I think reviewers should make sure to check that the linked articles do actually support the draft list's claims – especially the list's inclusion criteria. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I agree that these shouldn't have been accepted, I'm just guessing why "unsourced list" wasn't an immediate red flag to the reviewers. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that the reviewers need a gentle reminder that sometimes verification is an important part of the reviewing process; I know that we don't necessarily require checking every reference for every fact, but I do agree that in this case verification quickly falls flat. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years I've seen a lot of either hoax entries or just unsourced assertions over such "official state ...." or "National symbols of ...." etc. These always need careful checking. As they were blocked before for 6 months for block evasion and have continued with the same types of edit I would suspect they are still evading. KylieTastic (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that they are not autopatrolled so all their accepts are re-checked by NPP anyway. Running some quick checks and out of 1172 accepts: 62 (5.3%) have been deleted (and a spot check found many were as the submitter was found to be block evading); 152 are redirects (but my code does not show how many were accepted as a redirect vs how many redirect after); 12 (1%) currently tagged for notability; 13 (1%) tagged for multiple issues. So certainly for someone who I know works on the older submissions including those in the grey areas of notability the stats for accepts don't look out of sorts.
I agree I did not like the acceptance of List of Indian state fishes but the discussion at least shows it was not the failure to check the sources but working on the idea that sources do exist. Personally I don't like that reasoning and think if you are aware of them add them, but to be fair to SafariScribe I have come across autopatrolled editors creating articles in mainspace will zero reliable sources just using the "sources exist" excuse when challenged, and also AfD discussion that end in keep because "sources exist" but none added to the article. I don't have a quick way to sanity check declines. KylieTastic (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the declines I'm more worried about, for biteyness reasons. I noticed a few weird ones from SafariScribe some time ago, but satisfied myself that they'd gotten more accurate and more helpful with responding to questions from submitters. I don't think I have much time in the next couple of days to check on any of these declines myself. -- asilvering (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that they are not autopatrolled so all their accepts are re-checked by NPP anyway. NPPs can mark their own AFC accepts as reviewed. The software only prevents their own page creations from being marked as reviewed by themselves. I haven't checked if the editor in question here is also marking their own accepts as patrolled, which is normally allowed, or if they're leaving them for other reviewers. Someone might want to check that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a random five of their recent accepts, and they hadn't marked any as patrolled. (I agree that it wouldn't have been wrong for them to do so – it's just worth knowing for this discussion.) jlwoodwa (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually done some spot checks already and I had already seen enough of how they worked in the past to not consider it a concern - sorry I should have mentioned. Some of their review choices may be wrong and should be challenged, but from what I have observed I believe they have been acting in good faith and they are not a bad-actor. Probably slowing somewhat would be help. Also although it's good to see the very old submissions being cleared it should not take precedence over correctness, it is fine and preferable to leave a review if your not sure. KylieTastic (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked yesterday half a dozen (mix of acceptances and declines; avoiding ones I had previously reviewed myself) and didn't find any issues with them. (One acceptance was a bit borderline, maybe, but no more than that.) The acceptances were already patrolled, not by SafariScribe but by uninvolved reviewers. Granted, this wasn't a large sample, esp. given how much SafariScribe gets through, and had I found problems I was prepared to keep going, but I didn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when I've found declines from SafariScribe that I disagree with, but there's always a rationale for it and it's almost never an unwarranted "reject", which is something that would be more pressing. Declined articles ideally lead to specific improvements and from there we have better articles that can be accepted; SafariScribe is contributing to the health of the system IMO. Replying here because I concur with the last sentence ("given how much SafariScribe gets through" in particular); what I see is a fraction of what gets processed. Reconrabbit18:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That log shows they appear to be marking the drafts as patrolled not the accepted articles. I thought when an article was moved to main-space it reset that flag is you weren't autopatrolled. KylieTastic (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to be piling on, and I've not done any review of other accepts so this is going to be unbalanced, but XW10508 seemed a little concerning. I've tagged it for now, but I don't think the refs are any good? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe has been contributing to AfC for months, and he has done many AfCs. Thus, I have only seen a small fraction of his work. However, I cannot recall stumbling across AfCs in which I could see how he demonstrated a severe lack of competence; I must admit though that I have only looked into AfC declines. User:Fram, could you do us a favour and give us a list of, say, 10 recent drafts SafariScribe accepted/declined/rejected to support your "statement" (I don't want to use the word allegation) that Too many of User:SafariScribe's recent reviews were problematic? This would help getting a better understanding of the situation. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion listed at the top has 7 examples (from one day this week), and another editor has listed 2 science articles they shouldn´t have accepted. Fram (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Harry Paulo is a questionable decline, as my limited access to the BNA shows that the subject might meet the GNG (see source 3, for instance) and probably meets WP:NACTOR #1, based on the reviews cited.
Draft:Jeffrey Yoo Warren is a good decline based on the state of the draft, though a quick search shows that the subject is likely notable [2][3][4][5].
Upsweep is a good accept, which I have now marked as patrolled (NPP).
Draft:Jake Van Tubbergen is probably a bad decline – the sources are probably enough to meet the GNG [6][7][8], and I haven't even checked all of them (some local news sites are blocked in Europe, probably GDPR stuff).
Considering this is a random sample, I am surprised by the number of reviews I disagree with (2/7 = 29%). However, haven't reviewed at AfC in a hot sec and might be rusty, so I'd appreciate if someone checked my work. All the disagreements could've been averted by more thorough source-checking on the part of SafariScribe, which seems to be the main/only issue here. Toadspike[Talk]22:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Pierre de Wet: Declined as v/bio; the draft cites 5 sources out of which one (Literator, FN 3) seems to be a quite good one; however, FN 1 and 4 are bare links, FN 5 refers to a diagram/JPEG file; FN 2 refers to Beeld. This "sourcing" situation indicates that rather than looking into the sources, the footnotes were "slapped" onto the draft's sentences. A quick comparision of the source referred to in FN 3 and the draft shows that the source was not sufficiently read. While there may be notability, the draft clearly doesn't demonstrate any in accordance with WP:NFILMMAKER.
Draft:Eve Bernhardt: Declined as v; the draft cites three tabloid newspapers, and glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com. While this sourcing isn't awful, there is room for improvement. What is not okay, however, is that 50 per cent of the draft is based on hearsay due to a lack of references to any sources at all.
Draft:Anna Lundberg: Declined as v/bio; the draft cites Metro, Express, Instagram, and Facebook, (i.e., generally unreliable sources) which make up 30 per cent of the footnotes (and I can spot 4 duplicate Footnotes by just glimpsing). I didn't check all the sources, but my 6-link sample makes me presume that the cited sources are non-notability indicating, tabloid-media like ones that either don't mention the subject, or simply mention her without discussing her.
Draft:Sayali Salunkhe: Declined as v; the draft has 8 footnotes with references to four sources (TOI, IANS, ITAA, and Sony LIV). IANS hosts a press release, Sony LIV is a primary source, and ITAA is also a primary source. This leaves us with a single source. Large sections of this BLP are unsourced.
Carla Guevara Laforteza: Declined as lacking sources in the Filmography and "Notable stage credits" sections. None of the sections had any references to any sources, and were subsequently shrunk due to a lack of sources (Special:Diff/1253541304/1254926670).
Draft:Pierre de Wet has four good sources, not one, and one (the diagram) which contains good sources, which the editor probably didn't know how to source directly. You claim "A quick comparision of the source referred to in FN 3 and the draft shows that the source was not sufficiently read.", but ref is purely used to reference "was a filmmaker in South Africa.", where the source says "Pierre de Wet is often referred to as ‘the father of the Afrikaans film industry’", which not only verifies the referenced claim, but also makes it again clear that he is really, truly notable (not that there "may" be notability). That some sources are bare links or an offline source does not in any way support your claim that the footnotes were slapped on or not sufficiently read (at least not by the creator), e.g. source 4[14] directly supports the claim made.
Draft:Eve Bernhardt: you are aware that a tabloid "format" doesn't necessarily mean tabloid "contents" surely? I have no idea why you so rudely dismiss Classic Images, which seems a perfectly legitimate (and notability-indicating) source for this type of article. It is good enough for GAs like Frank Sinatra, The Godfather or Ben-Hur (1959 film).
Draft:Anna Lundberg: are you serious? It also uses The Observer, RadioTimes, BBC, Channel4, Independent, ... We have an article purely about her from People[15], which is listed as reliable in WP:RSPN. But the decline has a big tag stating "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". This is just plain wrong.
Draft:Sayali Salunkhe doesn't have "one source", it has four different articles from one newspaper. And the awards source may be primary, but it is independent and an indication of notability.
Carla Guevara Laforteza: an unsourced filmography section for an otherwise adequately sourced article about a clearly notable person should never be a reason to decline a draft, it is putting way higher requirements on drafts than on other articles (no article would be draftified in the state this one was in). Accept the draft, put "refs needed" on these sections, and you have actually a decent new article and a happy new editor. Fram (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I never use AfC if I can help it. The vast majority of reviewers are terrible at reviewing and practically none follow WP:AFCPURPOSE (especially its last sentence). That entire section should honestly be scrapped if it's not going to actually be used. The section below it, WP:AFCSTANDARDS, is also pretty great, because I've seen so many of those listed non-appropriate decline reasons used as decline reasons. Heck, you just brought up the bare urls one yourself that Johannes Maximilian just erroneously used. Silverseren16:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren, can I convince you to become a reviewer yourself? Even if it's just to occasionally resubmit-and-accept any problematic reviews you come across, it would be a huge help. I originally joined up to help fish out the occasional obvious pass from the backlog, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually planning to do so in the future (though after the end of the year, since I'm currently locked in to #1week1woman until then and it takes up the majority of my wiki time). Silverseren16:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added you to the list so that you can go ahead and give it a go if you happen to bump into something that needs mainspacing between now and then. No worries if you don't. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannes Maximilian, I would agree with Fram that the first two and the last of these are problematic declines simply by reading your descriptions of them. Please try only to decline articles that would be extremely likely to be deleted at AfD, or which have problems that can't easily be fixed by normal editing. We can't expect perfection of new editors. For the other two, it sounds to me (again without looking carefully at the drafts myself) that, if declined, substantial comments should have been given so that the submitter could understand what to improve. -- asilvering (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that Draft:Eve Bernhardt was a main-space creation that was draftified and submitted with no change so SafariScribe was just agreeing with the Broc. I must admit what always annoys me with these types of discussion is when people berate others for not accepting an article(s) then leave them languishing in draft. Anyone who reviews a draft enough to criticise another for not accepting should take the simple action to submit/accept or just move to main-space. However, as Draft:Eve Bernhardt was created in 2024 by Samuelrclaesson a sock of Dbzsamuele blocked in 2007 so I've G5ed it. KylieTastic (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have now disputed. G5 is a trash deletion policy and I have a low opinion of its use in any case that isn't connected to actual issues with the article itself. Because we're here to build an encyclopedia and G5's purpose is to harm the encyclopedia to "punish" someone who's banned, not to actually defend and improve said encyclopedia. If banned editors could actually manage to quietly make a new account and just make good articles and stop whatever behavior and actions that got them banned in the first place, then we'd all be better off for it. And this draft seems quite in my wheelhouse of what I work on. Silverseren18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree and I wish/hope that your "I take responsibility" is taken as a valid argument as there have been quite a few articles I have worked on and fully checked that then got G5ed. Ideally I would like to see G5 changed to allow such challenges officially. At the moment G5 is used as punitive against the blocked editor rather than consider the value of the article or others input. If your challenge works I would definitely use myself. Another new article in main-space is always the goal.... I watch with interest. KylieTastic (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic if this happens to you, query it with the deleting admin, and if necessary take them to WP:DRV. That's absolutely not supposed to happen. @Silver seren, thanks for fixing that one up. I will say that in my experience G5 is not at all about punishment and is very much about defending the encyclopedia - the sockpuppet deletions I've done are usually editors who were initially blocked for things like UPE, source fabrication, etc, so G5 allows us to clean that up without wasting everyone's time. -- asilvering (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that giving submitters advice on what and how to improve is generally a good thing to do. I also reckon that giving submitters this advice is more important than working on new AfCs, especially if submitters ask for help. However, it must be said that giving this advice may be a tedious, time-consuming, yet fruitless process. AfC reviewers must learn to deal with this. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some declined reviews from today (November 2):
Draft:Yielziey: good decline -- no footnotes, mostly links to primary sources (e.g., Spotify)
Draft:Assin Godstime: good decline, but weird comment to the editor: "Can we agree to accepting this, and subsequently to WP:AFD, if you think the reviewers aren't helping you". The page has been declined multiple times for failing NAUTHOR. It would likely be beneficial to have a more detailed explanation of what they must do to fix the article.
Yup. It is a strategy that has come up several times over the last decade I've been doing this and has always got mostly negative feedback. I think there is possible merit in having a way submitters can ask for a full AfD consensus review rather than an AfC review, but it seems clear consensus is that AfC reviewers should not be suggesting this. KylieTastic (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in most cases, the best process for this would likely be to inform the editor they can move the draft to the main space themselves, though it may be nominated for deletion. This applies to most editors. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Robertson... I raised issue on this accept. Tried to discuss with this user but he never responded. I draftified the article ... they came back moved it on main space and and an IP from Italy started cleaning up. I am smelling UPE now. Hitro talk
Hi @HitroMilanese:, sorry if I chime in, I just wanted to point out that I do not personally know Mary Robertson and I have most certainly not been asked (let alone paid) to write this page. Her Psychiatry at a Glance was one of my textbooks at university and I simply enjoy her work. Since she was a professor at UCL and an expert on Tourette, I assumed she met Wikipedia's notability criteria, but of course I might be wrong. I wrote the draft a few hours ago and was surprised to discover it had already been published when I checked half am hour ago, I thought it would take weeks. Since more sources were required, I simply addeded them.87.4.47.249 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like a disputed PROD, there are no exceptions other than the standard exception for rolling back vandalism, which does not apply here. This should only go back to draft as the result of an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure asilvering knows how to move pages. You are being encouraged to self-revert, which (as described at that link) is a way to show good faith after realizing that you've erred. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. Where it does not belong, at present, is draftspace, and it should not have been returned there. If you think it does not belong in mainspace either, you may nominate it for AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What SafariScribe did was "accept a draft and then immediately nominate it for deletion", which is discouraged because you should only accept drafts that you think belong in mainspace. What you should do is "revert your improper draftification", which does not mean you think it belongs in mainspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am accepting my error. I may have erred. Should I move this draft to main space? Even in this condition? Yes or No will suffice. Hitro talk02:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HitroMilanese You broke the rules. Asilvering telling you to stop breaking the rules is hardly an unexpected outcome. Whatever happened to "Oh, sorry, I misunderstood when I could move something back to draftspace. I'll fix that, and open up a COI thread"?
It wasn't like that at all. Mistakes happen. Are you saying you're not prone to making errors? Anyone can make mistakes. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Asilvering can respond to me directly, Hitro talk02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Technically, I don’t understand what you expect me to do. Do you want me to move this draft to back to the main space, even though I know it doesn’t belong there, especially considering that the reviewer is already under scrutiny? Hitro talk01:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know and respect guidelines that is why I survived here on Wikipedia for 18 years. 14 years before you made your first edit. Hitro talk02:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being a PITA, but WP:DRAFTOBJECT is part of an essay and is not a policy or a guideline, no matter how some people treat it. Redraftifying an article is perfectly acceptable in some cases, e.g. when a terrible article on a notable subject is put into the mainspace again by the creator without making an effort to make even the most basic improvements. Please stop treating it is a policy or even a guideline. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that I was coerced into moving the draft back to the main space by two inexperienced admins who were attempting to enforce an essay, mistakenly believing it to be policy or guideline. One of them called it an "out of process redraftification". @Asilvering that is why I said, "Bad decision with your admin hats on". Hitro talk10:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not for notability/sourcing/quality of writing, no (things could be improved of course, but clearly good enough for the mainspace). I have no opinion whether there was any evidence of COI, which might be a good enough reason to redraftify if so. Fram (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page Mover Moving a Sandbox to Draft Space
I have a question about AFCH reviewers who have the Page Mover privilege. If a reviewer is reviewing a user sandbox that has been tagged as submitted, standard procedure is to move the sandbox into draft space, with the appropriate title. My question is: Should the reviewer suppress redirect creation, or allow redirect creation? I became aware within the past 24 hours that different reviewers who have the page mover privilege have different practices. So, should the reviewer suppress redirect creation if they have the option (which is what Page Mover provides) to suppress redirect creation? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most commonly the move is within the draft space or from user sandbox/subpage to draft space, so I allow the redir.
I mainly suppress it when moving a draft that is on the actual user page; in that case I untick all the option boxes (redir, talk page, subpages).
I also suppress it when moving from the main space (or any other space from which redirs to drafts aren't allowed), but that's not what you were asking.
I think a page mover should always default to leaving a redirect. I think a page mover can only suppress the redirect if it qualifies for a CSD. In DoubleGrazing's example above, they correctly mention that you can suppress mainspace to draftspace (during draftification) since that is CSD R2. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When moving a draft from the actual user page to the draft space, if you don't suppress the redir it creates a mess. Anybody trying to then go to the user's user page ends up in the draft. (And the user talk page becomes the draft talk page, if you happen to move that along with the main page, which is what the default setting does.) That's why I only move the actual user page and don't allow the redir, and then manually move any WikiProject tags and other draft talk page content from the user's talk page to the draft talk page which I create. I then post a message on the user talk page telling them where I've moved the draft to, in case they can't otherwise work it out.
I don't know if this strictly complies with the page mover rules, but I'd argue it's what works best in practice, in terms of subsequent operation of the user's resultant user and user talk pages. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a standardised practice. My reading of policies when I first gotten the pagemover hat before becoming admin: WP:PMRC#9 allows suppression with appropriate CSD rationale. So page movers can suppress by applying CSD G7, author request rationale, since the redirect would have been created under their own usernames if not suppressed, although there is a question of WP:INVOLVED if someone wants to force the issue. Personally, I would suppress redirection if it is moving from the user's sandbox with an message be left on that editor's user talk page directing them to the draft space, because I have been pinged a couple of times before for AfDs for articles that were written over the redirect that were created in that editor's sandbox. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I dislike that if you move a sandbox and leave a redirect then they use the sandbox for the next draft you are now the 'creator'. I stopped moving them years ago for this reason and still don't as a page mover due to what appears to be a grey area in the policy. Personally I think not leaving a redirect from a sandbox to avoid future confusions is best as long as long as you leave a message about the move, but I'll continue to refrain unless there is a consensus that WP:PMRC#9 + G7 is valid reasoning. KylieTastic (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G7 says: For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. So generally they aren't eligible for G7 and probably shouldn't be supressed. CFA💬15:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PMRC does not really allow for redirect suppression when moving a sandbox (which is what Robert is asking about), and I don't think I've ever done it. I'm not really bothered by (or care about) whether I "created" a page then expanded and actually written by someone. Exceptions will always exist, but on the whole AFC reviewers should not be suppressing the creation of a redirect when they draftify a sandbox. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that is the specific question Robert asked. My fault for taking this on a tangent.
Specifically on that, I don't suppress the redir either, when moving from sandbox to draft:, although I do empathise with the point made about becoming the 'creator' of subsequent drafts from the sandbox. It is a bit annoying to receive notifications (AfD, pre-G13) for 'my' drafts which have nothing to do with me, because I (feel I) have to then go and notify the actual author myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My practice is to leave a redirect unless a user: page at top level.
If User:Foo contains an article about Bar, I move User:Foo to Draft:Bar, do not leave a redirect, but am careful to untick SUBPAGES and Talk page.
The list of requests at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is growing at an outstanding rate. While we all have done a job to never create a backlog there, the slow archival process has made it tough to go to the newer requests. I know that we can just use the End key, but is there a need to keep the requests for such a long time? I think the archival rate can be increased, changing it to 15 or 10 days. Thoughts? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The archive period is 7 days, based on Special:Diff/1253421658; I don't really think that should be shortened. We could maybe do something similar to WP:BOTREQ and speed up the archival process if {{AfC-c}} is used on a request, shortening it to maybe 3 days (i.e. "immediate archiving"). Rcsprinter123 would be the one to ask about implementing that sort of change, though. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. The automatic threshold for a closed thread to be archived is 24 hours. I have been away during the week which is why threads built up on this occasion, but they are cleared with a single bot edit. Rcsprinter123(discourse)13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
