Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

AfC redirects becoming articles retain the AfC banner

I was looking at Talk:Russian landing ship Orsk, which has the AfC banner and accordingly says "This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation.", with the member in question being me. But what in fact happened was I created it as part of AFCRC - see Special:Diff/1080413248. It was then edited into an article, which has not been through the AfC process. Probably the correct thing to do here is to remove the AfC banner. But I would assume there are many more articles like this. Thoughts? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Dunno, you have a reasonable point, but on the other hand it does say it was reviewed on 24 March 2022. The fact that someone turned it into an article on 12 April 2025 is somewhat immaterial. That being said, it might be worth making a change to the script to mirror AFCH, which if I remember correctly adds a diff link to the banner so that it is easy to see the "state" it was in at the time. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make a change to afcrc-helper (thanks to Qwerfjkl for notifying me of this discussion). AFCH provides the oldid parameter to {{WikiProject Articles for creation}}, which adds a note This article was accepted from this draft on .... It might be helpful to add a paramater such as redirect that could be specified so the template's message could be changed. Additionally, the text could be changed to detect if the corresponding article is actually a redirect and change it's content respectively.

Separately, we could always add a tracking category to the template that shows if it is on the talk page of a non-redirect so it can be removed. However, I agree with Primefac in that it may as well be kept. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Low on bandwidth at the moment but I'll try to add "rejigging the sentencing if it's a redirect" to my list of things to check out. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! Let me know if/when you'd like me to make changes on my end. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate COI notices after decline

Tracked in github.com
Issue #206

Has any one else noticed the AFCH script duplicating the COI notice on drafts after they get declined? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There's that 'bug' (for lack of a better term) whereby non-reviewer comments get duplicated with each review. I'm guessing this is related to that, in that the COI notice is (presumably?) posted by the author, so the said bug sees it as a non-reviewer comment. That's how I explained it to myself, at least – curious to see how badly off the mark I was! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That sounds about right...I think. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Got some diffs? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

does it look something like this? [1] Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's it McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it does that because there's a comment after the signature, and AFCH looks for a sig as the last thing. I've moved the hidden comment to before the sig, so hopefully that will reduce the occurrences of this happening. Of course, if I'm totally wrong, then it won't do anything, but we'll see! Primefac (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Ricky Benitez looks like a particularly severe version of https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/issues/206, since it is doubling the # of comments every time that AFCH touches it. Will try to prioritize fixing this bug. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It's still happening: Draft:DocShipper Group has been declined thrice this morning, and has built up quite a pile of these notices. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As Primefac said probably the comment after the signature. I've fixed up so hopefully it will stop now. KylieTastic (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for review – Draft:Thomas Canto

Hello,

I have written a draft article for the artist Thomas Canto, available here: User:Fineart23/Draft:Thomas Canto

He is a French contemporary artist with major solo exhibitions (Centre Pompidou, Matthew Liu Fine Arts), a monograph published by Les Presses du Réel, and works in public collections (Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bibliothèque nationale de France, etc.).

Could someone review the draft and let me know if it meets the notability requirements for publication?

Thank you! Fineart23 (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Fineart23 another editor has already moved your draft to Draft:Thomas Canto. To submit it for review, please click the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button at the bottom of the gray box at the top of your draft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

In the future please post questions about drafts to the AFC help desk directly; I have moved the draft to Draft:Thomas Canto and added the appropriate information to enable submission. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that ! Fineart23 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of Draft: Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss

Dear AfC reviewers,

I kindly request a review of my draft article: Draft:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss.

The draft was previously discussed on a noticeboard, but the reviewer was not an administrator, and the discussion was closed as not relevant to administrators' scope. I am now seeking a formal and neutral review under AfC guidelines.

The draft includes the following reliable, verifiable references:

- A published monograph with ISBN [978-9984-322-97-5] in the National Library of Latvia (https://dom.lndb.lv/) - Confirmation of publication by the independent Latvian publisher “Sava Grāmata” - Cultural recognition from H.R.H. Princess Cleopatra VIII Generosa Cardamone, posted on an official institutional website (https://www.principatocardamone.com/slow-art) - Authorship of the international movement “Slow Art,” documented in multiple languages

I am open to improvements, restructuring, and suggestions. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely, Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss/Draft

You have posted on several editor's talk pages, the help desk, the administrator's noticeboard and now here, please be patient and resubmit the article instead. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask, this draft is... where exactly? You haven't linked to an existing draft, nor have I been able to find anything. Furthermore, it's usually advised not to make articles about yourself, as per WP:AUTO and WP:YOURSELF. However, I'm guessing you likely know this considering you are trying to present reliable references in this message.

Nevermind, found it (I'm guessing it is User:Anatolijs Vinstons Mailss/Draft). Not only did you not even submit it, but the page instantly fails in many areas. It has no inline citations, already quite a mess to read, and for some reason only two unreliable references on the page. Please, if you really think you deserve a page for whatever reason, ensure it's good by meeting wikipedia page standards and notability guidelines.

Furthermore, if you do have another page I somehow failed to find, notify me. Although, checking by your user contributions, there is nothing. Setergh (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikiproject lists of reliable sources

I may be far behind the times, but I just today learned about Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources (and several other resources linked from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#See also: I had no idea NPP had their own source list!). Great centralized place to look for source guidance on a specific topic, and not all of those sources have made it to WP:RSNP. Rusalkii (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Was this draft really created by an LLM?

Draft:Roger A. Pedersen was recently declined as being written by a large language model. How is this determined for reviewing drafts these days? The draft reads to me much like any other first attempt at writing an article about a professor by someone who knows his work. It follows closely the institutional obituary for this recently deceased man, with addition from his faculty profile. It also reads like most Wikipedia professor articles. Is sounding like us an indication of using an LLM, and if so how do we encourage editors to write like us if such attempts are rejected? StarryGrandma (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the reviewer accidentally pressed the wrong option, as not only do I personally not see any signs of AI but the reviewer's comment talks about the references rather than the possibility of AI. Setergh (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about this draft, but nonexistent references (that is, sources that look like they are articles in peer reviewed journals or books published by real publishing companies, but are actually made up) is one of the surest signs of LLM generated content. --bonadea contributions talk 17:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Setergh, @Bonadea, I was the author of the comment concerning references but I am not the reviewer who later declined the article. A quick click on the sources would show that they are real. I agree that it may have been a choice of wrong option. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate a ping when people discuss my reviews. No, this wasn't an accidental button press, I really do think that the draft was (at least partially) AI-generated. The signs are spread throughout the draft, but they're densest in the "Contributions to Stem Cell Biology" section. I didn't decline the draft just for sounding AI-like, but rather for having unsourced vague claims that sounded AI-like. I hold such articles to a higher standard because of the high rate of AI hallucinations. And even if I'm wrong and there was no AI involved here, "no unsourced vague claims" isn't impossible or unfair to expect of humans. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Submission: Steven H. Kram

Hello! I’ve drafted an article for Steven H. Kram, co-founder and CEO of Content Partners. The draft includes inline citations from reliable sources such as The New York Times, Variety, Deadline, and the Los Angeles Times. I would like to submit it for review.

Here is the draft: User:Mikaela.casanova1607/sandbox

Thank you! Mikaela.casanova1607 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It's now at Draft:Steven H. Kram and successfully submitted. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This page is not the AFC Help Desk, that's at WP:AFCHD. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft : Matthew Lani

Review of Draft:Matthew Lani. It was declined previously due to lack of reliable source especially for the age. Creator has removed and made another additional fixes based on advices received from other editors. Can we consider an approval? Ashleyashville (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ashleyashville: you have resubmitted the draft, and will get another assessment when a reviewer gets around to reviewing it.

In the future, please ask such draft-related questions at the AfC help desk WP:AFCHD. This talk page is for discussing the operation of the AfC project. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you and I apologise 197.185.139.167 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft moved to mainspace by the creator

So the article Parbad Kali Mandir (Temple) was moved to mainspace by its creator TheCoolContributor477 after being declined by RangersRus. This move was reverted by Qualitist but then was moved again to mainspace without being approved. Should we do something about this, like issuing a warning? NeoGaze (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC) NeoGaze (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There’s no requirement that articles have to go through AfC, so no action is really needed. If you want you can send it to AfD though. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves deletion, but I do think that the creator should have kept working on it before deciding to move it to mainspace on his own. Isn't that the whole point of creating a draft and issuing it for review? NeoGaze (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Mostly the point of AfC is to review drafts by non-autoconfirmed users or those with a COI. Outside of that, there is no need for an AfC review so if an WP:AGF auto-confirmed editor disagrees with a decline, they can move it mainspace and that's fine. In addition, the criteria for acceptance is the article likely would not be deleted, so if you do not think it warrants an AfD then there's no issue with it being in mainspace it seems. S0091 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh okay, I didn't know that first part. Thanks for telling me. NeoGaze (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Also if not AfD worthy you can tag with any issues with the standard maintenance tags. KylieTastic (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I just did that. NeoGaze (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to the draft and reverted revision back to last review. The draft was declined twice. Article is simply very poor and not ready for mainspace with poor WP:CHURNALISM and unreliable sources like youtube. The creator should work on the article from the feedback provided. If this article does get moved back again to mainspace by the creator, it should be nominated at AFD. RangersRus (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

And now moved back. S0091 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Situations like this, in which a page is declined, and then moved into article space anyway, and moved back to draft space and moved back to article space again, are (unfortunately) not uncommon. We (the reviewers at AFC) need to decide in such cases whether to let the article stay in article space or whether to nominate it for deletion. AFD is the consensus process to resolve these cases. Sometimes the result of the AFD is to draftify the article again but to ECP-protect it so as to require AFC review, and that is one of the few situations in which the use of AFC can be required. In this case, User:RangersRus has said that the article should be nominated for deletion. I haven't nominated it for deletion yet because I prefer to complete the source assessment first so as to include it with the AFD. This means that sometimes someone else nominates it, and I can include the source assessment with the vote. Welcome to AFC, User:NeoGaze. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about the AfC template at the top of draft pages

Hello, I have noticed on a few drafts (mostly those that have been declined by multiple reviewers) that the author will sometimes delete the AfC template at the top of the page, which has all the info about who has declined it and when + their comments. I couldn't find any specific guideline about whether or not it's okay for authors to remove it (or if it would be okay for someone to reinstate it w/ the source code?). Thanks in advance! Zzz plant (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

(non-AFC reviewer comment) The template has a notice saying that you shouldn't remove the comments/decline notice until the draft is accepted Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, they should not remove those. I try to remember to check the history before reviewing, and I always restore previous declines and comments if I find that they have been removed. Remember to add the parameter small=yes to previous declines, like this, if (and only if) the draft has been resubmitted, and only if the parameter is not already there. --bonadea contributions talk 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both! Zzz plant (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:AfC submission § Template-protected edit request on 24 April 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC submission § Template-protected edit request on 24 April 2025. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

User:MolecularBot/AfCResubmissions.json ; No longer maintained?

User:MolecularBot/AfCResubmissions.json is not removing deleted drafts like Draft:How ota works in medical field, and the bot's supposed maintainer has not edited in a month. Is the "detect useless resubmissions" thing going to be out of order in just a few months like that, or is someone going to fix it? AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Since the bot is still running maybe just get an admin to remove the first 4 as deleted (per Wikipedia:Declined AfC submissions resubmitted without any changes) and see if that fixes things. They have only been away a month so may be back. You could also post a message on their user page the the bot has a bug so they know for if/when they come back. KylieTastic (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Drafts Marked as Being Reviewed but Forgotten

Sometimes I mark a draft as under review. Then I take a break from reviewing (and I normally do that after marking a draft as under review, because I don't bother to mark it if I will be finishing work on it while I am at my desk). Then I sometimes forget that I have marked it as under review. Several days later, I get a message from another reviewer asking if I am still reviewing it. I then usually take action. Here is the suggestion. Looking for drafts that have marked as under review for more than 72 hours sounds like a robotic task. Could a bot be written to look for drafts that have marked as in review for more than 72 hours and provide a reminder to the reviewer? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(non AFC reviewer comment) I definitely support this, for example, my recent draft, ChromeOS Flex, was marked as being reviewed by @Setergh at 18:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC). After a couple hours, I notified Setergh (see User talk:Setergh#My draft), and Setergh reviewed my draft shortly afterwards. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 19:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Would it be more efficient to just automatically unmark them, in the event of someone going inactive for a while? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, unmarking them as a good idea; but, on the other hand, I think that the reviewer should also be notified. The reviewer might not be on vacation. The reviewer might really have forgotten. If the reviewer is then notified, he or she can take another look and finish dealing with the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Could just notify the reviewer and then remove the template X hours later if no edits have been made. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This could potentially be done semi-automatically by transcluding a list of all pages marked as under review at Template:AfC statistics#Being reviewed to a central location so that folks could keep an eye on it. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)