Thank you for taking the time to clarify the notability and sourcing concerns for Prof Joseph Borg (scientist) The intent of the draft is to document Professor Borg’s work strictly through independent, verifiable sources. In addition to third-party feature coverage of his research, the article reflects his recent admission to theNational Order of Merit (Malta), the country’s highest civilian honour, which is independently reported and publicly verifiable. Fully understand that notability rests on what reliable, independent sources state rather than on authorship or credentials, and will continue refining the draft accordingly when possible. If there are particular types of independent academic or critical coverage you would recommend prioritising underWP:ACADEMIC, would be grateful for that guidance.
Hello, I've edited theDraft:Rosedale Banishment entry and it's ready for you to review. I adjusted the end of the section to address all your concerns. Many of the citations for those facts are attributed to the pictures of the original documents that accompany the article.codypat13 (talk)
Hello ChrysGalley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion ofDraft:Lauren Gregory Edwards, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you.Whpq (talk)15:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know @Whpq - did you take into account this section:Relationship with her father - Edwards’ relationship with her father is characterised by mutual respect, sarcasm, and unsolicited advice. Despite frequent eye-rolling, the relationship is widely regarded as supportive and stable.ChrysGalley (talk)15:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keyvan Moghissi, 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 asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
"Hello,ChrysGalley, Please I have rewritten the draft to ensure a neutral point of view . i have removed the motto , email,contact and specific religious references from the infobox. i have also restored the independent reference to DevelopmentAid. I hope this version now meets Wikipedia's standards. I have also added independent references from DevelopmentAid.I would appreciate it if you could review these changes and consider removing the G11 speedy deletion tag. Thank you for your guidance."Francis Kofi Takyi Adams (talk)02:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @~2026-78128-3 - generally that is not considered independent. Indeed my workplace has a bio about me, and guess who wrote it? There are some exceptions, but this isn't one of them. As a source it can be OK to verify uncontroversial details, but in addition toWP:V we need alsoWP:N, and that requiresWP:42 three times over.ChrysGalley (talk)19:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have redone my sources and found more unbiased information and more credible sources. Could you please take another look at it? It has been resubmitted.Fallendoor2 (talk)13:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Fallendoor2 @~2026-78128-3 - yes that certainly improves matters, so thank you for taking the time to do this. But I will let another reviewer check this, so that there's an independent set of eyes on this. If you have a connection / relationship / know / are the subject then this needs to be declared viaWP:COI. It's not problematic for a draft, but it needs to be done for transparency reasons.ChrysGalley (talk)14:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification. I also thought it was odd that no-one had put in an article, though it is tricky for business people to get articles since if they appear in the press it's usually to do an interview.ChrysGalley (talk)14:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that is that you can't source to yourself, except in a few circumstances. This is an encyclopedia, so it represents the summary of reliable sources out in the wild. So book, newspapers, magazines, academic journal. So a good article would pull those sources together, summarise them, and that summary is then the article. If the information is only from you, then it won't meet this:WP:GOLDENRULE. So you need some independent coverage to get an article. If you are writing about yourself, then as a draft that is OK, but you need to declare it viaWP:COI, for transparency reasons. See alsoWP:FAQAS.
You can write about yourself @THEpeanutCA, that is allowed in a draft form, we strongly advise you not to do so, but it's not actually banned. You can also get someone else to write about you, but if they know you or have any connection with you then they too are under theWP:COI policy. Writing about yourself or someone you know is not easy in Wikipedia simply because you cannot easily assess your own notability or necessarily summarise the existing reliable sources that are out there. Separately, you still need good quality sources, whether writing about yourself or writing about someone that you are not connected with. But the sort of criteria you need is set out inWP:MUSICBIO - so for example any success in an official chart will help, and it can be in any country. In addition to MUSICBIO, you can also check some other musicians. In particular check the Talk page tab of these artists, if it has a B or C grade then that means the article is pretty good. Then check how that article has been sourced.ChrysGalley (talk)16:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Prabhbajwa0 - The problem with those two articles -Draft:Hamir Singh of Nabha andDraft:Jaswant Singh of Nabha is that they are very clearly 100% LLM in origin. There is no evidence of a human re-write other than one or two words swapped over. LLM is not your friend. What we have found, in a recent survey of this, is that LLM kind of contaminates articles, you can't just alter what LLM has done, it take so long that you may as well start again without LLM. See also this essayWP:BACKWARDS. And you may want to initially amend existing articles to get practice, but do this editing without LLM. Don't worry about how your English looks, that is very easy to fix, LLM is a nightmare to fix.
Here is how I write a new article (it's hard work, by the way). I find say 3 good sources. Yes you can use LLM just for that task, but the danger is LLM puts some obscure rubbish as one of the 3 sources just because LLM is lazy and it's the first thing they find. I use Google, my university library and WorldCat a lot to find sources. So I then read those sources, perhaps twice. What you were doing was letting LLM do that reading for you, and that's wrong. Having read the sources I then put them out of sight and write some bullet points, maybe three bullet points, maybe ten, depending on how detailed the sourcing is. You don't want too many bullet points, you are just summarising the information. Being bullet points you don't need to worry about language. Then I open the source again and double check what my summary says is close to what the source said, to prevent errors. The old guide of Who? What? When? Where? Why? - that has its own article:Five Ws. With that in mind the bullet points should be easy.
Here is a recent example of my bullet points (though I wrote them on pen and paper originally)
a) She was born x, she married in y to z. She died in 1922 and is buried in Hampstead Cemetery. She had one son, also a writer.
b) She wrote x books, the one most known is book z, translated into n languages, and a school text book in the UK until 1940.
c) She found out her husband was stealing her royalty payments in 1899 and divorced him for adultery, though she confirmed in 1920 that there was no adultery.
d) Her book z dealt with European history in the Middle Ages, it has been out of print since 1960. It has been more recently criticised by historians, for focusing too heavily on certain areas of Europe to support her narrative.
Now if I did that to the other two sources I would quickly have 3 summaries in bullet points, probably some overlaps. Then I can shuffle the bullet points around to get a chronological order, though actually Wikipedia does not require articles to be written like that. Then the last stage, doing the draft, should be quite quick: do the references first, give each one a "ref name=sourceA", then put in the bullet points but this time in flowing English. Then use the ref names to allocate a source to the text. Read up about ref names, it makes life so much easier if you do that early in the process, seeWP:REFNAME.
Hey, you mentioned that you need more sources but the thing is that there is not much details on tourism site and apparently its a archeological site. Kindly rereview as I have already included every possible sources i could find.Adrikshit (talk)13:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well @Adrikshit my view would be that unless there is significant coverage by independent sources then you will need to wait until you find something. One option for you to consider: if this Stupa is officially protected, which I guess it probably is, then it may come underWP:GEOFEAT. If so, you just need a source that reliably confirms that status. By all means resubmit the article for another reviewer to consider, it's possible they will take a different view of this.ChrysGalley (talk)13:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 13:54:33, 8 February 2026 for assistance onAfC submission by Dwarf07
Thank you for your feedback. You state that more than one secondary source should be cited, and there is only one.I had, in fact, added four secondary sources:
- The first reference (Using the Strype editor for micro:bit programming)- Under external links, the third, fourth and sixth entry
All of these are independent of the original authors.Regards.
Yes @Dwarf07, but only 2 references directly linked to the article. This is an encyclopedia, so you take the existing sources, summarise them, then link the points of the summary to references. It's not sufficient just to put 4 generic links. External links do not count for notability as a result. It's more useful for sources which are not considered reliable, such as Insta, it is OK to put them into External links (carefully!) but they still don't count for notability. SeeWP:42 andWP:BACKWARDS.ChrysGalley (talk)14:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 18:04:03, 10 February 2026 for assistance onAfC submission by Aashumim
Thank youUser:ChrysGalley, for your review and pointingWP:NEWLLM. I have revised the content and request you to please help me to correct the contains and remove the promotional area.
The best I can suggest @Aashumim is to have a look at the pinned article just above, called "Article Creation". This was in response to a similar issue with someone using LLM. The short version is that you get say 3 sources that discuss the subject at length, then summarise what those 3 articles say, perhaps using bullet points. If you write it yourself, and keep to a neutral tone, you will have more success than using LLM. However a key aspect is whether the subject is notable under the guidelines, that there really are 3 sources that completely fill this guide:WP:42ChrysGalley (talk)18:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you have been reviewing a lot of drafts and was wondering if you might be interesting in looking at the one I submitted for review last month. If not, that is fine.NewAccount7295 (talk)01:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works for me here in the UK, and I guess it wasn't so much that precise URL as the other material that comes off it. Now that may be challenged further down the road, in terms of content to sourcing linkage, but from a review point of view it seems OK to me for notability and verification. So I'll release it for now and see what happens.ChrysGalley (talk)08:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chrys,Thanks for reviewing my draft. I have added a few more sources but have found it difficult to locate certain evidence, especially when it comes to Jazz Festivals. Jazz Festival websites typically provide details for their current or most recent event only. There is rarely any attempt to archive information relating to previous years, which is kind of understandable as some festivals go back decades and there would be a lot of information to list.Educational institutions normally have information about current staff only, and even then, the information might be only available to logged-in students.One thing I would point out is that Steve is already mentioned on the Wikipedia pages of at least 5 other artists, you can see these athttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=steve+sedergreen&ns0=1Do you think there are enough sources to proceed with the article, and/or do I just need to delete any text that I can't provide a source for? I have plenty of other links but have excluded these on the basis that the content they provide is probably too 'promotional'.ThanksTokyoNick (talk)03:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @TokyoNick - I will have a look around later today (UK, so it's morning here) to see what I can find. The formal answer is that someone is only notable if they meet theWP:GOLDENRULE three times over, and that anything unsupported by a source can be deleted. For that second clause, the source can be primary or self sourced if necessary. Informally then I know that with jazz musicians for some reason they are poor at documenting their work. Unbelievably, rap artists are better at archiving their work. There are a few things I can try, such as a bit of guesswork/trial/error on the Wayback Machine. What would help me is this: how do you know that SS did those tours in 2015-16 and more recently in 2025? And the Jazz Ambassadors? If it's promotional, let me have a look at the sources (just reply with some URLs). There isn't a bar on promotional content as a source, there is a bar on getting promotion into an encyclopedia, so that's quite different, and that's actually easy to handle: encyclopedias are a summary of sources, not a summary with a source. Many articles are writtenWP:BACKWARDS, so someone has something to write, and then try to source it. It should be the other way around, start with the sources. If there are 3 promotional sources, e.g. 3 adverts for his records or shows, this can still result in a summary of the 3 which is neutral. Wikipedia can't be used as a source, underWP:CIRCULAR but it's ok to wikilink to the other references if it makes sense to do so, I'll have a look at that.ChrysGalley (talk)09:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-10078-72 - you still need to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly on reliable sources. Generally unelected political candidates do not get a standalone article. I think I did put the comment in the decline, but in essence: seeWP:GOLDENRULE x 3. 11:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)ChrysGalley (talk)11:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
