Draft talk:Achal Agrawal

Comments from AINB reviewer

Note that I am not reviewing this for AfC as I consider myself "involved."

Source 2 and source 7 are the same (the 2 citation is more complete). Please use named and re-used citations instead of duplicating: see WP:Naming references for beginners.

Source 5 fails on a "private site" error from Wordpress. Wordpress blogs are doubtful sources to start with; private ones are not sources at all as they are not really "published".

The author given for source 12 is incorrect (it's just the name of the newspaper). If there is no author, don't give one.

Serious: Source 14 does not appear to mention the subject at all. If the mention is in one of the linked articles (this is a link-roundup posting) you should find the original and cite that. But I fear that this has been included as a source because a different Agrawal is mentioned in a reader comment.

Source 18 has garbled author list.

I wish you the very best with this article, which is on an important and timely topic. If you run into serious setbacks, you might consider recasting it as an article on India Research Watch, which also seems potentially notable. M kuhner (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feedback @M kuhner. I will work on it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Also I was wondering if you'd mind having a look at India Research Watch. I’ve recreated it through AfC and made major revisions based on the talk page discussion. The cleanup maintenance tags are still hanging around, so I’d really appreciate your comments or a quick review whenever you have a moment. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I have put my comments on the Talk page. M kuhner (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Whoops, I see that recommending you write about IRW was not exactly a novel suggestion! M kuhner (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thanks a ton for the time you have put in. Once again apologies for giving you all a hard time, to clean up the mess I left behind. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Compared to the responses we usually get, you've been cooperative and I appreciate it. I hope that the record of constructive edit requests helps with your eventual unblock. (A word of advice: don't apply for unblock until you think your request is solid, then write it very thoughtfully--and of course NO LLM. It is best not to need multiple tries as they get on the admins' nerves.)

LLM cleanup is excruciating, but no one realizes this until they try to do it. Me included: my "beginner" project on Wikipedia turned out to be fixing an LLM article. The Newcomer Tasks said 5-10 minutes, easy peasy! It took me over a month. (I could do it faster now, mainly because I'm less scared to make enormous deletions. But if I had to save all the material, probably still take me a week or two.)

I remember the sinking feeling in my stomach when I looked at the table of bird plumages in that article, saw that Yellow-bellied Antwarblers were listed as having pure white bellies, and realized the entire table was nonsense. Still one of the worst hallucinations I have ever seen. (The other really bad ones have been plot summaries--it turns out that if there is no summary on the Net, the LLM will just free-associate off the title, genre, and blurb.) M kuhner (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes and thanks for the advice! I won't be appealing this block until and unless everything is cleaned up, I understand now how frustrating things might be! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)