Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Userfeedback)
This page is for user feedback from users of the Wikipedia:Article wizard and the Articles for creation process.
Please let us know what you think of the wizard (what was good? what was bad? what was confusing?), particularly any suggestions for improvement. Note: this page is for new contributors, or established users actively using the wizard. Established users who are not active users of the wizard are asked to comment at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard. Thank you.


Feedback from Oldgirlpop (5 January 2023)

edit
What was your submission?

John Coate*

Did you find the instructions clear?

Yes, initially. As the article progressed through the process, it became apparent that “objective tone” is defined subjectively by senior editors. I would recommend that the editor who initially flags an article for tone be the one to sign off on revisions, just so there could be some consistency, maybe with the option to ask for a second editor’s opinion if the flagging editor can’t be satisfied. It’s not realistic to ask newbs to please everyone when senior editors can’t even reach agreement on whether “pioneer” is objective or puffery when used to describe a man who co-founded one of the earliest online communities.*

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Initial review was very quick, but there was no obvious way to note I had revised to address the issues, and it took four months total. I got a lot of help while there was active discussion in the cafe, but once that was archived, no contact until the article was both rejected again and approved on Jan. 3.*

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Although I have edited existing articles before creating this article, this was my first extensive interaction with senior editors and it was... interesting. Some editors were genuinely helpful and encouraging, and I appreciate that. * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldgirlpop (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from PK-WIKI (9 January 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Very quickly! Hours.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • My article was deleted via AFD, IMO wrongly as the article clearly meets GNG with the current citations. I then had the draft restored and submitted it to AFC. The AFC seemingly agreed with me (8 citations meeting GNG) and published the article. Now the user who closed the AFD has moved my newly AFC-published article back to Draft because nothing was changed since the AFD deletion. Does the AFC approval process not "undo" the AFD decision? You should perhaps make some kind of note about this situation in your instructions.

Feedback from UpdateWindows (16 January 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes, requesting feedback was super easy, in pretty much just involved clicking a button on the {{draft}} template!
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • My submission was reviewed after about 5 hours. When moving the article to the mainspace, reviewer also was able to bypass a redirect page that was blocking the page from going where it should, vastly simplifying the process.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Make it a bit more clear on how to become a reviewer

Thank you! <3

Feedback from Mamayuco (24 January 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Months to slow.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • user:Greenman should not be involved in the review process unless he at least he/she admits his/her mistakes. His/her poor review of André Sougarret held back the article for months. If the reason of his/her poor review is that he/she felt unable to evaluate Spanish-language sources he/she should openly say so and leave the task for someone else. Also, he/she does not answer complains in his/her talk page. Mamayuco (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Dalilib (3 February 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
  • Draft:Valentine Schlegel
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Really clear.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Very quickly, not even a week passed.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Netmouse (21 February 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • If you mean the instructions in the Draft box that appeared after the article was moved to draft space, yes, those instructions were clear. I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly two decades. I did not really need instructions. I did not start with the AfC process you might be looking for feedback on. I just created an article. Another user moved it to Draft space and thus into the AfC process.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Almost instantly. Thanks!
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • I have not been all that regularly active on Wikipedia since having had a child and then later having developed a rare form of cancer, but I am a long time editor and have created a number of articles before. I was not familiar with this new AfC process before this experience. I personally found having my almost brand new article, which was better than a stub, definitely of a notable subject, and completely based on material that could be found in the given references, which were third party journalistic publications, pushed to Draft space both insulting and discouraging.

The warning that Drafts might be deleted after 6 months, for instance, is very discouraging. 6 months seemed like a lot of time when I was younger, but with a job, house, and family to manage, plus multiple disabling health issues, managing which is like having a second job, I know that a month can go by and be eaten up by other priorities very quickly. I have read the user page of the user who did it - two days AFTER the article had already been reviewed by another admin and left in place - and understand the position of wanting Wikipedia to be encyclopedic. I want that as well. But it seems to me that moving an article so that the links to it switch to red links lowers the odds that the article will get discovered and improved by other editors. I had already shared links to the article myself, links which were also broken by that process. I had a plan for how I was going to improve the article, and I have followed through on that plan, but it took some time to return to the project. I had to work through my annoyance that this process has changed -- again -- and not in a way that I think will be encouraging to new and diverse editors. It is particularly frustrating, in that I was moved to create this article after reviewing how the subject's work was selected for a US postage stamp. I felt confident that the Duke University Art History Professor who consulted on that project a) knew which African American artists are notable and b) would probably appreciate BETTER coverage of those artists on Wikipedia. In other words, I was trying to correct for the tendency of all of us white English Wikipedia editors to overlook subjects that are currently under-represented. To be told that my subject was notable but the article was not good enough to sit in wiki space and be improved by the community was extra frustrating for this reason. Netmouse (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from NFRAPC (26 April 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Unfortunately even having so many volunteers for reviewing, the process is too slow.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Wished if more volunteers could help in reviewing the process would be great.

--NFRAPC (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Reward3 (22 May 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
  • Pike Powers page
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • It took some time to figure out the navigation, and I drove a couple of editors nuts when I inadvertently redirected.By its nature, editing is a subjective process. If an editor has time, it would be helpful to offer and example from the text, as FormalDude did in the final review re: too promotional.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Time varied, but as I got closer to the Wikipedia standard, it became very quick. I submitted the draft 4, maybe 5 times prior to approval.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Offer examples from the draft text when critiquing.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for the process. The final is ever so much better than the initial draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reward3 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Crainsaw (25 May 2023)

edit
What was your submission?

Castle Eppstein

Did you find the instructions clear?

Pretty clear and simple instructions.

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

One day

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I've submitted another article, Kreis Heilsberg, and it's been pending review for 3.5 months, AfC really ought to create review list by oldest submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crainsaw (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Waterfordas (10 June 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
  • New article "Simnas Lake".
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • At first stage of submission very fast. After second submission (I fixed mistakes) article was published after 4 months.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

No. So far everything is alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfordas (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Crainsaw (16 June 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Clear instruction, quite straightforward.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • 4 months
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Create a list of draft articles by submission date, my article Castle Eppstein was approved in one day, this one got approved after 4 months.

Feedback from The Nookster (20 June 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • No, not really. It felt like a test in and of itself to see if I had the wherewithal and gumption to write my first article.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Pretty quickly I thought. It was great to get some feedback within 24 hours that my first submission had been declined not rejected.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • I think the minimal cold toned academic style of feedback is a bit daunting while doing a first article. I think as I get more confident with Wikipedia's ways and customs I will feel much more comfortable about that lack of positive encouragement and only having the problems pointed out. To be fair as well, I think it is possible that I bring quite a bit of unnecessary worry to the process too when doing things for the first time. I found the talkpages comments a bit difficult to navigate with previous messages not being easy to find. So I ended up editing old messages and adding new messages in that way.

These are really only small communication points.

On the positive side, I found the source support fantastic in terms of the source box and it was lovely when other editors just went onto the article during the reviewing process and fine-tuned sources or just plain added in the correct one. I learnt alot in a short amount of time. Thank you.

I look forward to doing my next article, probably on a woman to try and redress some of the gender bias.

All the best of everything all of the time, Nikki :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nookster (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from The Nookster (20 June 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Sort of. I think because I am a highly visual person all the text instructions can use up quite a lot of mental energy to read. It would be ace to have the option to see some humans in some videos on how to do things too. I think this would address one of the biggest areas of improvement for Wikipedia too — its facelessness. For such a fantastic human endeavour, possibly the pinnacle of human endeavour since the moon landing, the lack of its humanness and warmth affects me disproportionately. I know bare naked facts, knowledge and wisdom have a beautiful power of their own. I genuinely think they don’t have to be so austere and alone anymore. I think think kind of held up high aloofness, if democratised equally for writers and readers alike, Wikipedia’s astoundingly false reputation among some parts of society (the scared of intelligence part) could be turned around for the benefit of all knowledge. I think Wikipedia with its excellent free knowledge for everyone forever ethos could lead the charm offensive to make ALL people feel clever and unleash a learning curve explosion!

Okay I’m going to stop. I think I’m going on with myself a bit after the joyous news of having my first article published today.

Thanks for the learning opportunity.

Sincerely, The Nookster :-)

How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Surprisngly quick. It was fantastic! Within a week. I was expecting it to be about six months. When someone messaged me back within 24 hours of my first attempt it was very heartening. Thank you.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from ROTennisFan (24 July 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Pretty quick, given the huge backlog.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Wiltshire8 (25 July 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • 8 hours
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • No

A smooth and uncomplicated experience to create the page which was great after I have completed so much research and work over the last 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltshire8 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard step 1- perhaps the instructions need an update.

edit
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Hello. Today I tried to create a new draft and found the The Article Creation Wizard a bit confusing. Step 1 says "Replace New article name with the name of the article", however there is no "New article" text in the editor box. Perhaps this should be updated to "Replace (your article name)..."? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Rajsharmakaviraj (6 August 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
  • M-Zee Bella
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • 30 minutes
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Lisapaulinet (21 August 2023)

edit
What was your submission? Abbot Public Library
Did you find the instructions clear? Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed? Quickly and with great attention to detail.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process? No. This is the first time I created an article and the feedback is very helpful and the fact checking is very thorough. Wikipedia does a great job. Thank you.

Feedback from A.m.capensis (24 August 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
  • Catehrine L Sole
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • yes more than clear
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • quiet quickly I think
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Generalirius (26 August 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes. I understood everything correctly.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Quite quickly; a few hours.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Eriktoussaint (29 August 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
  • not done yet
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • not relevant now
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Alossola (10 September 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
  • Rita Payés, which I "took over" after the first attempt failed.
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes, and I received ample support + help from other users.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • In due time, 4+ months
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

./.

Remarks

I appreciate your work for WP's quality - thank you very much! Special thanks to Cl3phact0 for their intense effort in the final touches.

Alossola (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Leefort (27 September 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Very clear and helpful
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Around 5 months, but a happy ending.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Tumnal (20 October 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Extremely.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • 19 minutes, I believe! Unless there's been a time zone mix up.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Nope. Keep up the amazing work!

Tumnal (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Spida-tarbell (3 November 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • I found the instructions for submitting an article quite clear, and it was additionally helpful for me to see the subsequent reviewer interface because it empoweret me to look for ways I might improve it in the interim as well.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Extremely quickly -- in just four days!
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from The Corvette ZR1 (3 November 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Surprisingly very quick, only 7 minutes.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Byrdmanic (4 November 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Mostly yes. As a first time creator, I was temporarily confused about when to remove the "draft status" dialog at the top of the template, and how to fix a typo in the title (in fact I just needed more "edit credits", I guess I should have known that).
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Within 4 days - warp speed! Thank you!!
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Perhaps modify the instruction in the header of the new draft page about not removing the temporary header dialog before creation to explain whether that means not before starting the draft, or not before it is submitted for review (perhaps it doesn't matter?). Also, it would be helpful to receive any specific comments the reviewer might have on how the article can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byrdmanic (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Bdx (1 December 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes!
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Within one day.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • No, this works very well.

--Bdx (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Traducteurwiki (3 December 2023)

edit
What was your submission?
  • This is a page about a French politician at the time of the Revolution, he was also a merchant and shipowner.
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes very clear... even for a French :)
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Fast and very precise when it comes to Wikipedia requirements
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

At this stage of my knowledge of the process I do not yet have an analysis that I could share here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traducteurwiki (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Ipandro Acaico (8 January 2024)

edit
What was your submission?

Horace William Heyman

Did you find the instructions clear?

Quite clear.

How quickly was your submission reviewed?

Very quickly. I drafted the article initially on Wednesday December 27, 2023 and it has been approved on January 8, 2024.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

I had problemms understanding the difference between citations and links to other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, the drafting process seemed OK.

In terms of content, I am a little puzzled about whether one should or should not relate a given Wikipedia article to other articles. Specifically:

Both my parents (in my view) happen to have come from interesting families: 1. On my father's side, his stepfather was a very important physicist and engineer with several articles and patents to his name, worthy of a Wikipedia article. To what extent should this be mentioned in this article? His uncle, Robert de Taube, is the subject of a book. Should this also be mentioned in the article? I have referenced both, but not really described them here. 2. My mother had two very illustrious relatives, her brother Albert Hague, a songwriter and actor, and her cousin Albert Hirschman, a famous economist, each with Wikipedia articles. I mentioned themm in the original draft but they were deleted. I have noted other Wikipedia articles, which make a point of the relationships of individuals with other Wikipedia entries.

I notice that various Wikipedia articles are quite discursive, which makes them more interesting, hance my comment.

I understand there is still some way to go on the learning curve with Wikipedia, hence my rather long response. Regard Ipandro

Feedback from Fourday (6 February 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Surprisingly rapidly! One week.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • I am a little confused about how to actually *communicate* with people on Wikipedia. For instance, someone dropped me a welcome message on my talk page. If I 'edit' my own page with a response, they won't get a notification, right... so I should go to their talk page and edit theirs? It's just a bit unclear from the get-go how to have a discussion/best practices/etiquette, but it's possible I missed that information and I can always look it up myself. Anyway, the process itself is fairly smooth and I appreciate how helpful everyone is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourday (talk • contribs) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Roryoryory (7 April 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Within 24 hours
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Limanarui33.1982 (12 April 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
  • Personal page of scientist
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • not very clear. there is so much information that in te end of the day is difficult to have a clear picture. Moreover the feedback, eventought fast and gentle, sometimes was not very clear.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • very fast, thank you
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • the feedbacks should be more incisive. instead of just saying not accepted. Please clearly identy the issues. The last feedbak was fenomenal.

Anyway I got there! Thank you for your support! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limanarui33.1982 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Nnev66 (28 April 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes, instructions were clear for submitting
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Very quickly - my first submission was responded to in four days and the second in one day
  • Regarding engagement and timeliness of discussion with first reviewer, they responded to my first question, but after I addressed their issues and asked if there was anything else of concern they did not respond. I waited a couple of days and pinged them again. When I still didn't get a response a week later I re-submitted the page. It would have been nice if they'd responded whether or not I'd addressed all their concerns. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia etiquette is in terms of how much time is reasonable to wait for a follow-up question to a review decision - that would be good to know. Ideally once the review process starts it would be nice to have back and forth discussion within days.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Ideally more than one reviewer evaluates a draft page the same time and addresses all concerns up front. It's disheartening to get a rejection the first time, fix the issue, and get another rejection from a second reviewer for a different reason.
  • I didn't realize multiple obituaries, even by different authors in multiple publications, were not enough (reliable secondary sources) to establish notability. Is this written somewhere as I did not come across it? As it turns out I crossed the 500 edit threshold and got access to newspaper archives where I could find additional references but page writers with less than 501 edits may not want to pay for access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnev66 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from The Anome (5 June 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • Same day
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • The article creation was reverted out-of-process. I have now improved the citations in the article to address the reverter's problem with the article, and request a re-review. I'm perturbed by the out-of-process reversion, which seems to have been done without discussion. — The Anome (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Enhazaam (18 June 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes, your tutorial was excellent. And I also took examples from similar articles
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • less than a week
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Tonyiamba (29 July 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
  • Abraham Ayebakepreye Amba Ambaiowei
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes, the instructions were very clear and easy to follow through.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • It was reviewed in less then three months.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Nanette unsolved (21 August 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
  • Nanette Ellis
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • they were a little confusing but my mentor Karnataka helped me as did a few others. Without my mentor I would have been stuck and its great to be able to ask them questions when we get stuck or have a problem or technical issue.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • a week so I'm very happy because I know how busy all the amazing volunteers are and I would like to thankyou all.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
  • Yes the template for the drafts seems to have glitches and bugs in it. It confused my references/citations when I clicked on the reuse button that is what i had the biggest problem with, and I am now trying to fix them. I'm still a little confused as to why the find a grave link has been deleted as there is another article on the Margaret and Seana Tapp murders in the same year same area was accepted. So I am still learning. But I am really enjoying this.

thankyou so much to you Karnataka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanette unsolved (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Vakanada Putin (25 August 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes, the instructions were clear and easy to follow.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • The submission was reviewed promptly and fast.
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?

Feedback from Calidumpluviam (28 October 2024)

edit
What was your submission?
Did you find the instructions clear?
  • Yes, very clear incl. the feedback by reviewers.
How quickly was your submission reviewed?
  • 1.5 months
Do you have any suggestions to improve the process?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/feedback&oldid=1253859409"