Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a405a730ae781210

Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Feed, Category, Sorting		ShowcaseApply
Participants, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Aug 2026
Shortcuts
This page covers the review of draft articles. For other Articles for creation processes, see the Redirect reviewing instructions, Category reviewing instructions, and Files for upload reviewer instructions.

What is Articles for Creation?

[edit]

Articles for creation (AfC) is Wikipedia's process for reviewing new draft articles before they are published to mainspace. It must be used by new and unregistered editors who cannot create articles directly in mainspace, and should be used by editors with a conflict of interest in the subject. More experienced editors can also choose to use AfC when they would benefit from another editor reviewing the draft before publication. Editors usually submit new drafts for review via the Article wizard.

Many draft authors are brand new to Wikipedia, and creating and submitting an article may be their first contribution to the project. They are likely to be unfamiliar with our policies, guidelines, and terminology. AfC reviewers therefore have two jobs:

  1. to decide if a submission is ready to become an article;
  2. where substantive problems prevent it from being published, to give the author clear and useful guidance about what needs to change.

AfC is not a general quality review. Draft authors are not expected to write good articles - it is enough that their drafts are suitable for mainspace and do not have serious policy problems. If the remaining problems can reasonably be dealt with through ordinary editing or maintenance templates, the draft should usually be accepted.

Before you begin

[edit]

Become an AfC reviewer

[edit]

To review AfC submissions you need to meet the reviewer criteria and apply by visiting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.

Administrators and New Page Reviewers can review AfC submissions automatically.

The AfC Helper Script (AFCH) is used to accept, decline, reject, and comment on submissions. It also notifies the draft author and performs necessary cleanup when a draft is accepted.

Enable AFCH in your Gadget preferences by selecting AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions (drafts).

We recommend enabling AFCH's logging feature. This records your accepts, declines, rejects, and comments on your user subpage, making it much easier to look back at your previous reviews. To enable, open AFCH on any draft, select preferences, and tick Log acceptance, declines, and rejects. If your log subpage gets too large it can lag the script so we recommend periodically archiving to reduce its size.

We also recommend enabling Twinkle from your Gadget preferences. AfC reviewers regularly encounter drafts which need actions outside AFCH, particularly speedy deletion, copyright cleanup, user warnings, and other maintenance tasks. Twinkle makes many of these actions much easier.

Finding drafts

[edit]

All drafts are displayed in a dynamic list at the Articles for Creation tab of Special:NewPagesFeed. You can filter drafts by clicking Set filters and choose from the available filters what kinds of drafts you would like to review.

You can also find a list at Category:Pending AfC submissions. Submissions sorted by their predicted category can be found at Wikipedia:AfC sorting.

Or you can click the Random draft button, which will take you to a random draft waiting for review.

You do not need to know every Wikipedia policy before beginning AfC reviewing. Start with straightforward drafts, use these instructions while reviewing, and ask another reviewer for help when you are unsure.

What is an AfC reviewer deciding?

[edit]
Shortcut

Your job as a reviewer is not to decide whether the draft is complete, perfectly written, or well formatted. Instead, it is to decide whether there is a substantive reason the draft should not yet be published as an article. Articles that will probably survive a discussion at Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined.

If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive?
Yes, it will probably be kept. Then Accept it. We encourage you to fix formatting problems and tag with maintenance templates as appropriate.
No, it will probably be deleted. Then Decline or Reject it where appropriate. Explain the problem that prevents the draft from being accepted.
Maybe, but I'm not sure. Then ask for help on the project talk page.

Accept, decline, reject, or ask for help

[edit]

AfC reviews result in a draft being accepted, declined, or rejected. The basic distinction is whether the draft is ready for mainspace, fixable, or fundamentally unsuitable. If you are genuinely unsure, leave it for another reviewer or ask for help rather than guessing.

No substantive reason
to keep it out of mainspace?		 Not ready yet, but the
problem could reasonably be fixed?		 Fundamentally unsuitable
with no reasonable prospect of fixing?
↓ ↓ ↓

ACCEPT
Publish the draft

DECLINE
Explain what needs fixing

REJECT
Further work is unlikely to make the draft acceptable

Accept
Accept a draft when there is no substantive reason it should remain outside mainspace. An accepted draft does not need to be complete, perfectly written, or fully formatted. Minor problems such as poor formatting, missing wikilinks, missing categories, no infobox, no images, a non-standard citation style can usually be fixed yourself or tagged with an appropriate maintenance template after acceptance.
Decline
Decline a draft when there is a substantive problem which prevents it from being accepted in its current form, but which could reasonably be fixed. When declining, try to identify all the substantive problems which currently prevent acceptance rather than making the author repeatedly resubmit to discover them one at a time, which can be confusing and frustrating for new editors.
Reject
Reject a draft only when the subject or content is fundamentally unsuitable for Wikipedia and there is no reasonable prospect that further work would make it acceptable. This normally means that an article on the subject would be overwhelmingly deleted at Articles for deletion or falls within an applicable What Wikipedia is not or speedy deletion criterion. Rejection does not prevent an article being created in the future if new sources later appear.
Ask for help
You are not expected to be an expert on every subject or every Wikipedia policy! If you are unsure leave the draft for another reviewer or ask for a second opinion at the project talk page.

Decline and rejection reasons

[edit]

The AfC submission comments provide standardised decline reasons for common problems. You can choose up to two reasons to decline a draft in the AfC Helper Script.

The template is a starting point and you can add a short comment explaining what specifically the author needs to address. Explain the issue clearly and link to the relevant policy or guideline where possible. The existence of a standard decline reason does not mean that every instance of that problem requires a decline. Use a decline reason only where the problem is substantial enough to prevent acceptance; minor problems should normally be fixed or tagged instead.

Do not decline for these reasons

[edit]
Shortcut

If a problem would ordinarily be dealt with in mainspace through normal editing or a maintenance template, it usually does not justify an AfC decline. Do not decline an otherwise acceptable draft because:

  • Citation formatting: the references are formatted inconsistently, use bare URLs, or use a style you would not personally use.
  • General references: the draft uses general references rather than in-line citations where in-line citations are not required.
  • Source accessibility: sources are offline, paywalled, or not in English.
  • Optional formatting: the draft lacks a headings, infobox, image, categories, or wikilinks.
  • Ordinary cleanup: the draft is short, incomplete, or needs ordinary copy-editing.

If the problem can be quickly fixed yourself, fix it! Otherwise, accept the draft and use an appropriate maintenance template where necessary.

Reviewing a draft

[edit]

When you begin reviewing a draft, you may use Mark as reviewing in the AfC Helper Script. This lets other reviewers know that somebody is already reviewing the submission and helps avoid edit conflicts and duplicate reviews.

Before reviewing the draft itself, briefly check its page history, page log, and any previous reviews. This can tell you what problems have already been identified, what the author has changed since the last review, and if there are any issues which need particular attention.

If the draft has previously been declined do not assume that the previous review was correct or that the same decline reason still applies. Review the current version yourself. If the author has made substantial changes, take those changes into account rather than simply repeating the previous decline.

Step 1: Check for immediate problems

[edit]

Some drafts can be quickly declined, rejected, or marked for speedy deletion without a full review because they have an obvious issue contrary to our policies and guidelines. These can include:

  • No sources: decline a completely unsourced draft.
  • Biography of a living person with no in-line citations: decline a biography of a living person which does not meet the minimum in-line citation requirements, and immediately remove serious unsourced or poorly sourced BLP material.
  • Copyright violation: decline and follow the copyright violation procedure.
  • Not in English: decline a draft which is not written in English.
  • Article already exists: decline where Wikipedia already has an article on the same subject.
  • Fundamentally unsuitable: material wholly contrary to Wikipedia's purpose may be rejected.
  • Nominate for Speedy deletion: vandalism, attack pages, unambiguous promotion and spam, and other material meeting a speedy deletion criterion.

Step 2: Identify the applicable notability guideline

[edit]
  • Notability is about whether the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for a standalone article.
  • Verifiability is about whether the content of the draft is supported by reliable sources.

Review notability early. This avoids authors spending time fixing formatting, prose, or citation issues only to be told later that the subject does not qualify for an article at all. Many problems in a draft can be fixed through editing, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability!

When assessing notability under the general notability guideline, we generally look for multiple sources that meet the three criteria below. Multiple is not defined, but in practice finding three strong and distinct sources will usually make notability easier to establish. The quality and depth of the coverage matters more than the number of references in the draft, and sources derived from the same original material should not be counted separately.

Assess the coverage itself, not merely the publication in which it appears. A reputable newspaper can publish an interview which contributes little or nothing towards notability. Likewise, a source may be useful for verifying a fact without helping to establish notability; for example, a company's own website may verify its address but cannot provide the independent coverage needed to establish notability.

General notability guideline

[edit]

For subjects assessed under the general notability guideline, look for multiple sources that provide:

significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.

Significant coverage

We need significant coverage. We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, government records, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it.

Reliable sources

We need sources that are reliable. Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact-checking, editorial oversight, and accuracy. For example: books from reputable publishing houses, mainstream newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and other established publications. Not: tabloids, discussion boards, fansites, social media, and most self-published blogs.

Independent

We need sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Not: books or articles written by the subject, material paid for or commissioned by the subject, press releases, or interviews where virtually all of the information comes from the subject or their spokesperson.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

[edit]

Before applying the general notability guideline, check whether a subject-specific notability guideline applies. Some SNGs provide an alternative route to notability.

Step 3: Check the draft's sourcing and verifiability

[edit]

Once you are satisfied that the subject is notable, check that the draft's important claims are supported in reliable sources, in particular the claims which are being relied upon to establish notability.

Be particularly careful for biographies of living people: contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately rather than left in the draft for the author to fix later.

You usually do not need to analyse every reference with equal intensity.

Keep the following in mind:

  • Primary sources: primary or subject-affiliated sources can sometimes be used for straightforward, uncontroversial facts, but should be used carefully and do not normally establish notability.
  • Offline, paywalled, and non-English sources: these are fine to use and you should not decline a draft simply because you cannot access a source online or because it is written in another language.
  • Promotional coverage: it's easy for a subject, publicist, or paid editor to generate apparently impressive online coverage. Press releases, sponsored articles, paid profiles, contributor pieces, and churnalism may look independent while simply repeating material supplied by the subject.
  • Original research and synthesis: check that the draft reflects what the sources actually say and that sources haven't been combined to reach a conclusion that none of them makes. New editors sometimes write the prose first and try to fit in sources afterwards.
  • Broken or misleading citations: if a source does not exist, does not support the claim it is cited for, or has otherwise been cited inaccurately, this is a verification problem rather than a formatting problem.

Step 4: Check neutrality and encyclopaedic suitability

[edit]

Once you are satisfied that the subject is notable and the draft is adequately sourced, check whether it is written from a neutral point of view and is suitable for Wikipedia. Do not decline simply because the prose is imperfect. Avoid putting a draft through another review cycle for problems which can reasonably be fixed yourself or dealt with using a maintenance template.

Keep the following in mind:

  • Conflict of interest: a conflict of interest is not itself a reason to decline. Check that any required disclosure has been made; paid editors must comply with the paid-contribution disclosure requirements.
  • Promotional writing: watch for advertising language, unsupported praise, corporate jargon, mission statements, calls to action, excessive lists of products or services, and claims such as "solutions", "leading", "renowned", or "innovative". If these problems are limited, edit them out. If the whole draft is promotional, decline it. If it consists exclusively of unambiguous promotion and would need to be fundamentally rewritten, consider speedy deletion under criterion G11.
  • CVs: a biographical article should summarise what reliable independent sources state about a person, not just reproduce their CV. Long lists of jobs, awards, memberships, publications, appearances, clients, or achievements may need substantial trimming.
  • Balance and undue weight: the draft should broadly reflect how reliable sources cover the subject. It should not selectively include only praise, criticism, achievements, controversies, or the viewpoint preferred by the author.
  • Merge to existing article: check whether the topic really needs a standalone article. If not, decline the draft and suggest an appropriate merge target.

Step 5: Accepting a draft

[edit]

If you have not found a substantive reason to keep the draft out of mainspace you should accept it. The AfC Helper Script will move the draft to mainspace, notify the author, and create the article talk page.

  1. Click the Accept button
    • Choose an appropriate article title and check if it might need adding to any disambiguation pages;
    • Give the article an assessment on the quality scale;
    • Consider adding appropriate categories or stub-tags;
    • If accepting an article about a person, tick the biography checkbox, and select the relevant option from the living person drop-down menu. This ensures such articles are placed in Category:Biography articles of living people.
    • Once published to mainspace, you can still correct any obvious formatting or add any maintenance tags.

Errors in draft acceptance

[edit]

Occasionally, a draft which should be accepted cannot be moved to mainspace.

Reviewer tips

[edit]
  • Avoid reviewing the same draft over and over: a fresh reviewer may spot something you missed, and it avoids one reviewer effectively becoming responsible for an author's drafts.
  • Allow for differences in judgement: reviews are not always clear-cut, and another reviewer might accept a draft you would have declined or vice versa. Don't criticise another reviewer just for reaching a different judgement.
  • Avoid reviewing on demand: authors may ask you on your talk page to review their draft. You are under no obligation to do so, and routinely accepting requests for individual reviews is a good way to acquire an endless personal AfC queue. Point them towards the normal review queue instead. You do not own the draft or its outcome.
  • Quality over quantity: take the time you need to check the sources and make a good decision. A smaller number of careful reviews is much more useful than a large number of rushed ones.
  • Watch out for burnout: AfC reviewing can be thankless and you are at the coal face of dealing with frustrated new editors and an endless queue of drafts. Take breaks, review at your own pace, and remember that you're a volunteer. The queue does not need to be cleared!
  • Use AFCH's cleanup tools: if a draft contains unnecessary sandbox or draft templates, click Clean submission in AFCH rather than cleaning everything manually.
  • Ask for help when something looks wrong: if you suspect undisclosed paid editing, sockpuppetry, or other organised editing but are unsure what to do next, ask for advice at the project talk page. You do not need to investigate everything yourself.

Common situations

[edit]

Common answers to questions from draft authors

[edit]

Getting help

[edit]

Help for draft authors

[edit]

The AfC Help desk is the main place for draft authors to ask about declines, sourcing, notability, and what to do next. Reviewers are encouraged to help answer questions there.

Help for reviewers

[edit]

Ask substantive on-wiki questions at the project talk page. There's also an active Discord server where you can chat to other reviewers: New Page Patrol Discord server.

Useful tools

[edit]

These tools can make AfC reviewing quicker, but none replaces checking the draft, its sources, and the applicable policies yourself.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions&oldid=1376154179#Rejecting_submissions"