Latest comment: 20 days ago27 comments3 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:
Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers.
Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute.
Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.
I don't think this is quite ready. There are just two sources here, which are Polybius and Lazenby. I've added in the online access to Polybius, and it's quite short anyway so that's OK. However Lazenby is 224 pages long and essentially offline. It is OK to use offline sources, but the onus is on the editor to make it easy for verification, specifically page numbers. Are you in a position to put in those page numbers? I could probably do it but presumably you are familiar with this source and thus easier for you?
Your summary of Polybius seems accurate but a little adrift from an encyclopedic tone. That is not a reason to decline though, but any improvements would be welcome.
Thanks for the review. I'm still working on the article. I'll add the Lazenby page numbers and adjust the Polybius section for tone before resubmitting. ColtonHistory54 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ColtonHistory54 yes, I think I've seen that before. What you have to do is put the page number in the SFN tags, then save it. Then submit in a separate operation. If you do some changes but press submit it shows an edit conflict. It's because the submit and the draft text area are two separate areas but linked on to the same page. There are only 4 page numbers so hopefully you can just edit that, it's ok to do this while it is looking for a new review. Alternatively you can give me the 4 numbers and I'll do it for you. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Probably yes. With edit conflicts there are usually several screen ares and in one of them you can force through the recent changes. But if you got as far as completing a Submit then yes it would be lost. Best to save your work, which is easy to say.... ChrysGalley (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ColtonHistory54 The usual cause of edit conflicts is on fast-moving pages such as the adminstrator noticeboard incidents, where 4 people are all typing up their thoughts on the same issue at once. That clearly was not the case here, since only you and I have been on your draft page, and there are big time gaps between all the edits. So the alternative cause seems to apply: some pages have effectively two sections to them, in terms of user display, and you can't readily edit both sections, it's one or the other. And it's not labelled or protected as such. So there are some header information for submissions in one area, if you press Submit then that part gets updated. However if you also changed the text then that's another area and so there is a conflict between the areas. Alternatively you are cutting and pasting, rather than editing in the box, or you are trying to get LLM / AI to do an update rather than using the correct user screens. If you are using the correct screens then there is mechanism at the bottom of the screen to force through the edit conflict, though that also isn't clearly described either. It is easily done, annoyingly I have it from time to time and I would like to think I know what I am doing! Let me know if you want the article temporarily out of the review queue. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for explaining. I think the edit conflict happened because I edited the draft text and the submission section at the same time. Yes, please remove the draft from the remove queue so I can create it without any conflicts. ColtonHistory54 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that is now done and you can just press the Resubmit button whenever you are ready. Obviously you may want to make a small edit or two first, save those edits, just to check it is all OK, and that your browser or cookies aren't interfering in all of this. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I submitted the draft. When I went to submit it, the edit conflict screen showed up, but I already copied and pasted the text so I wouldn't lose it and then pasted the whole text and resubmitted it. ColtonHistory54 (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, so you gone and written over the SFN, you are just supposed to put the page number by each SFN and then the job is done. This means you have taken the article offline in the process. Can you explain what you did here? ChrysGalley (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I hit an edit conflict and pasted my saved version so I wouldn’t lose my work. I didn’t realize that overwriting the text removed the SFN citations. I wasn’t trying to change the citation style, I was just trying to save the draft. Sorry for the confusion ColtonHistory54 (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Have you been using LLM / AI here? Because for the life of me I can't see how or why a human would take online sources offline in this day and age. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
By offline do you mean the SFN system? I didn't intentionally remove anything, the edit conflict screen confused me so I pasted in the saved version so I wouldn't lose the work. That overwrote the SFN citations, I wasn't using AI. ColtonHistory54 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well there were citations in addition, giving the online versions of the two texts, these were erased too. I can't see why you would have done this. What is the benefit in putting things offline? It isn't something you can do accidentally, you would have had to over-write on top of that text, in order to do this. Something isn't adding up here and you haven't said what it is. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I thought what you meant was that I did the citations wrong. So I redid the whole draft with different citations. Instead of just putting the sources as citations, I found information from them and paraphrased them and then used MyBib to find the information about the source (date published, author, etc.). And then used the references to put in these citations. I don't know what happened to the SFN citations. ColtonHistory54 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, well we are going around in circles, but it seems you didn't use the Preview button, which is there for you to check things like this. It's your call what happens now, I won't review that draft, but if I did I would flag it as AI assisted. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, by another reviewer, there are over 100 editors who review articles in any given 48 hours. It may take a while for someone else to pick it up, but it will be in due course. Just press the Resubmit button and then it goes back into the queue again. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well to remind you, at 15:34 hrs UTC, you asked me to take the draft out of the queue - see above. So I did. But just press the button and it goes back in again. ChrysGalley (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It can happen at any time, but see the note on the page that says the backlog is currently 3 months, so you may be waiting up to 12 weeks. There are around 200 active reviewers and each one has different approaches to how to select drafts for review. Some of them review 20 to 50 drafts a day, others just do 1 or 2. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, ColtonHistory54!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ChrysGalley (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, CopyleftEverything, left the following feedback:
Draft is much better. However, all inline references all start with a brief claim, which falsely appears like a quote. You may like {{sfn}}, which allows you to cite a single reference with a page number. You could also use {{cite book}} with {{rp}} for a page number. You could also use {{cite book}} with create a separate reference for each point using the |quote=QUOTEHERE parameter.
@ColtonHistory54: Hi! See Help:Referencing. For example, consider: "The struggle at Eryx became a prolonged stalemate in which Rome could not dislodge Hamilcar. Lazenby, The First Punic War (1996), p. 196." If the starting text is a quote, you could write:
<ref name=Lazenby1996>{{cite book |last=Lazenby |first=J.F. |title=The First Punic War: A Military History. |publisher=Stanford University Press |year=1996 |quote=The struggle at Eryx became a prolonged stalemate in which Rome could not dislodge Hamilcar.}}</ref>
