Jakecopp

Your submission at Articles for creation: Southern Arterial Route (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ChrysGalley was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Thank you to the submitting editor for the huge amount of work here. However there needs to be a few changes to get to acceptance. Almost all the sources count as primary sources, which are useful to the article and there's nothing wrong with that. However we can't derive notability under WP:GNG from primary sources. There are some secondary sources, such as Ozroads and SMH, but they look at small sections or aspects of the project. Inner Sydney Voice is probably not going to be regarded as independent as a source, though again for the article text that is OK.

Can you find one or two more sources which are perhaps press reports, books, radio programmes, that look into the project as a whole, or have a broad sweep of coverage? I am hoping it won't be much additional work. By all means let me know if you find it, or if you prefer, discuss it in Teahouse.

See also this essay WP:THREE to understand our difficulties here, and the slow progress of your article. I would not at this stage remove any source, but I will put a banner on, so that future editors can also help over time.

Hopefully we can get this into mainspace in the near future.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Southern Arterial Route and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ChrysGalley (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Southern Arterial Route has been accepted

Southern Arterial Route, 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 as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ChrysGalley (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

AI?

Greetings, do you use AI in the creation/generation of the content you're adding to articles? I ask only because it's unusual for editors to insert flawlessly cited and formatted content in large single edits, without followup edits to fix small issues. Please note: I am not accusing; I'm only inquiring. AI has become a pervasive issue wrt Wikipedia editing, and I - like a great many longtime editors - have become suspicious of editing patterns that are suggestive of AI influence. Thanks. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

> do you use AI in the creation/generation of the content you're adding to articles?

No, I carefully think about what I want to say, and write all content by hand - preferably using Vim on a nice Colemak keyboard.

For finding sources I use traditional search engines, and sometimes search mode in AI models - however I treat these responses as I would treat the list of Google search results (without any guarantee of completeness or correctness, even though it's presented with such confidence) - along with all the usual ways like going to libraries / local archives etc.

I'm very careful to include references for every sentence I write with a fully annotated inline reference, with page numbers for PDFs (using the `#pagenum=X` URL suffix for the PDF page, and `|page=Y` for the number as printed, as they often differ), and adding archive.org links (navigating back in time for dead links to find the last alive version) where I think there's a risk of something going offline etc.

I read (and contribute) to Wikipedia because I know it is a human creation, well referenced, and rigorously reviewed/contested.

> I ask only because it's unusual for editors to insert flawlessly cited and formatted content in large single edits, without followup edits to fix small issues.

Yes, I have made some quite like large edits to Southern Arterial Route, a page I originally created through the AfC process. In those cases I copy the current content and work in Vim as I prefer that for writing. I check for syntax errors in my own self hosted Mediawiki (I wrote some details about that at https://jakecoppinger.com/2025/09/green-lights-more-often-the-secret-2018-study-of-sydneys-traffic-signals/#Drafting_in_Wikitext), and then after checking multiple times I copy the diff into Wikipedia (checking that nobody has changed the page in the meantime).

Where I make smaller edits and don't copy into Vim I certainly make mistakes - I made one such typo yesterday (before your message) in a string of small edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%8Chashi_Junction&diff=prev&oldid=1333251761#:~:text=and%20175%20meters.-,Line%2028,-%3A)

I'm open to working in smaller chunks/diffs - is that preferred/the expectation? I'm relatively new so would appreciate any advice!

Thanks, Jake Jakecopp (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Outstanding reply, thank you very kindly for the details. I appreciate your rigorous methodology. The only criticism I can muster is for your use of Vim, as vi and all of its siblings and descendents are evil spawn of the devil, in the mighty edit war where Emacs reigns supreme. Of course, I say this in jest! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Haha, I appreciate the ongoing rivalry! Thanks. Jakecopp (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Signal timing

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Signal timing, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Traffic signal operation in New South Wales has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Traffic signal operation in New South Wales. Thanks! SocDoneLeft (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Traffic signal operation in New South Wales has been accepted

Traffic signal operation in New South Wales, 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 as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SocDoneLeft (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Alexandria to Moore Park Project has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Alexandria to Moore Park Project. Thanks! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Studio K lamp (April 27)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, ArthurTheGardener, left the following feedback:

This draft reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promotion or marketing. Drafts that are exclusively promotional may be deleted without notice.

Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:

• promotional language: see Words to watch;
• personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader;
• informal language.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

If you have a conflict of interest (e.g. you are the subject, an employee, or a relative) or are being paid to edit, you must disclose this to comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Studio K lamp to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Jakecopp! 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! ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Val Morgan

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Val Morgan, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)