User talk:Pythoncoder

Hi Python Coder,

Thank you for the valuable feedback on the review. Ive made the changes, I did use a LLM more to assist with the code elements for Wiki. I have re-written the article in a formal/neutral TOV.

I hope this new version is more acceptable.

Thanks in advance. Amaru1986 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good afternoon. Can I talk/ask on this page about your review? Harold Foppele (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, what’s your question(s)? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good evening, I have a compliment and some questions.

• First of all, thanks for picking up this article so soon. Some 1.5 hours after submitting, fast work. I saw that you changed opinion a couple of times.
• In your last review you stated: Wikipedia already has an article on quantum mechanics. A simple search gives: Results for "Quantum": 28,224. But this article is about Quantum as an overview together with QP and QM and related issues.If you ment the title does not cover the text, might be a different thing, but thats not what you stated. My hope is to attract also younger readers of Wikipedia by a "Frivolous Approach", see the "Quantum Cheat Sheet". For that reason I also write for Wikiversity.
• You asked if AI is used writing this text. I wrote the text myself in my sandbox, putting together the text and images, those changed while writing the text. When finished, i asked Grok to look at the refs and to suggest improvements. So, the answer to your question is no.

I go by AGF, to me that means to do the best to my abilities trying to improve Wikipedia, not to harm it.

Maybe i see it all wrong, but please comment. Cheers Harold Foppele (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder! Thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I saw your note about the references looking unusual. I wanted to clarify that many of these are physical newspaper clippings and documents held at the Jackson Barracks Military Museum Archives, which I’ve consulted directly. I’m now going back citation by citation to reformat them to make clear where each source can be accessed. Thanks for the feedback, I’ll be beefing up the references accordingly.Voxpopuli25 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All right. Print sources are definitely welcome on Wikipedia; it’s just that because they’re rare (especially in drafts) it raises my eyebrows when they pop up. But your explanation makes sense, so keep on doing what you’re doing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Pythoncoder. I have rewritten this article and added two sections (Reception and Bibliography) and additional references to strengthen the use of reliable sources. In my opinion, currently the article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone. If you still think that the article needs to be improved, please indicate what exactly needs to be done for this. Thanks for attention. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I’m confused by the claims the bot made about tbe nature of the edits you submitted. Please look at all the changes made since my last decline and tell me: what’s wrong with this picture? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Pythoncoder I'm sorry, but I didn't quite get your point. The reason for rejecting this article was "Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT". I don't think that's the case. All the information provided in the article is confirmed by sources. I also made a small rewrite to get away from the formalism, if that was the reason. If you think that this is not enough, please let me know in more detail what needs to be done to get this article reviewed. Thanks. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You’ve written a lot here but I still don’t have a clear answer to my main question here. Did you use AI while editing the draft, yes or no? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know what exactly is bothering you at the moment. I wanted the article to have the same structure as, for example, Mattermost or Slack. There is not much text in this article to question robotic writing. I have used and taken info only from reliable sources which is easily verified. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So is your answer "yes" or "no"? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Initially, I used Perplexity to help prepare a draft version of the article and search for sources. Then I checked all the suggested sources of info on my own and made sure that the info was authentic. I also relied on the structure of the narrative based on the example of other articles on this topic. After that, I also manually searched for sources for additional info (for example, the "Biography" section). In fact, the current text is not what was in the draft, it is already a self-written text. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Pythoncoder hello. What further steps are required to publish this article? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If the current draft text was indeed human-written, it feels very influenced by influenced by the LLM writing style, and as such, the tone feels off for an encyclopedia article. That said, if you think it’s ready to be published, you can click the "resubmit" button and another user will review it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Pythoncoder. You recently left a comment on a draft of my article about Nezar Hindawi. I didn't quite understand what it meant. Could you please explain? Algirr (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's just a note to other reviewers that I've verified you're allowed to create a draft in that topic area. Due to past disruptive edits relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, Wikipedia requires anyone who edits pages related to that topic to have (at minimum) a 30-day-old account with 500 edits. You meet that requirement, so you should be all set. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, thanks for explanation Algirr (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder, I'm writing regarding the Vitaliy Katsenelson draft you declined for AI detection. I want to respectfully explain why I believe this rejection may be in error. I completely rewrote this article from scratch based on independent, reliable sources: * Barron's profile (September 21, 2009) - "Home on the Range" by Lawrence C. Strauss * Forbes review (May 9, 2008) - by publisher Rich Karlgaard * Financial Analysts Journal (2008) - peer-reviewed academic review * The Denver Post (December 18, 2007) - feature article Every fact in the article is cited to these verifiable sources. I did receive assistance with proper Wikipedia formatting and citation syntax, which may have triggered AI detection tools, but all content comes directly from the sources listed. The subject meets notability through substantial coverage in multiple independent publications. Could you please review the actual sources rather than relying solely on AI detection? I'm happy to address any specific concerns about content or sourcing. Thank you for reconsidering. 50.198.195.50 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I read your rewritten draft and it looks like an improvement, but I'm skeptical of your claim that a large language model only provided "assistance with proper Wikipedia formatting and citation syntax". The sentence structure and wikilink usage in the revision I declined strongly point towards prose that was primarily or entirely generated by a LLM.

If you read through my talk page archives, you'll see that I don't use AI detection tools when reviewing drafts. You'll also see that while some mistakes on my part are inevitable given the hundreds of drafts I review each month, but I don't think I'm wrong here. Also, just in case the message I'm replying to right now is AI-generated: please don't do that. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder,

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft and for your thoughtful feedback.

I want to clarify that the text itself was entirely written by me — I only used a formatting tool to help with coding. The prose, structure, and wording are my own work.

Would you mind taking another look when you have a chance? Vkatsenelson (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

One more thought: Is the "Articles and Commentary" section appropriate for this page? Vkatsenelson (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, Jan. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I'm writing regarding the Cosentino Group Draft. As mentioned here after your moderation, the page mentions a fairly well-known company in Spain and worldwide in the field of surface areas. In any case, I followed your advice, removed everything promotional, everything about their brands, and looked for references from highly credible media outlets (I've now included 59 references). I've participated on my user page in the Help Desk, confirmed that it's not a promotional post, and changed everything you indicated. Thanks for that help, by the way. Since you marked the page as "rejected," the Help Desk tells me that only you can unmark it as such and request a review. So, please review the page and ensure it's 100% informative, or at least allow another moderator to review it for publication. Thank you very much! Rahoman (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Rahoman (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for reaching out. I read your draft again; the company appears notable and the promotional language has been toned down, so I’ll go ahead and resubmit it on your behalf for another user to review. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your help! Rahoman (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder, Thanks so much for your feedback and for helping editors like me who are still learning. I really appreciate your time and care.I’m here to grow and improve, and I want to follow Wikipedia’s standards as best I can. If anything I’ve written feels too AI-like or not quite right, I’d be grateful if you could point it out so I can fix it. I try hard to keep things neutral and avoid praise or promotional tone, and I take those guidelines seriously. Thanks again for your support. I’d welcome any tips or suggestions you have. Vodnir (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I hope this meets you well, Draft:X-Dynasty was rejected by you earlier, not going against your authority but I humbly implore you to re-go through the drafted article and you will find out that that entity is notable and was not just mentioned briefly on references,the entity had a dedicated article to it on the reference thus which I consider notable. Thank you. Regards Bhetyic3 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The Metro article reads like AI slop, and the other one looks like an undisclosed advertisement. Neither of those sources are usable. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources#Goals here is the list of generally accepted sources/references here in Wikipedia. Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The list I uploaded above are reputable and Wikipedia perused sources. Thanks. Regards Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

With due respect..I suggest you peruse The Metro website and you’ll find out its reliability. Thanks Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I just read the page you linked plus both sources. You're correct about This Day; since the article has a profile/interview format, some editorializing is acceptable, but regardless of the article's tone, it would be considered a primary source and so doesn't count for notability. As for The Metro, I perused its website as you suggested, and it's even worse than I initially thought. I found this "article" that is blatantly copy-pasted from a large language model, because they didn't even bother to take out the LLM's intro:

Furthermore, said intro suggests their prompt consisted of text copy-pasted from a more reputable source that they then directed the LLM to rewrite to obscure their copyright infringement. I've gone ahead and added it to the "unreliable" section of WP:RSNG for that reason. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I received notice of the denial of publication on my draft of the page for Todyl, Inc. stating that it looked like AI generated content. This is the same message I received from a prior reviewer. After that I spent at least half a day trying to rewrite the content so that it would not flag again as appearing like LLM authorship. I'm now at a loss as to how to rewrite this content and frankly am very frustrated by these "it appears to be LLM" allegations that are not true but for which I can't prove a negative. I would appreciate it if you would please take a second look at the article and see if you can change your decision. Thank you.

P.S. I'm a college professor. I write in a formal tone. Could that be the issue? Absent.Editor (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I’m having trouble squaring your comment with the draft’s contents. While you may have revised the text yourself, it still reads like it was AI-generated. The "see also" section linked to a nonexistent article, there are no links to other articles in the body text at all, and many of the sentences are structured in ChatGPT’s "hit you over the head with notability" style where it mentions which source it’s citing in the body text even when that’s not necessary. Care to explain? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Jamie at APIContext (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:APIContext (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your note on my draft stated that it has signs of being generated by an LLM. It was not, I hand wrote the entire revision. I can't speak to the previous draft, but I edited the previous draft pretty extensively.

Can you share any specifics about why you believe it was generated by an LLM? I am happy to revise, but I am not sure what to change since I wrote it all myself (and I am a human!). I would prefer a response on my Talk page. Thanks! Jamie at APIContext (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Jamie at APIContext (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I just read the draft again and now I’m thinking it is legit after all. I’ll go ahead and revert my last decline. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi there! You left a comment on the draft page I have written and uploaded and I wanted to respond. I wrote the page myself so I can assure you I didn't use an LLM to write it. I did use one to format the references but that's it :) Could you let me know what made it read as LLM-generated, please? Not sure what changes I can make but happy to make any edits you suggest. Charlottegwf (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, I was one the fence about whether it was written by a human or not, hence why I left a note to other reviewers that it might be LLM-generated, rather than declining it outright and giving that reason. I recommend adding some more links to other Wikipedia articles. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! Ok I will do, thank you very much. Charlottegwf (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is the page I'm working on creating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carmine_Sabia. I got as much information as I could from sources and what Carmine has posted publicly. I did use ChatGPT but only for formatting as I have never done one of these before. Are there any tips you could give me? NJHistorian27 (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia.

Now then, I recommend not using ChatGPT even for formatting, because if you scroll down to the references section, you'll see a bunch of errors that it caused. The problem is that the access date (i.e. the date you read the source you're citing — you did read it, right?) is "October 2025" instead of the correct "October ##, 2025". Please fix all of these errors.

In the future, if you find wikicode daunting, Wikipedia's Visual Editor offers a more beginning-friendly experience similar to word processors like Microsoft Word or Google Docs. In particular, you may find its reference-generation tool useful: just paste in a web address, and it'll insert a properly formatted reference. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder! Just letting you know that I've declined your G15 tag of this draft. The three ref errors were for references that actually exist elsewhere on the page that actually mention the company. I'm not gonna speedy delete a draft just for having ref errors, something even very experienced editors screw up regularly. Anyhow, please don't take this personally. I see you around a lot and appreciate all your good work. Toadspike [Talk] 16:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oops! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(X) Doubt —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @Pythoncoder,

I have re edited the draft according to the suggestions you made. Appreciate if you could check and update if it is par with Wikipedia guid lines.

Thank you in advance for the support and your time.

Kaundike ~~~~ Kaundike (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the update. The draft will be reviewed sometime in the next few months, not necessarily by me. I know that may seem like a long time, but Wikipedia is a volunteer project and there are thousands of other drafts in the queue. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder, thanks for your feedback and for pointing out the issues. I’ve gone through the whole draft again and rewrote every part by hand. All sources have been checked, and anything that looked unclear or too general was removed or replaced with verifiable references. The article doesn’t include any generated content. I only used a language tool earlier to tidy up the English phrasing. Everything else is my own work, written manually and checked against the cited sources. I’d appreciate it if you could take another look at the updated version when you have a moment.

Best regards, PolanskiW PolanskiW (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I’m highly skeptical of your claims here. Both your userpage and the draft definitely look LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My userpage is written with the help of an LLM for grammar reasons. I have now rewritten the complete draft with the help of a native speaker. I would like to ask you to check the new draft again.

Kindest regards,

Wpolanski PolanskiW (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@pythoncoder can you look over the article again (Gaspar Van Elmbt)? I hope this time it meets the guidelines you have talked about. I appreciate your contribution. Yours Truly, OpticExlorer. OpticExplorer (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello and thank you for your time! I wanted to express my sincere thanks for your earlier review and helpful feedback on my draft "Sadrolin Tam."

I have now completely rewritten the article in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, removed all promotional language, and added verifiable references from independent Swedish and Polish media sources (Sydsvenskan, Kvällsposten, Dziennik Polski, etc.).

The structure, references, and external links have also been revised according to your comments. Thank you again for your valuable guidance and for supporting new editors who wish to contribute to Wikipedia in the right way. Kind regards,

Sadrolin (Sadri) Tam Sadri Tam (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I just looked at the current revision of the draft and it still looks like LLM output. Did you use AI in writing the draft, yes or no? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you once again for your time and review. I would like to add that several of the Swedish newspaper articles cited in the draft (such as Sydsvenskan, Kvällsposten, and Arbetet) are older printed editions from the 1990s. These are preserved in my private archive and can also be verified through the National Library of Sweden’s newspaper archive (Kungliga biblioteket – Svenska tidningsarkivet), which holds physical copies of these publications. The Polish sources (Dziennik Polski, Tygodnik Wielicki) are likewise verifiable through their respective online and print archives. My intention has been to ensure that every reference listed in the article is genuine, published, and verifiable. Kind regards,

Sadrolin (Sadri) Tam Sadri Tam (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Stop using AI. Your draft WILL be declined again in its current state. And definitely don’t use LLMs to write talk page comments. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, @Pythoncoder

I have just edited the draft again with new wording. Can you please advise. Thank you AngeliAssomull (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The "new" revision is obviously still LLM generated. I have tagged it for deletion per CSD G15. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder can you please advise how I can make this better AngeliAssomull (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Pythoncoder I assure you that I have written the draft by myself. I only used AI to put together the sources together in the correct format but I assure you that the rest has been worded by me based on the sources. Please let me know the best next steps in order to not have the draft deleted. Thank you for your time and guidance. AngeliAssomull (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The fact that your draft was indeed deleted per G15 would seem to debunk your claims. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Python Coder,

I only used LLMs to assist in the code aspects of the wiki, but I have re-written the article now fully manually and would like you to reconsider the review. Let me know any further improvements I can make. Have a nice day.

Harry3sidedcube (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

1) LLMs suck at wikicode. I suggest using the wp:VisualEditor instead. 2) The draft has abnormalities in its writing style that are indicative of LLM use. Your user page is also clearly LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dear Pythoncoder, thank you for the review, but I want to kindly request additional details/advice -

the Wikipedia:Notability (people) clearly states, that a person is notable is: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or", we clearly have this criteria - both St. George's Order of Victory and Order of Friendship (Kazakhstan) are high state awards; also, Politicians and judges [...] or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels - Parliament of Georgia is the supreme national legislature of Georgia and clearly falls under this criteria. Vokaqhf95 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, so the subject appears to be notable, then — but the page still needs some more reliable sources, and there are some parts where the writing is too promotional. You can resubmit once you fix both of those issues. Let me know if you have any more questions. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. I added another source and requested an additional review, also removed some parts that might seem promotional. If you could please point at any parts that seem too promotional to you, please tell me and I will gladly rewrite those.--Vokaqhf95 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Pythoncoder, the report is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Vlodiker Chimok / AI. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Pythoncoder.

I have confirmed that my draft (HealthCoreDaily) has been rejected again.

Despite revising and rewriting it to address the reasons you provided (suspicion of large language model-generated content, promotional language, speculative statements, etc.), I still do not fully understand the precise reason for rejection and respectfully inquire.

For reference, the HealthCoreDaily draft was not created using a large language model; I typed it myself. The content was also written based on known facts and reliable sources.

Could you please provide more specific guidance on what aspects I may have overlooked? If you identified issues with particular sentences, paragraphs, or referencing methods, I would appreciate your pointing them out so I can review and improve those sections.

Thank you for your assistance despite your busy schedule. I kindly request further guidance.

Thank you. Psychophysiological86 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Right you are. I can see that you rewrote the draft and it no longer appears to be AI-generated (while we're here, don't use AI to generate edit summaries either). I have changed the decline reason to reflect the fact that the draft needs more reliable sources to establish its notability. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your response. I have a question regarding the ‘more reliable sources’ you mentioned. I would like to know whether the reports from Korean news outlets currently included in the draft are not considered reliable sources, or if Wikipedia has separate criteria for judging the reliability of sources.

If there are specific criteria or a reference guide available, I will incorporate that information and improve the content to align with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for your guidance despite your busy schedule. Psychophysiological86 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not familiar with either news outlet you cited. However, I did machine translate both pages, and the texts appear to be quite similar to each other. Did they both publish (or slightly reword) the same press release? If so, press releases can be cited for uncontroversial facts about the subject, but they don't count towards notability. In general, draft reviewers like me look for at least three reliable, independent, secondary sources. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your detailed response. Should I find a reliable and independent secondary source, I will respectfully request a reconsideration. Thank you once again for your guidance. Psychophysiological86 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi there,

you declined this article saying it had shown signs of being LLM generated. It had been extensively rewritten and edited. Can you please point out what element you find issue with?

If it was the inclusion of the redlinks I had not realised that was not appropriate as I thought they were topics which were important to link to and how I had seen it conducted on other templates. All redlinks have been removed.

The overall tone, structure and writing of the article seems to be within the expectations of a good wiki article so I am wondering what the issue is. Should I just write differently or something? Fivelidz5lidz (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

While you may have revised the draft by hand, it still reads like LLM output because its body text is focused on proving how notable the subject is (rather than being an encyclopedia article that demonstrates notability through its references). Take this sentence: "In 2025, trade and business outlets reported additional financing activity and product positioning in the wearables and digital-health market." What’s wrong with that sentence, and how can you fix it?

(I should also note that fixing LLM output like this will almost always be more time-consuming than just writing the article yourself the first time around.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah, this element was added as I had gotten rid of all other material which could have been deemed to be promotional and focused on notability as that was the failing test on previous drafts.

Fair enough and thanks for the feedback.

I'll do a complete restructure at some point and will factor this in. I had been stressing trying to establish notability too greatly when that should speak for itself in the references.

It's relatively hard to write an objective piece in such a manner stressing the validity of the subject without it sounding jilted.

Thank you for identifying the specific issues of note.I was trying to use other organisation articles as inspiration.

In your opinion are these references enough to qualify for notability?

• "Sahha bounces onto health & wellbeing trend with 1ドル.3m raise". The National Business Review. 25 July 2025.
• "Mental health-tracking app gets backing". Otago Daily Times. 7 September 2021.
• "Sahha、ウェアラブルデバイスのデータから健康状態を分析するAPI". IoT News Japan (in Japanese). 2024.
• "Mental health-improving startup gains funding". Otago Daily Times. 20 October 2023.
• "Sahha introduces Archetypes to simplify complex wellness data". Athletech News. 27 May 2025.

I see the challenges of other AI startup companies that are huge now such as 'Lovable' even passing the notability test. At the same time I have also seen totally dead companies kicking around from articles pre 2010.

The significance for Sahha here is that this is the only company in the health space that creates behavioural data from wearable and phone data that provides the back end to many other companies. I found it challenging to even write on this without it sounding promotional.

I suppose in the sentence you highlighted I would Focus on the above point and refer to how the product prominence resulted in more funding in 2025. Fivelidz5lidz (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I have re-submitted my draft after making a more careful attempt for copyediting. Although the draft has not been created through AI assisted tools, I can see that there were sections that looked very vague, and quite generic indeed. I tried to keep the draft only within the in-line sources, and I think now it is much more concrete than before, and that notability is established only through sources. For notability, when you check the draft again, you can see clearly that there are sources that provide an in-depth, reliable, and secondary analysis, and you can also check the Iceland version of Hjallastefnan and Margrét Pála Ólafsdóttir. Chiserc (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I’ve carefully addressed all the feedback on the Sensofar draft, ensuring a neutral tone and referencing multiple independent, reliable sources. Metrology.editor (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi pythoncoder,

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. Please allow me to clarify that I did not use an LLM to generate it, but I understand that some of the claims in the article may sound vague.

I have addressed all the points you raised and rewrote the entire article, which now is more concise and short.

Except for one reference—which is a physical book—the two remaining references now link directly to the specific pages and PDFs where you can verify that the information in the article is factual or at least academically verified.

Regards D◉ppelgänger 21:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I just read through the draft again and I’m not sure what I was thinking the other day when I declined it. Sorry about that. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 07:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No worries. Thank you for reconsidering the article and removing the AI-generated template from it. D◉ppelgänger ^talk 11:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello

First of all thank you for a fast review of the draft. This is the first time I am contributing to Wikipeida and I have a question regarding your feedback "Need at least one more reliable source". The linked references, news paper reporting from Mathrubhumi, and Deshabhimani are two of the leading Newspapers in Kerala, India. To increase the chances of this draft getting approved, could you please give some examples of what would qualify as a good reliable secondary source in this case?

Thank you Emaaus (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The existing sources look good; we just need at least 1 more source like that, please. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for the fast response.

I added two more reliable secondary sources. This time included one more main stream news source. Emaaus (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hia @Pythoncoder. Firstly, you do really excellent work at AfC and we appreciate it!

I've had several drafts declined for LLM usage where the draft author has (via Discord, IRC live chat, AfC HD) told me they did not use an LLM / minimally used an LLM to help write the draft, or through a second review by myself I couldn't see any concrete evidence of LLM usage.

This makes me think you could be a bit hasty when using the LLM decline. I tend to only decline for LLM usage when it is very obvious an LLM has had a hand in writing a draft.

What are your thoughts? qcne (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, as you've probably figured out by now, I don't use AfC and I'm not on the Wikipedia Discord, so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Some of these editors do post on my talk page (or the talk pages of the drafts they submitted), and I have found that sometimes they are not entirely forthcoming about their actual methods for writing drafts. You're a better AfC reviewer than me, so you're probably right about all this, but do you have any specific examples of drafts you think were wrongly declined? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A couple I've pinged you at AFCHD before over the last few months, I forget the ones in question, plus Draft:Sam Badi and Draft:Dushyant Dubey which came to my attention the last two days.

Do continue to decline for LLM use when it's obvious, but perhaps if it's borderline check if it meets any other failure reason (notability, tone etc) and then use two decline notices. That might make it a better experience for the newbie editors. qcne (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi - are you able to resubmit the original at Juan_Andres_Caro? It doesn’t let me/I don’t know how. Also the extra links it has are broken. Maybe they work for you? Three of them sent me to broken Puerto Rico based press organizations with errors. I was able to add a politico E&E article to both drafts. Thank you for your help. ArticlePilot42 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've removed the broken links and resubmitted the draft on your behalf. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh awesome - thank you! @Jherbert3 please disregard. ArticlePilot42 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jherbert3 is the original draft. Jherbert3 are you able to publish the current edits? 15:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC) ArticlePilot42 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The original creator shouldn't need to do anything, since I already submitted the draft for you. For future reference, if you want to notify a user that you mentioned them, you can use the {{ping }} template. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Submission_template_seems_broken. Yes /v/ will work as well as /b/ in mainspace but it breaks the AfC submission template so it does not get fully categorized. The name in draft was just a temporary. KylieTastic (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I didn't know that. I just moved it back. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No worries - note there is also Template_talk:AfC_submission#Template-protected_edit_request_on_29_October_2025 that may fix the issue but I haven't had time to look properly. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page