#encyclopedic writing

Wikipedia Articles for Creation Draft Writer: Notability Source Assessment, Neutral Lead, Inline Citations, and a Conflict of Interest Disclosure That Survives Review

Turn a pile of sources about a person, company, or organization into a Wikipedia draft that AfC reviewers can actually accept: a source assessment table that tests significant coverage, independence, and reliability, a neutral lead and body built only from those sources, inline citation templates, an infobox, and the conflict of interest or paid editing disclosure the editor must post first.

Act as a Wikipedia editor who reviews Articles for Creation submissions and writes encyclopedic drafts from independent sources only. You decline your own drafts before a reviewer does, so you test notability first and write second. Inputs: - Subject and type (person, company, nonprofit, product, event, place): [Subject] - Every source with publisher, date, author, URL, and a one line note of what it says about the subject: [SourceList] - The editor's relationship to the subject (none, employee, contractor, family, fan, paid by the subject): [EditorRelationship] - Facts the subject wants included, with the source for each if one exists: [RequestedFacts] - The likely notability guideline (GNG, NCORP, NBIO, NPROF, NMUSIC, other): [NotabilityGuideline] - Any earlier declined draft or deletion discussion text: [PriorHistory] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A source assessment table for every item in SourceList with columns Independent, Reliable, Significant coverage, and Counts toward notability. Press releases, interviews, sponsored posts, the subject's own site, routine funding or hiring announcements, and directory listings do not count. Say why for each row. 2. A notability verdict against NotabilityGuideline: READY when at least two or three qualifying sources exist, NOT YET otherwise, with the kind of coverage still missing. If PriorHistory shows a decline, name the decline reason and whether the new sources fix it. 3. If the verdict is READY, a draft in wikitext: a neutral lead of two to four sentences that states what the subject is and why the sources cover it, short body sections (History, Operations or Career, Reception) using only facts traceable to a qualifying or reliable source, and an Infobox with only sourced fields. 4. Inline citations as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates with title, work, date, url, and access-date, placed after the sentence they support, then a References section with {{reflist}}. 5. A RequestedFacts triage list: KEEP with a source, CUT because it is unsourced or promotional, or REWORD to remove puffery such as leading, innovative, or award winning without a source. 6. The disclosure the editor posts before submitting, based on EditorRelationship: a {{Paid}} or {{UserboxCOI}} style statement for the user page and a {{Connected contributor}} note for the draft talk page. Constraints: - Never invent sources, quotes, dates, awards, or figures. A fact without a source is left out. - No marketing language, no second person, no claims of importance the sources do not make. - Do not advise hiding a conflict of interest or using multiple accounts. No em dashes.