User talk:EGBI DELIGHT

This is EGBI DELIGHT's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Climate Change and Reproductive Health (October 30)

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

In addition to needing more sources, this draft's prose also needs some work. For example, the sentence "Climate change leads to Climate change poses serious threats to women’s reproductive health and overall well-being." appears to cut off and then restart partway through. The first sentence "Climate change and reproductive health poses a significant threat to overall health, including reproductive health and well-being." is also somewhat confusingly written.

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:Climate Change and Reproductive Health 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.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EGBI DELIGHT! 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! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Climate Change and Reproductive Health (November 4)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Article reads as very SYNTH-y to me. If there were more than 5 sources I might let it go, but none of the sources is talking about "reproductive health", only specific health outcomes like preterm births and general fertility rates. Ref. 3 comes closest to general coverage with "pregnancy complications" but Frontiers is a questionable publisher (see WP:RS/N). Tying all these sources together looks like WP:OR. Also, there is clear LLM use, with formatting and stylistic giveaways. This isn't forbidden, but I have to wonder if someone didn't edit their LLM output, did they double-check all claims?

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:Climate Change and Reproductive Health 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.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]