Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.
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:Recycle Across America 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.
Thank you for reviewing the draft article, Draft:Recycle Across America. I left you a message in your personal talk channel but never received a response. I was hoping you could clarify why you declined the draft article for Recycle Across America for reasons related to notability when there are multiple quality secondary sources such as the New York Times, Forbes, the Guardian, PBS, and CBS which are in-depth, reliable, and independent of the organization? For instance, the New York Times articles are written by notable journalists such as Michael Corkrey and David Borstein.
Any specific feedback beyond the auto-populated response would be greatly appreciated.
Hello, RAA-LeTendre!
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! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!06:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review Draft:Recycle Across America and for flagging the promotional tone. Iâve made several changes aimed at addressing that issue and at clarifying notability:
Source balanceâ trimmed most material based on RAAâs own web pages and replaced it with coverage from The New York Times, Forbes, The Guardian, The Star Tribune, The Mountain Mail, Florida Phoenix, etc.).
Neutral wordingâ removed phrases such as âlargest in the nationâ and replaced them with plain factual statements.
Criticism & debate sectionâ added third-party critiques of recycling to provide balance. However there are no specific controversies or criticisms against RAA that I could include at this time.
Inline citationsâ every claim of impact now cites an independent source and where necessary, I tried to explicitly attribute the claims to RAA.
If there are remaining sentences that still read as promotional, could you point me to them (e.g., âImpact section, subsection National Park Initiative, sentence 2â)? Iâm happy to keep revising.
Thanks or your guidance.
Note: I modeled the articleâs structure on several existing nonprofit pages (e.g., National Park Foundation, Girls Who Code, etc.) to ensure consistency.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.
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:Recycle Across America 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LR.127 was:
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:
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:Recycle Across America 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.
