How we work
Exactly what happens, step by step
Nothing is submitted to Wikipedia until you have approved every word. Five steps, the first one free, and what happens when things do not go to plan.
Free source review
We search for every piece of independent coverage we can find and score it against the guideline that applies to you: academics, authors, or organisations.
A written review: every source we found, whether it counts, and why.
Your name and the links you already know of. Nothing written by you counts, so there is no need to send a CV.
The written score and one recommendation: go ahead, earn coverage first, or do not file.
Sample source review (redacted)
| Source | Why | Counts |
|---|---|---|
| Review of Books, 2021 | Independent review of the book, 1,400 words | Independent |
| University news page | Published by the employer | Not counted |
| Tribune, 2019 | Profile by a staff writer | Independent |
| Press release, wire service | Written by the subject, reprinted | Not counted |
Against Notability (people): strong on two sources, thin on a third. Recommendation: go ahead.
Draft
A person writes the article from the sources in the review. Every sentence is written by that person, in Wikipedia’s neutral voice, with a citation on every claim. We keep dated drafts of the work so we can show how it was written if a reviewer asks.
A redlined draft: what we cut, what we kept, and the source behind every line.
A factual check only, and your written approval. You do not write it, and we do not take wording from you: an article written by its subject is the fastest way to a decline.
The approved draft, in a document you keep whatever happens afterwards.
Sample redline (invented subject)
Dr Example is a world-renowned professor of chemistry at an example university who has revolutionised the field published on catalysis since 1998. She is widely regarded as a pioneer received the Example Society medal in 2019.
Disclosed submission
New articles are submitted through Articles for Creation from an account whose user page names Wiki Authority Group as the employer and you as the client. The same disclosure goes on the draft’s talk page. Changes to an existing article are proposed as edit requests on its talk page, each one quoting the source. We never edit a live article about a client, from any account.
The submission link and the disclosure, both public on Wikipedia.
Your consent that your name is public from the day we submit. The paid-contribution policy and the Wikimedia Terms of Use require it.
A link to the submission and to the disclosure on the talk page.
Illustration: how the disclosure reads on the talk page
Paid contribution disclosure. The editor of this draft was paid by Wiki Authority Group on behalf of , the subject of the article.
The wording follows Wikipedia’s own template. Account and client names are left out here.
Decision
A volunteer reviewer accepts or declines. We cannot speed the queue up and we do not promise a date. If the reviewer gives a reason we can fix, we fix it and resubmit at no extra charge, as long as each resubmission carries a real improvement. When nothing more can be improved, we tell you in writing and stop.
The reviewer’s note, and our plain-English reading of it.
Nothing. We handle the reviewer’s points.
A decision report: what the reviewer said, what we changed, what happens next.
Sample reviewer note, explained
This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Sources need to be independent, reliable and cover the subject in depth.
In plain English: two of the five sources we cited were interviews, which the reviewer treats as the subject’s own words. We replace them with the two independent reviews from the source review and resubmit.
After publication
Once the page is live, monitoring starts. Every month we read every edit, tag or nomination on the article and tell you what we propose to do about it, for the period in your package. Monitoring is reporting and proposing. We never remove tags or vote with undisclosed accounts.
A monthly report, one row per change.
Nothing, unless we propose an edit request and want your factual check.
The monthly report for the period in your package.
Sample report rows
| Date | Change | What it was | We propose |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 Mar | Edit by a volunteer | A date corrected in the career section, cited | Nothing. The edit is right. |
| 28 Mar | Tag added | Needs additional citations, on one paragraph | An edit request with two sources from the review. |
Payment in stages
Fees are fixed and quoted in writing after the free review. There is no hourly billing, and nothing is due before the review.
- 1
Start
A start payment when the draft begins.
- 2
Written approval
A payment when you approve the draft in writing.
- 3
Live
The larger part of the fee is billed only after the page is live.
Work on an existing article is billed in two stages: to start, and when the requests are posted. The refund rule is the same for every client and is part of the terms.
What we will not do
- Guarantee publication, a date, or that a page will stay up.
- Edit a live article about a client from any account, disclosed or not.
- Use undisclosed accounts, ask anyone else to edit for us, or ask you to edit.
- Claim any special standing on Wikipedia. We are paid editors with no authority beyond any volunteer’s.
- Cite press releases, paid placements, sponsored content, or interviews you gave.
The full list, each item backed by a clause in our terms, is on the standards page.
When things do not go to plan
Declined. The reviewer gives a reason. If we can fix it, we fix it and resubmit at no extra charge, as long as each resubmission carries a real improvement. When nothing more can be improved, we tell you in writing and stop. The larger part of the fee is billed only after the page is live.
Deleted later. Any article can be nominated for deletion by any editor at any time. If that happens, we write the response plan and, where your package includes it, take part in the talk-page discussion as disclosed editors. We never remove tags or vote with undisclosed accounts.
Negative material. We do not remove accurate, well-sourced negative material, and we do not remove maintenance tags ourselves. Where a claim is wrong or unsourced, we propose a correction on the talk page, with the source, and a volunteer decides.
Accepted. The article goes live. Monitoring starts once the page is live: a monthly report of every edit, tag or nomination, with what we propose to do about it, for the period in your package.
Timing
We do not promise dates for our own work or for Wikipedia’s. The review queue belongs to volunteers. Drafts commonly wait weeks, sometimes months. We cannot speed it up, and we do not promise a date.
Questions about the process
Will my name be public?
Yes. The disclosure rules require it, so your name appears on our editor’s user page and on the article’s talk page as our client. We tell every client this before they pay. Your enquiry itself is private.
Can you guarantee my page will be published?
No. Nobody can. Volunteer editors review every draft and decide. What we can do is tell you in advance, in writing, how strong the case is, and then write the best draft the sources allow. If the case is weak we say so before you pay.
Can I write it myself?
You can, and Wikipedia allows it with care: disclose that you are the subject, write only from independent sources, and submit through Articles for Creation. If you engage us, the draft is written by a person on our team from the sources in the review. We do not take wording from you, because an article written by its subject is the fastest way to a decline.
What happens if the draft is declined?
The reviewer gives a reason. If it is something we can fix, we fix it and resubmit at no extra charge, as long as each resubmission carries a real improvement. If nothing more can be improved, we tell you in writing and stop. You keep the draft. The larger part of the fee is billed only after the page is live.
What about an article that already exists?
We do not edit it. Changes are proposed as edit requests on the article’s talk page, each one quoting its source, and a volunteer decides whether to make them. That is true whether the article is about you or about your company.
How long does it take?
It depends on volunteer reviewers, and we do not promise dates. Drafts commonly wait weeks, sometimes months, in a queue we cannot speed up. Our own steps happen as fast as careful work allows, and you hear from us after every reviewer action.
Is my enquiry confidential?
Yes. Your enquiry, the source review and the draft stay between you and us. Only once you approve a submission does your name become public on Wikipedia, as the disclosure rules require.
Who writes it?
A person on our team, from the sources in the review, with a citation on every claim. We keep dated drafts so we can show how it was written if a reviewer asks. We do not name our editors on this site; the accounts that do the work carry the disclosures Wikipedia requires.
Start with a free, written source review.
No payment before it, no obligation after it.