Article · Wikipedia archive · Last revised Jul 24, 2026

User talk:LemonFern13

Last revised
Jul 24, 2026
Read time
≈ 5 min
Length
1,115 w
Citations
Source

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew Moore (Computer scientist) (February 20)

source ↗
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Grahaml35 was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
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 it after they have been resolved.
Grahaml35 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Teahouse logo
Hello, LemonFern13! 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! Grahaml35 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew Moore (Computer scientist) (June 6)

Draft declined
source ↗
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
Feedback
The reviewer, MediaKyle, left the following feedback:
This draft reads like a resume or curriculum vitae. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a professional networking website or a place to promote yourself or your services. We also strongly discourage writing about yourself.

Articles about people must meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

  • provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
  • are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
  • are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

Need help?

Scam warning

MediaKyle (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I have followed the guidelines you are specifying: 1) I am not writing about myself; 2) I am following criteria for inclusion for people (e.g., academics are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources; including background, education, career arc, field research, recognition); I am providing significant coverage of their computer science timeline; I am including multiple, independent cited sources from reliable and reputable outlets.
To your point that it sounds like a resume or CV, Andrew Moore is a prominent figures in modern artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics. His career is relevant because he has fluidly moved back and forth between elite academia, massive tech companies, and high-level national security roles. It seems that it would be important to include this in a non-biased, objective way for a Wikipedia submission.
Any additional advice you have would be greatly appreciated. LemonFern13 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew W. Moore (Computer scientist) has been accepted

source ↗
Andrew W. Moore (Computer scientist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions, well done! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Future articles

Next steps

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Epsilon.Prota talk 16:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply