This is not standard practice. An article that is controversial or one that has been vandalised a lot may put in place such a policy. But the vast majority of articles on (English) Wikipedia can be freely edited.
I’m not talking about updating an existing article. I’m taking about publishing an entirely new page. I can and do make corrections and additions to existing articles without review. I wrote a completely new article and every time I submit it for review it comes back with a different reason for rejection. However, the most recent one was actually due to a misunderstanding on my part about acceptable sources (turns out I was being more restrictive than I needed to be), so at least it’ll be easy to implement the changes this reviewer wants to see.
Nope! Just some technical stuff. Maybe it’s one of of those things where there’s not technically an enforcement mechanism. I read all about how to start a draft and turn it into a full article, which includes submitting it for review. Maybe you can just decide not to do that.
I’m guessing that’s a new guideline then. It wasn’t there when I joined. Also I might have been granted autopatrolled at some point, which might be why I get away with it.
Wikipedia can be weird sometimes. I’m trying to get an article approved and every time I re-submit it gets denied for different reasons.
I’ve never had to get a new article approved. I just write it. Is it about something very controversial?
Uh, what? As far I can tell every new draft needs to be approved before switching to the main page.
This is not standard practice. An article that is controversial or one that has been vandalised a lot may put in place such a policy. But the vast majority of articles on (English) Wikipedia can be freely edited.
I’m not talking about updating an existing article. I’m taking about publishing an entirely new page. I can and do make corrections and additions to existing articles without review. I wrote a completely new article and every time I submit it for review it comes back with a different reason for rejection. However, the most recent one was actually due to a misunderstanding on my part about acceptable sources (turns out I was being more restrictive than I needed to be), so at least it’ll be easy to implement the changes this reviewer wants to see.
I have never had to submit a new article for review. Are you writing articles on a topic that is controversial?
Nope! Just some technical stuff. Maybe it’s one of of those things where there’s not technically an enforcement mechanism. I read all about how to start a draft and turn it into a full article, which includes submitting it for review. Maybe you can just decide not to do that.
I’m guessing that’s a new guideline then. It wasn’t there when I joined. Also I might have been granted autopatrolled at some point, which might be why I get away with it.