Editing Eurovision Wiki:Teahouse (section)

== How to avoid AI-written style? ==

Hello,

I am working on a draft article about photographer Bojan Stojanović which is currently in Articles for Creation.

The topic already has an accepted article on Serbian Wikipedia based on independent sources (including Kurir, Pančevac newspaper and TV appearances such as TV Prva and TV Pančevo). I am trying to create the English version following Wikipedia style. However, reviewers mentioned that the draft reads too much like AI-generated text.

Could someone advise what typically causes this impression and how such drafts should be rewritten to better match encyclopedic tone?

Any feedback before the next review would be greatly appreciated.

Draft: [[Draft:Bojan Stojanović]]
Serbian article: [[:sr:Bojan Stojanović]]

-- [[User:Rade Brdjanin|Rade Brdjanin]] ([[User talk:Rade Brdjanin|talk]]) 14:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, @[[User:Rade Brdjanin|Rade Brdjanin]], and welcome to the Teahouse. 
:First, please note that the existence, and quite likely the content, of the article in Serbian Wikipedia, is irrelevant here. Each Wikipedia has its own policies and procedures, and English Wikipedia is said to have one of the strictest set of rules about sourcing, so the subject of an article in Serbian Wikipedia may or may not meet the requirements here. 
:A typical example of what LLMs love to say when they try to write a Wikipedia article is your section "Media coverage". This is the kind of promotional blather which you might find in a magazine article, but it is of zero interest to Wikipedia. 
:A Wikipedia article should be a [[WP:Neutral point of view|neutral summary]] of what the [[WP:DUEWEIGHT|majority of people]] who are [[WP:Independent sources|wholly unconnected]] with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in [[WP:Reliable sources|reliable publications]], (see [[WP:Golden rule|Golden rule]]) and not much else. [[WP:No original research|What you know]] (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be [[WP:Verifiability|verified]] from a reliable published source.
:If some of those examples of "coverage" are examples of that, then you can summarise what they say, citing them. But the fact that five or fifty or five thousand magazines name-checked him or printed his photos, or printed interviews with him is of no relevance to Wikipedia - unless an independent commentator then wrote about that coverage. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 15:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:Please do not post your question in multiple places. You asked, and it was answered on [[WP:AFCHELP]]. The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 05:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:The [[WP:AISIGNS]] essay might be of interest. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 01:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)