Case Studies

Source-First Wikipedia Case Studies

Short narratives from published portfolio work: what we looked for in the sources, how drafting stayed neutral, and why disclosure and aftercare matter. Outcomes are never guaranteed.

View Full Portfolio Request Assessment

Published Work

What the Process Looked Like on Real Files

David Bianchi

Independent coverage first, then a durable biography structure

Source audit
Source hierarchy
Disclosed paid editing

The engagement started with a source audit: which outlets covered the subject independently, how deep that coverage ran, and whether the record could support a durable article. Drafting emphasised source hierarchy — claims entered only when a reliable citation could carry them. Paid editing was disclosed. Volunteer review still decides outcomes; a source-first draft is what gives an article its best chance to survive.

Open portfolio page

Peter Abell

Proportion, neutrality, and post-publication realism

Independent verification
Living-person policy
Post-publication monitoring

Work focused on verifying independent reporting, avoiding résumé padding, and keeping living-person material inside policy. After acceptance, accuracy still depends on new independent reporting — monitoring catches vandalism and contested edits, but nobody can lock a page against the community.

Open portfolio page

The Common Thread

What These Cases Have in Common

The Sources DecideBoth engagements began with what independent outlets had actually published — and claims entered only when a reliable citation could carry them.
Neutral, Not PromotionalProportion over résumé padding, living-person material kept inside policy, and paid editing disclosed on the record.
Aftercare Is RealisticReview still decides outcomes, and after acceptance accuracy depends on new reporting — monitoring helps, but no one can lock a page.

Start with clarity

Want This Level of Source Discipline on Your File?

Free notability assessment first.

Get Started