Draft talk:Comprehensive Rust

This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing

Education

This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this draft. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

MrtnGslr (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

I am the original author of this course, which I created during my previous employment at Google. I am no longer employed by Google and this work is not compensated. MrtnGslr (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specific feedback needed

Hello @Pythoncoder:, thank you for reviewing this draft so quickly! I was afraid it would take weeks :)

As you an see, this is only the second time I try to create an article here. I would love some help and specific feedback. The rejection notice appears to be a general template about potential LLM issues?

Could you please point to specific sentences or phrases in the draft that I can improve? I get that LLMs hallucinate, but I need your help to improve the article. Was there any sentences that you found to have a promotional tone or to be essay-like?

As I wrote in the very first edit, I used Gemini as a writing tool specifically to help ensure a neutral point of view since I'm connected to the topic at hand. I gave it links to third-party coverage (which I had conveniently collected in the project README). I believe these independent, reliable sources (such as Dark Reading) establish notability and provide the basis for the article.

I am more than happy to improve the draft, but without specific examples of what needs fixing, I find it hard to improve the text.

Could you please provide concrete feedback or reconsider the decline based on the article's content and sources? Thank you!

MrtnGslr (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem counterintuitive, but LLMs actually aren't that good for ensuring neutrality, because their output often resembles ad copy. The text they generate also tends to have a warped understanding of Wikipedia policies — for example, it's good to cite reliable independent sources, but LLMs tend to overemphasize this policy, e.g. by attributing specific sources in the body text in a way that's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you have further questions, I recommend asking them at the articles for creation help desk. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]