wikipedia-en-biography-writing

name	wikipedia-en-biography-writing
description	Draft and edit English Wikipedia biographies following NPOV, verifiability, no original research, and biographies of living persons (BLP) policies
license	MIT
compatibility	opencode
depends_on	["wikimedia-api-access"]
skill_discovery_hints	[{"keywords":["biography","BLP","living persons","article creation","drafting"]},{"keywords":["NPOV","biography writing","infobox person","WP:NOR","verifiability"]}]
last_verified	"2026-06-10T00:00:00.000Z"

⚠️ Important: AI-generated content on Wikimedia projects

Most language editions of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects have community policies that restrict or ban the direct posting of content generated by large language models (LLMs). This includes articles, sections, discussion comments, or any other substantial prose drafted by AI assistants, as well as images and other media files, whether uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or directly to a single Wikipedia edition. Before using AI to generate content, you must consult all relevant AI policies. These are summarised on Meta-Wiki at AI policies by project § Content. You must read the full policies and guidelines, not just the summaries.

This skill is designed to help you research, understand, and prepare content — not to produce final text for direct submission. Treat any draft output as a research aid and starting point, not a finished product. Any Wikipedia edit you make remains your own responsibility and must comply with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research.

Do not copy-paste AI-generated text directly into Wikipedia. Always rewrite, verify every claim against reliable sources, and ensure the result reflects your own editorial judgment.

SOP: Notability Assessment

Before drafting, evaluate whether the subject meets English Wikipedia's notability criteria. If notability is unclear, flag it for the user rather than proceeding.

General Notability (WP:GNG)

The subject must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Depth of coverage matters — brief mentions or directory listings do not count.

Subject-Specific Guidelines

• WP:ANYBIO — Received a major award, or been inducted into a notable hall of fame.
• WP:NACADEMIC — Professor with major academic awards, highly cited research, a named chair, or editorial role at a top journal.
• WP:NARTIST — Work exhibited at major museums, significant critical attention, or representation in notable galleries.
• WP:NCREATIVE — Subject's creative work has been the subject of multiple independent reviews or major awards.

When Notability Is Unclear

State: "This subject may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The provided sources should be checked for significant, independent coverage." Proceed only if the user confirms and supplies sufficient sources.

SOP: Article Structure

Use this standard biography structure. Do not deviate from the section ordering.

{{Infobox person
| name          = 
| image         = 
| caption       = 
| birth_date    = 
| birth_place   = 
| death_date    = 
| death_place   = 
| nationality   = 
| occupation    = 
| known_for     = 
| alma_mater    = 
| awards        = 
}}

Lead (unnamed, first paragraph)

• 2-4 paragraphs summarizing the subject's most important facts
• First sentence: "[Name] (born [date]) is a [nationality] [occupation] known for [key achievement]."
• Establish notability immediately
• No citations needed for facts restated from the body (WP:LEADCITE)

Body Sections

== Early life and education ==
Early years, family background, schooling.

== Career ==
Professional trajectory, major achievements. For academics: research, publications, teaching. For artists: exhibitions, works, critical reception.

== Personal life ==
Only include if well-sourced and relevant. For living subjects, keep minimal — spouse, children, notable residences. Exclude private details (address, phone).

== Awards and honors ==
List with inline citations. Use a bullet list or prose depending on quantity.

== Selected works ==
For authors, filmmakers, or artists. Use a numbered list or a table.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

SOP: Citations

Citation Templates

Always use inline <ref> tags with the appropriate citation template:

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |access-date=}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite news |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |work= |publisher= |access-date=}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite book |title= |last= |first= |date= |publisher= |isbn= |pages=}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite journal |title= |last= |first= |date= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi=}}</ref>

Per-Section Rules

• Lead — No citations needed (facts are cited in the body)
• Body — Every substantive claim needs at least one inline citation directly after the sentence
• Controversial claims — Require multiple strong, independent, reliable sources
• Direct quotes — Must have an inline citation with page number
• Statistics — Must be cited to the specific source containing those numbers

Source Hierarchy

1. Preferred: Academic journals, major news outlets, government publications, peer-reviewed books
2. Acceptable with caution: Primary sources (for straightforward facts only), reputable magazines, documentaries
3. Do not use: Self-published sources (blogs, social media, personal websites), Wikipedia mirrors, paid or sponsored content
4. Never use for BLP: Tabloids, anonymous sources, rumor sites, user-generated content

SOP: Policy Guardrails

BLP (Biographies of Living Persons)

1. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately. Do not leave it in the draft even temporarily.
2. Never include private information (home address, phone number, email, exact birth date without a source) for a living person.
3. Give due weight — do not overemphasize minor controversies, lawsuits, or personal matters.
4. Use neutral language — avoid loaded terms ("controversial," "alleged," "scandal," "rocky").
5. Attribute negative claims explicitly: "According to a 2020 investigation by The Guardian, ..."
6. Harm principle — If publishing a fact could cause harm and it is not essential to the biography, omit it.

NPOV (Neutral Point of View)

1. Avoid promotional language: "renowned," "leading," "pioneering," "legendary," "world-class," "visionary."
2. Present claims as claims, not facts: "Smith argues that ..." not "Smith proved that ..."
3. Attribute opinions: "According to X, ..." or "X has described the work as ..."
4. Give proportional weight — major views get more space, fringe views get minimal or no space.
5. Do not take sides in disputes. Describe both sides' positions fairly.

NOR (No Original Research)

1. No synthesis — Do not connect information across sources to imply a conclusion that neither source states.
2. No analysis — Every fact in the article must be traceable to a published reliable source.
3. No interpretation — Let the sources speak. Do not add your own reading of events.

Verifiability

1. Use only published, reliable sources with editorial oversight.
2. For academic subjects, prefer peer-reviewed journals and university presses.
3. For current events, prefer major news outlets with fact-checking.
4. Primary sources (interviews, official documents) are acceptable for straightforward factual claims but not for interpretive analysis.

SOP: Anti-Hallucination Rules

These are strict constraints — violating any of them produces a dangerously bad draft.

1. Never fabricate a citation. Every <ref> must point to a source the user provided or one you independently verified. If you lack a source, write {{citation needed}} and flag it.
2. Never guess a URL. Do not invent a URL for a citation. If the user provides URLs, use them. If not, provide the citation metadata without a link.
3. Never assume a source supports a claim. Read the source in the user's context. If you are unsure what a source says, ask the user.
4. Never include dates, statistics, or quotes without a source. These are the most commonly hallucinated content.
5. When in doubt, omit. If you cannot verify a detail, leave it out rather than inventing it.
6. Flag gaps with {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or {{when}} instead of silently omitting needed citations.
7. Review before output. Before returning a draft, check every <ref> against the user's provided sources.

Workflow: Drafting a Biography

1. Gather — Ask the user for: subject name, a short description to avoid disambiguation, and a list of reliable sources (URLs or full bibliographic detail).
2. Assess — Evaluate notability against WP:GNG or subject-specific guidelines. Flag issues before drafting.
3. Outline — Draft section headers based on what the user's sources cover. Skip sections with no source support.
4. Write body first — Build each section with inline citations before writing the lead. This ensures the lead is grounded in sourced content.
5. Write lead — Summarize the body's key points in 2-4 paragraphs. Do not introduce facts not in the body.
6. Add infobox — Use the appropriate infobox template with only fields supported by sources. Most infoboxes should use a small fraction of available fields. When in doubt about a field's accuracy, appropriateness, or formatting, leave it out.
7. Review — Check against BLP, NPOV, NOR, and every anti-hallucination rule. Flag any concerns to the user.

---

Tooling

This skill includes helper scripts, reference docs, and templates:

🔧 Notability Checker (scripts/check-notability.sh)

Walks through Wikipedia's notability criteria and produces a structured assessment.

# Interactive mode — guides through each criterion
./scripts/check-notability.sh "Albert Einstein"

# Print the guide without interactive prompts
./scripts/check-notability.sh --guide

🔧 Citation Validator (scripts/citation-check.sh)

Checks a draft file for citation issues.

./scripts/citation-check.sh my_draft.md

Reports:

• Total citation count and missing reference list
• Templates missing URLs or access-dates
• Empty template fields
• Hallucination risk flags ({{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, etc.)
• Section-level citation gaps

📚 Policy Reference (references/policies.md)

Full policy excerpts for BLP, NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability, with checklists and source reliability guide. Read when you need to verify policy compliance.

📚 Notability Guide (references/notability-guide.md)

Deep reference on all notability guidelines (GNG, ANYBIO, NACADEMIC, NARTIST, NCREATIVE, NSPORT) with examples, a flowchart, and common pitfalls.

🧩 Biography Template (assets/biography-template.md)

Complete article skeleton with:

• Standard section ordering
• Infobox template
• Lead structure guide
• Section-by-section guidance
• Pre-submission checklist

🧩 Citation Templates (assets/citation-template.md)

Ready-to-use templates for all citation types (web, news, book, journal) with required/recommended fields and anti-hallucination rules.

🧩 Infobox Templates (assets/infobox-templates/)

⚠️ Less is more. The infobox templates list dozens of possible fields, but most articles should use only a handful — the ones the editor is confident in and that convey essential information. It is better to leave a field out than to include one you are unsure about.

Subject-specific infobox variants:

Template	For
person.md	Generic/default — use when no subject-specific infobox fits
scientist.md	Academics, researchers, scientists
writer.md	Authors, journalists, poets
artist.md	Visual artists, sculptors, photographers
athlete.md	Athletes, coaches, sports figures
officeholder.md	Politicians, government officials, diplomats, judges

---

Cross-References

Related Skill	Why
wikipedia-notability-assessment	Full notability evaluation (GNG, all 13 SNGs, source quality) — use for detailed assessment beyond the summary here
wikipedia-page-anatomy	Article structure understanding — infoboxes, sections, categories
wikipedia-citations	Citation formatting and validation for inline references
wikimedia-api-access	User-Agent and API patterns for source verification
wikipedia-talk-page	Talk page etiquette — where to discuss article improvements
wikipedia-en-article-audit	Post-draft structural/quality audit via automated DAG-based analysis