The process
Six stages from first contact to long-term care. The same discipline on every project: evidence first, review channels always, continuity after publication.
Intake & notability assessment
Every engagement starts with the three-test audit: significant coverage, reliable sources, independence. The output is a written go / no-go with the evidence listed. A “no” comes with a source-building plan instead of a doomed draft — the audit fee is credited toward the project when it proceeds.
Source matrix
Before any text: a matrix of independent, reliable coverage mapped to the claims it can support, per the sourcing conventions of the target language edition. Client-supplied materials are marked as such and never pass for independent coverage.
Drafting to the edition's standards
The draft is written against the target edition's tone, structure and citation norms — neutral, verifiable, no promotional language. For multilingual projects every edition gets a rebuild, not a translation.
Review-channel submission
New articles go through Articles for Creation; changes to existing pages go through conflict-of-interest edit requests on talk pages, under the published disclosure policy. Wikipedia's volunteer reviewers decide; the work is built to pass review, not to bypass it.
Monitoring window
Publication or recovery opens a 90-day monitoring window: edits watched, regressions answered, sourcing defended. If a deleted page cannot be restored after three attempts within the window, 80% of the fee is refunded.
Long-term care
Beyond the window: annual support (updates, vandalism response, sourcing refresh, reporting) and Wikimonitoring real-time alerts keep the page accurate for years, not weeks. This continuity is the part most of the market simply does not sell.
Commercial terms live on the services catalog; figure definitions on How we count; the rules this process is built around on ethics & disclosure.