Where would you like to go?
Tell us your goals and get a free digital marketing plan.
Want to assess a new article or correct an existing Wikipedia page? Digimanic helps you review the available coverage, identify what the evidence supports and plan an appropriate contribution.
Our Wikipedia writing and editing support focuses on source research, neutral draft development and transparent requests for independent review. The starting point is whether the proposed work fits Wikipedia's standards.
We assess the published coverage and relevant notability criteria before recommending a draft. Business size, age or commercial success alone does not establish eligibility.
We compare the statement with suitable published sources and prepare a specific correction request, explaining what should change and why.
We review the stated concerns and available evidence to assess whether revision is worthwhile. Better wording cannot resolve every sourcing or eligibility problem.
We identify promotional wording and material that lacks encyclopedic relevance, then recommend a more neutral, source-led approach.
We explain the disclosure and review route before any proposed submission. Paid contributions must identify the employer, client and relevant affiliations.
We examine coverage of the proposed subject, looking at its depth, independence and reliability. You receive a reasoned recommendation about whether to proceed, gather more information or use another communication channel.
We review the article, references, relevant discussion and revision history to identify specific concerns. The assessment distinguishes factual accuracy, neutrality, sourcing and content-selection issues.
We organise suitable published references and identify which statements each source supports. Unsupported claims and gaps are flagged before drafting.
Where the assessment supports proceeding, the service covers a proposed article structure and human-authored, source-checked draft developed within Wikipedia's current rules. The scope is an encyclopedic account rather than a sales profile.
We prepare focused wording, supporting citations and an explanation for review on the relevant article discussion page. This gives uninvolved editors a clear proposal to evaluate.
For suitable new drafts, we support the Articles for Creation review route, with required disclosures and a clear record of the supporting sources.
We examine reviewer feedback and advise whether there is a substantive way to address it. Revisions are based on evidence and policy concerns, rather than repeatedly submitting the same material.
We can track relevant discussion and review feedback during the agreed engagement. Any further proposals remain subject to the same sourcing, disclosure and independent review standards.
For organisations, Wikipedia generally looks for substantial discussion in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. A list of mentions is less useful than coverage that examines the subject in meaningful depth.
A proposed change needs a clear reason, appropriate sources and relevance to the article. Inclusion is considered by the reviewing editors.
Being able to verify a detail does not automatically mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Relevance, balance and other content standards still apply.
Wikipedia is not a place for a complete service catalogue, sales pitch, booking links or promotional calls to action.
Reliably sourced, relevant criticism cannot be removed simply because it is unfavourable. We can assess factual errors, weak sourcing and disproportionate treatment.
Private records, internal explanations and unpublished interviews cannot be used to establish new claims that readers cannot verify.
Content about living people requires careful sourcing and attention to privacy. We assess problematic material against the applicable biography standards rather than treating it as ordinary brand copy.
English Wikipedia prohibits using large language models to generate or rewrite article prose, with limited exceptions for specified tasks. Human authorship and checking are part of an appropriate article-writing workflow.
We assess each subject on its evidence. An industry label or a prominent job title does not create automatic eligibility.
Companies in technology, manufacturing, retail, professional services and other sectors may need a source assessment, a proposed article or a specific existing-page correction.
Institutions may need help evaluating historical coverage and proposing accurately sourced updates. Medical service promotion and admissions marketing belong on appropriate business channels.
A biography assessment considers coverage of the individual and applicable subject criteria. Company coverage and a person's credentials are not interchangeable.
Businesses and institutions may benefit from a structured review when they can identify an error or a significant omission supported by published sources.
These benefits relate to the quality of the assessment and contribution process. A Wikipedia article is not a guaranteed lead source, endorsement or route to higher search rankings.
Your proposal distinguishes assessment, drafting, submission support and follow-up. Fees cover the agreed professional work, not the purchase of editorial approval.
Client review checks factual concerns and the scope of the proposal. It does not give the client ownership of Wikipedia content. Published articles remain editable by others under Wikipedia's rules.
If your objective is to explain services or promote an announcement, Web Content Writing, Content Writing and Public Relations Writing and Distribution may be more appropriate. Paid publicity does not purchase Wikipedia eligibility.
For wider review and brand-response needs, explore Online Reputation Management.
Share the proposed subject, relevant published coverage or the Wikipedia article you want assessed. We will discuss whether source research, a correction proposal or a draft assessment is the appropriate starting point.
Fill in the details below and our experts will connect with you shortly.