What to expect

How long does a Wikipedia article project take?

A six-month plan is a median, not a promise. Here is how long each phase actually takes — and how far the finish date moves when the article is contested.

InteractiveRead time 4 minIllustrative model — see method

Every phase is a range

Plans are drawn as tidy month-long blocks because tables have rows. Real phases blur into each other, and each one inherits the uncertainty of everything before it. Below, the intensity of a band is the probability that a phase is active in that week. Later phases are smeared wider because delay compounds.

The article is

Select any phase to see what happens in it — and switch the buttons above to change the difficulty

1Discovery & Planning
2Foundation Improvements
3Content Expansion
4Optimization & Monitoring
5Stabilization
6Long-Term Maintenance
 
 
 
 
 
 
Phase 1 of 6

Discovery & Planning

Key activities

  • Project kickoff and onboarding
  • Full audit of the existing article
  • Research independent, reliable sources
  • Review every citation and the article structure
  • Develop the strategic work plan
  • Prepare conflict-of-interest disclosures

Deliverables

  • Article audit
  • Source inventory
  • Prioritized work plan
  • Editing strategy

What stretches this phaseRuns long when the audit finds that independent coverage of the subject is thinner than expected.

Phase 2 of 6

Foundation Improvements

Key activities

  • Correct article metadata
  • Improve the article structure
  • Strengthen existing citations
  • Update out-of-date facts and figures
  • Correct names, titles, roles, and dates
  • Normalize terminology and usage
  • Begin submitting approved edits

Deliverables

  • Improved article structure
  • Stronger citations
  • First edits submitted

What stretches this phaseRuns long when the article has an active watchlist — every request waits on a talk-page response.

Phase 3 of 6

Content Expansion

Key activities

  • Expand the subject’s history and background
  • Add significant milestones and developments
  • Add recognition and notable independent coverage
  • Improve description of work, products, or output
  • Add verifiable credentials and affiliations
  • Continue monitoring community editors

Deliverables

  • Expanded article content
  • Additional sourced sections
  • Improved article completeness

What stretches this phaseThe phase that overruns most often. New material draws the most scrutiny, and each section is negotiated separately.

Phase 4 of 6

Optimization & Monitoring

Key activities

  • Improve the Wikidata record
  • Review Google Knowledge Panel alignment
  • Optimize internal Wikipedia links
  • Monitor editor feedback
  • Address challenges and reversions
  • Refine edits that were accepted

Deliverables

  • Wikidata improvements
  • Knowledge ecosystem alignment
  • Stabilized edits

What stretches this phasePartly outside anyone’s control — knowledge panels refresh on Google’s schedule, not the project’s.

Phase 5 of 6

Stabilization

Key activities

  • Continue submitting strategic edits
  • Respond to editor feedback
  • Add remaining approved content
  • Ongoing citation improvements
  • Monitor article stability

Deliverables

  • Higher edit retention
  • Stronger sourcing
  • Improved article stability

What stretches this phaseA reverted edit restarts the consensus clock for that section rather than costing a single day.

Phase 6 of 6

Long-Term Maintenance

Key activities

  • Continue monitoring page activity
  • Resolve editor disputes where appropriate
  • Final refinements
  • Measure project success
  • Deliver ongoing maintenance recommendations

Deliverables

  • Final project report
  • Long-term maintenance recommendations
  • Stable, well-sourced article

What stretches this phaseRarely overruns. By this point the article’s pace is established and changes are incremental.

Running the whole time — not a phase

  • Editorial monitoring — every community change to the article
  • Community engagement — talk-page discussion where appropriate
  • Citation management — replacing weak or outdated references
  • Compliance — conflict-of-interest and paid-editing disclosure
  • Reporting — progress updates and recommendations
Each band shows when a phase is under way — strongest at its most likely week, fading through the weeks it could run instead. The dashed line marks month six — an example of a planned timeline.
Typical phase durations for the selected difficulty.
PhaseTypical durationTypically ends
Discovery & Planning — —
Foundation Improvements — —
Content Expansion — —
Optimization & Monitoring — —
Stabilization — —
Long-Term Maintenance — —

So when is it actually finished?

Adding up the worst case for every phase gives a scary number that will almost never happen — delays do not all land in the same project. Combining the phases gives the honest answer: a hump with a long right tail.

Likelihood the article is where you want it
—

of projects reach a stable, well-sourced result within the planned six months.

What moves the date

None of these are effort. Every one of them is a property of the article, its sources, or the volunteers who watch it — which is why two projects with identical scope finish months apart.

Runs long

An active watchlist. An article a dozen editors monitor turns every change into a discussion. Consensus is measured in weeks, not hours.

Runs short

Deep independent coverage. When the trade and national press have already written about the subject, the edit is a citation away. Sourcing is the whole job.

Runs long

A contested history. Regulatory action, litigation, or criticism sections attract editors with settled views and a long memory of previous attempts.

Runs short

Straightforward factual drift. A stale job title, an outdated figure, a former name. Uncontroversial, verifiable, and usually accepted on the first pass.

Runs long

Reversions. A reverted edit does not cost a day. It restarts the consensus clock for that section and lowers tolerance for the next request.

Runs short

Material that is already public. Facts sourced to independent outlets move immediately; facts sourced only to a press release do not move at all.

What we can’t control

  • We do not edit the article directly. Third-party Wikipedia editors with their own accounts make the edits.
  • Negative coverage does not come down. If criticism is properly sourced, it stays. What can be fixed is accuracy, balance, and missing context — and that is what most clients actually want.
  • Nothing gets added without independent sourcing. A milestone covered only by your own press release doesn’t have the references needed to stand.
  • Knowledge panels change on Google’s schedule. Wikipedia and Wikidata certainly feed them, but the refresh can lag behind changes for weeks and sometimes longer.
  • No one can guarantee an edit sticks. Any editor may revisit any change at any time. But the way Reputation X does it results in an extremely high acceptance rate that has held for over a decade.