Done Unless someone can figure out how to make the commas go before the footnote links - the article goes a bit nuts when I try to... Cricketgirl19:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Springs Massacre: Currently working on this article (all written by myself) in hopes for an eventual FA bid. Would benefit from an outside pair of eyes looking for grammar, prose, syntax, spelling and other minor mistakes. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simeon I of Bulgaria: current WP:FAC which I'm absolutely determined to bring to FA status. Although my English is fairly good, I'd still appreciate a thorough copyedit by a native speaker, preferably someone who's got some knowledge of history. You know, there are some peculiarities that only a native speaker may be able to detect. Of course, multiple copyedits by several users would be more than appreciated! By the way, bear in mind that it's an European topic and this means it should use British English. Thanks in advance! Todor→Bozhinov 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that this article is now featured. Happy copyediting, S.D. 10:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Done copy-edited entire article, put all 'in-world' material in present tense, and pre-series/real-world material in past tense. Cricketgirl22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopædia Britannica: The key remaining objection at FAC appears to be copy-editing. In particular, Tony has called for a thorough copy-editing by other editors. Also, some of its sentences may be too long and perhaps old-fashioned in style; there may be ways of clarifying its intended meaning in some places. One of your number, TimVickers, has already gone through the article, but a second review might help in resolving Tony's concerns. Thank you very much for your help! Willow13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done was pretty good when I got to it. Having a problem with the [edit] link in the top RH corner of each section getting displaced - anyone know how to deal with this? Cricketgirl19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ran into trouble on this one. The article heavily relies on passive voice, obscuring important information. I can't find a way of expressing the sentences more clearly, for I don't know the missing information. I give up on this one. Rintrah09:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yacht charter - this had tags for wikification, removal of advertisement-like tone, and copyediting. I think it is ok now, but a proofread will just check that. It's very short, by the way. Cricketgirl12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7 Seeds Did all I could. Lead needs a proof. Copy-editing isn't going to achieve much with the rest of this article, as it's incomplete and contains what looks to be machine translated text. Needs someone who knows the series to rewrite those sections. BuddingJournalist09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proceeding with a full copyedit - might as well make it feel as if it has better organization than what it has now. --Sigma 702:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Art of Fighting Gameplay section needs attention from a video-gamer. This article was probably the most incredible collection of run-on sentences I've ever encountered: "Released after the incredible success of Street Fighter II, which had by now become the blueprint for fighting games, a blueprint still basically adhered to today and one that Art Of Fighting 2 adhered to then, making it seem more what someone today would expect a fighting game to be like where a player chooses any character from the roster and can play through a simple arcade mode and fight a hidden/unplayable boss." BuddingJournalist06:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great edit BuddingJournalist! I just made some minor grammatical corrections, but I think it needs another set of eyes to finish it up.Croberts104:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15-year Gamer here. In early March I did a (badly needed) edit for grammar, punctuation, and organization to integrate information about why this game was important (and it was) to the history of gaming and credit to the people who developed it. Immediately reverted, too much "name dropping", also I think someone's picture got removed. Someone else have a go. ~ Otterpops19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Reilly Some tweaks to punctuation and grammar. Some discrepancies with use of tenses but not glaringly noticeable. Needs careful reading to discriminate between errors and clones but looks OK. Greenglen19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colin McRae Rally is still B-class, but it no longer reads as an informal list of cheat codes and maps. Needs a proofreading because we all know I'm far from talented. If anybody can think of what to add to this article to bring it up to GA status, please let me know. Moralis21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Celtic section needs more attention; otherwise, it is good gramatically. As Dvandersluis said, however, it needs work on sources! Croberts103:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yakeen (1969 film) - this required a lot of tightening up for such a short article. Still needs fleshing out and references (seems like all the articles I look at today need this!), but ready for proofreading. Cricketgirl16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chana School, on its way to GAC after this, needs outside eyes to help it out. Just had a peer review, I have seen the article too much to give it the effective once or twice over. Sorry to bombard with two requests at once, I just have a lot on my plate right now. : ) IvoShandor07:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fritz the Cat (film): Current featured article candidate. Please take a look at it, and work on the copyediting. If anyone has any specific questions or comments about the article as it is, feel free to bring them up on the talk page, and we'll discuss it. (Ibaranoff2401:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Did my best to make lists into paragraphs and limit some of the exposition. Might be helpful, but not necessary, if someone familiar with the show did the proof.Galena1117:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waite Hockin Stirling - I've done the wikification that was necessary, and some copy-editing, but some of it still doesn't flow coherently. Someone with an interest in the subject might do good to this... Cricketgirl19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, however an "expert" should make sure my proofreading still renders an accurate geographical positioning of the spoken language. Comments left on talk art's page, of course. --Otheus13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wave board I've made big changes tonight - someone who knows more than me could fix the pictures so that the little [edit] links don't get displaced. Also this had tags for {{tone}} and {{ad}} - I hope I've fixed the article in those respects, but a proof-read will fix this if not. Cricketgirl20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Fixed pictures by using the <gallery> tag, appropriate in this case. Otherwise, you can't normally (easily) fix the Edit tags. I also standardized on naming it as a "waveboard" and created a redirect from "Waveboard" to the article. --Otheus16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Trivial amount needed to be done, but I did some reorganization, image cleanup & placement, and tag removal/adjustment. --Otheus23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
F.E.A.R.. An article which I helped get to A-class, and am now looking to get featured. The prose has issues, however, and the article requires a thorough copyedit before any nomination can take place. JimmyBlackwing19:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Einstein Caution: there seems to be small community of heavily invested people living on and around this article. Between 2/28 and 3/13 I got the size way down and some kind of organization going, also checked and standardized the references that were there. The article was so active I couldn't tighten up the language very much - almost any change prompted a reversion or else sentences were added/moved around. It may help to tell them you're a physicist.~ Otterpops14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Moving here because there doesn't seem much use in burning calories on it, due to its very active and proprietary editors. Galena1118:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some comments about issues in the prose and I left the POV tag; check the talk page under "Assessments of article quality and progress" to see if the editors agree that it can be removed. Galena1122:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not done I'm removing this from the list, because this article is hotly contested and has had over 500 changes to the lead alone in the last few months. Its possible that few or none of my original edits are even there, so this is a lost cause until the editors arrive at agreement. Galena1121:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]