Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices

This is the second Tzatziki Squad collaboration up for your scrutiny. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, *hem* cheesy beginning like you pulled off with Cannon, eh? bibliomaniac15 17:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I would have missed this, had I not watchlisted it about 2 months ago. :) Qst (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, glad you didn't miss it, otherwise our opposers reviewers would have thought our list of nominators was a fraud. ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on copyediting

Copied from project page:

• Asking for opinions. It would be nice to find ways to encourage more and better copyediting at FAC and GAN. Bronze stars on userpages appear to be reserved (in practice) to noms and co-noms of FAs. How about the userbox that says "This user has written or significantly contributed to X Featured Articles on Wikipedia"? Would it be false advertising for a copyeditor to up this count by one, if they provide a link to diffs and comments that indicated that their copyedit contributed largely to the article passing? This might make copyediting "sexier". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider you and Malleus to have "significantly contributed"; why not use the already-existing one? · AndonicO ^Engage. 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from project page:

• • • You know, a new userbox would be better, one that says exactly what's meant: the user helped the article to pass FAC or GAN by copyediting it. If someone put this on their userpage, I'd want to see that they had a habit of stating up front that that's their goal, so that people can feel free to disagree about the significance of their contribution. Copyeditors "correct" people, which is guaranteed to be annoying; in return, we/they should be subjecting our/themselves to "correction" and approval or disapproval at every opportunity. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the most relevant userbox I can find atm: [template: user FA]

Would that userbox be better, as a way of suggesting that that is the standard, or a new userbox that specifically mentions copyediting? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've changed my mind; it would be better to use the standard userbox shown rather than make up a new one that says the article was copyedited. You wouldn't want people to think that all they had to do was copyedit; ideally, they should feel free to help out in any way that allows the article to pass FAC or GAN. Also, you don't want someone to argue that because they did routine copyediting, that's equivalent to really getting in there and improving the prose specifically and the article in general; those are really two separate things. "significantly contributed" is the standard that has been around for a while, so presumably people have developed some idea of what that means; that's probably better than creating a new standard. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one thinks this is a counterproductive idea, I'll ask for opinions at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think extensive copyediting like what you and Malleus have done counts as "significantly improving" an article. bibliomaniac15 18:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the listing of several nominators who haven't edited the article in months and didn't contribute to the FAC; I don't recall ever seeing a candidate with nine nominators, so it is unusual. It's also interesting that, with so many nominators, the article hadn't been copyedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We hadn't really discussed whether it was ready among us; someone just sort of took initiative. You would have thought A-class would have taken care of copyediting, but apparently not. As for the other nominators, it looks like we copied it off our chart of contributors. bibliomaniac15 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)