Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2011

Fifty bucks

Now that I've got your attention ... the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject will be awarding $50 to someone (other than a coordinator of course) for outstanding copyediting during the month of January at our A-class review page. Feel free to just jump in and copyedit something, or you can follow our simple checklist, or drop a note on my talk page. I'll be happy to answer questions. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Work has to get started during the first two weeks of the month. - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollover words

I had some rollover words left at the end of the September drive but wasn't able to partake in the November drive, so have I lost them or can I bring them forward to the January drive? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you've lost them. They only count for the successive drive. However, knowing you, I'm sure you'll do just as well without rollover words as you would with them. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, never mind, it was worth asking - and yes, flattery always helps, thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for the expiry of watchlist items

I'm a newbie here, but something that has been nagging at me has become more important based on copy-editing more articles (which I'm looking forward to as a member of the GOCE). I feel it would be beneficial to have items on a watchlist expire after a specified interval, and have started a discussion on the proposal here.  GFHandel.   07:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:GOCE Article list edit

In this edit, I changed Template:GOCE Article list so that when no articles are in it, it displays "No articles." instead of "No articles copy-edited yet." I hope GOCE doesn't mind, but the reason is that WikiProject Wikify also uses the template for its drives, so "No articles copy-edited yet" doesn't work well. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, still works for us. – SMasters (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, great, thanks! Guoguo12--Talk--  02:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest

Do experienced copyeditors find it easier to polish an article that has already been lightly polished by someone who does not have specific copyediting skills? Or does it not make a lot of difference because big changes have to be made anyway? I'm trying to work out whether the 'pedia gains more if I agonise over my prose for hours before giving it to you guys, or whether I would do better to reinvest that time elsewhere. Regards and keep up the good work! - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say good polishing is always of value, but not if it causes pain and takes hours of your time. Do what you do best. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how good one's grammar is. Some of us at the Guild have a better understanding of grammar than others, and there are a few Wikipedians that are good at copy editing but haven't joined the Guild. If you think your copy editing skills are good, but you want an extra eye to take a look at the article, feel free to come to the Guild. If you're confident that you've done a good job, you can still come to the Guild, but you don't have to. The decision is up to you. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The main thing to do is make sure your meaning is clear; then there will be fewer factual errors made by your copy editors. Editing is an acquired skill, so it won't seem like such a suffer-fest once you have been doing it for a while. In the meantime, please feel free to add articles to our requests page if you like. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa - getting the meaning clear is key. If I encounter an article that needs copy-editing, as long as I can understand the meaning without any trouble, I'm happy. It's when the meaning is unclear and I have to research sources to put it right that the job starts to take a long time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. But unfortunately even experienced writers often have difficulty putting themselves in the position of a reader who lacks their in-depth knowledge of the subject, so they may not recognise ambiguities that pop up in their work. When this happens, rather than ask for clarification I usually polish the article to reflect what seems the most likely intended meaning, and ask the source-holders for comment in the edit summary. If I got it wrong, they are quick to tell me. I don't think this approach has failed yet. Rumiton (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If I cannot understand a sentence, or it does not make sense to me, I will usually make it hidden or use a {{clarify}} tag, and put a note on the talk page for an expert to clarify and fix the sentence or paragraph. – SMasters (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

You guys do some excellent work here. Just like to let you know it is appreciated, thanks. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! It's always good to get feedback on what we do. – SMasters (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

American States

Hey everyone! I've recently started a little task of correcting the spellings of US States in articles. I've been searching possible misspellings, such as New Jersy or Louisana, and correcting the entries that come up. Any help is appreciated!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you might also want to try the Typo Team, who are better setup to deal with these kind of corrections. – SMasters (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Contractions: don't, won't and so on

A discussion has begun at the AutoWikiBrowser talk page. It could use some input from copyeditors who don't use AWB. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

After just having an editor get a bit personal I cannot continue in that discussion and will merely await the outcome. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:GOCEeffort

Hi all

I have just done a bold edit to the {{GOCEeffort}} template Template:GOCEeffort.

My reasoning is on the talk page. I hope the changes are acceptable to all :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. – SMasters (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion needed

Hi

I am having a little problem with an editor who has decided to revert an article José Maria de Sousa Horta e Costa wholesale to a version prior to my copy-edit.

I could really do with some help to:

1. Make sure that my edits were accurate.
2. Assist in the discussions on "literal translation"
3. Prevent an edit war as I cannot in good faith let the reverted version stand without some sort of editing and I am worried about falling into a "this is not vandalism and a 2RR was not warranted".

I did explain why I was undoing their reversion on their talk page User_talk:Nan_Boleyn

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On the case. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate being able to see the bits I had missed, did not realise there would be that many though! I was particularly perplexed on how to word the paragraph with the "respectively," I did think maybe I should have put each person next to the country - no matter which way I tried, it looked cumbersome - I like your way better :¬)

I also though it would be good to make sure that I was not being "partial" and asking an impartial 3rdO was probably best, much appreciated. Please feel free to berate me on anything, I would rather learn my mistakes than carry on with them. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Small favour requested

Can someone help me out with a little 30 or so minute copy-edit check?

I have just created an article Belitung shipwreck and it needs a little going over by someone to check it. As I have created it from scratch my brain may well skip things which are blatantly obvious errors!

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I assume no-one copy-edited it, as there were a few corrections after it went "live", but it did get over 5000 views!

Next, the March drive ! Chaosdruid (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this request! I am looking at it now. Do Genus names get italicized? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to MOS:TITLE: "Italic type ... Genera and all lower taxa (but not higher taxa)" Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Airport

The Lympne Airport article is currently at GAN, and has been identified as needing a copyedit. The nomination has been placed on hold. Any GOCE members willing to have a go at this please? Ideally, someone with access to The Times online archives (for which a subscription is required, but may be available to a UK editor with a library card) as that source has been used extensively. Flight and Flight International are available free to all via the internet. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I hop you don't mind but I am copying this over to our Requests page where more members will see it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC input requested

This may be a slightly odd request for this project, but I'll try anyway. I've been trying to improve the wording of some text at al-Shabaab. Another editor thinks that I'm actually trying to censor some details. We've been unable to come to agreement and I've started an RFC. I'd appreciate some experienced views on whether what I'm proposing is a valid summary that makes the section more readable or if I'm inadvertently making it worse. The RFC is at talk:al-Shabaab#Somaliland RFC. Thanks. --Copper button 19:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Verb tense agreement

Kind of a specialized question: if you're writing an article about book that came out decades ago, and you're quoting a contemporaneous review of that book, how would you tense the verbs?

1. He said that the book is "a tour de force".
2. He said that the book was "a tour de force".
3. He says that the book is "a tour de force".

My instincts are telling me number two is correct, but I'd like others' thoughts. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the second choice is most likely the most grammatically correct. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Both second and third are grammatically correct versions of indirect speech. That said, in plain English this would be "He called the book "a tour de force"." or similar. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would go with #2, but H3llkn0wz's version is even better. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth: any of the three might be appropriate, depending upon the particular context in which it was written. There is such a thing as the "literary present," which is hard to explain because so much turns on the particular nuances of a given writing situation. Example 1: "Whenever Dickens makes mention of other authors' works, he always praises Pride and Prejudice as a tour de force." Example 2: "When reporters asked about the copy of Is Sex Necessary? that Hemingway clutched as he debarked from the plane, he said it was a tour de force." Example 3: "In a letter to Williams, Capote said that To Kill a Mockingbird 'is a tour de force.'" Textorus (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Announcement – New Guild coordinators

Following the resignation of The Utahraptor (talk), I am pleased to inform everyone that Chaosdruid (talk) and Torchiest (talk) have been co-opted as Guild coordinators from today until the end of this term. I thank both of them for stepping in to help. Feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Regards – SMasters (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MoS on italics – new addition for websites

Hi all

There has been a new addition to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) page.

• "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary) should also be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis."

It is a result of this conversation: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Internet Sites and WP:ITALICS

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also made a request of clarification on italics used by projects in their own scope as it seems this is not really covered in their style guides or in MoS as a whole. Mos text formatting talk topic.

OK, I will try to follow this guideline! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Free Credo accounts

Just a heads up: for those that need it, Credo Reference has donated 400 free user accounts to Wikipedia. They are now taking applications. Click on the link to find out more. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

After cleanup

Question: I'm not a Guild member, but once I've finished a copyedit on a tagged article (like Sandy Lane (resort), which I just did), is removing the copyedit tag from the article page enough to make it drop off your radar? Textorus (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for helping out! Yes, if you have completed a full copyedit, please do remove the tag from the article. You do not have to be a member of the Guild to do this. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Textorus (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought

Would it be possible to set up the Guild on other Wikipedias, such as the simple English Wikipedia? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I'd imagine at least some of the other language wikis already have copy editing groups. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit help

"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song by American recording artist Beyoncé Knowles. It was released by Columbia Records with "If I Were a Boy" as double A-side lead singles from her third solo studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce, on October 12, 2008.

I don't like the wording as "lead singles" implies more than one, but the subject of the sentence is singular. How to fix? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

How about "It was released by Columbia Records with "If I Were a Boy" as a double A-side lead single" --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion:

"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song by American recording artist Beyoncé Knowles. It was released by Columbia Records with "If I Were a Boy" on a double A-side single on October 12, 2008. "If I were a boy" was the first lead single (first track on the I am... disc) and "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" the second lead single (first track on the Sasha Fierce disc); both are taken from her third solo studio album I Am... Sasha Fierce."

I know it is a little longer, but it conveys the pertinent points, the album consists of two discs and both tracks are the first off the two. There is the possible problem of the album name coming last, but if it is in the first sentence it seems to detract from the second point leaving the reader unclear as to whether both discs are parts of that album or separate albums in their own right.

It should also perhaps be pointed out that they are joint-lead-singles as they were performed together 4 days earlier than the single was released? Chaosdruid (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyedited first article.

I just copyedited Tilted plane focus. Could someone look it over and see if it's good enough to remove the "needs copyediting" designation? Thanks. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a quick look, perhaps less re-writing next time, and have left comments on your talk page as well as doing a copyedit myself so that you can compare User:Bluebonnet460/Chaosdemo. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

July drive

Hi all. We need to start thinking about the July drive and whether we wish to offer any incentives to work on special areas for that drive. My feeling is we should offer a bonus for articles from the Requests page again, as articles are starting to pile up there. Any thoughts? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on the percentage target: when we finished the May drive, the size of the backlog was down by 10%, which may look a bit disappointing since the target was 15%, but this ignores the articles newly tagged in May. (435 of which were still tagged at the end of the month - I don't at the moment see how to count any that may have been both tagged and de-tagged during the month). The fact that the current month's new tags set the count back may make it feel that we're swimming against a current. But that's not what we should feel: people adding tags is a Good Thing because it points us to where work is needed.

Another way to look at May: backlog at start 4158; total backlog reduced by 421; new tags in May 435; therefore articles edited 856 (plus any both tagged and edited in May). This is over 20% of the 4158 and still more than 18% of all the articles available to work on during the month.

Of the 856, editors entered for the drive did 697. (Of which 431 were done by the top 5 on the leaderboard - amazing!)

If a target is needed (is it?), should it perhaps be an absolute number rather than a percentage? --Stfg (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too: The people on the leader board are the ones who do the bulk of the work. The reason we went to a percentage target was because as we have a smaller pool of articles to draw from, the ones that remain seem to be more difficult to and less interesting to work on. They were often originally written by people with a poor command of English, or are about specialised topics such as manga and anime that don't seem to be of much interest to our pool of editors, or both. SMasters upped the target to 15% because the March drive had been particularly successful, but if we are going to use a percentage, I would like to decrease it back to 10% for the July drive. People might be on vacation etc., which would leave less availability for wiki work. Though last July's drive was very successful because Jimbo Wales signed up! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Participation

I joined up early December last year and quickly became a pain due to two reasons (one of which was out of my control and the other which wasn't). I have taken a step back (including a Wikibreak from December to April) and have realized what I have done wrong. I really want to apologize for my behavior and to ask if I can take part in the project again. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever it was is long forgotten so please feel free to participate in our project. Thanks. --Diannaa (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Paulo Francis needs help

Hi. An editor asked for copy editing help with Paulo Francis. I dont have time to do it now, but I thought I'd post a note here to see if anyone can help. --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has a copy edit tag in plade so it will be done eventually. If there is urgency it should be listed at the Requests page. --Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

For you all - keep up the good work

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I have watched the work of Guild members in improving articles and reducing the backlog for some time now. This is a group award for you all, just to let you know your efforts are appreciated. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, very kind of you. – SMasters (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of in-line GOCE template on talk pages

Hi. With this edit the {{GOCE}} template was removed from its in-line position on the talk page. I believe it is important to keep the {{GOCE}} stamp in-line on the talk page as it indicates the moment in time the copy-editor occurred and gives other editors a chance to comment on the effects of the GOCE edit. The removal of the stamp leaves response edits hanging and out of context (as happened with the above edit). I'm not sure of the policy here, so I'd like to find out other editor's opinions. Discussion with the editor who is using AWB to remove/move the {{GOCE}} template stamp can be found here. Thanks. GFHandel ♬  22:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The GOCE template is dated, so its sequence in the ordering on the talk page should be immaterial, in my opinion. --Diannaa (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I do understand the point about the template being dated, but wouldn't you say that the context of the "Copy-edits" section has been stripped (following this edit)? I think the section looks fairly ridiculous that way. So what is the policy? Should people applying the {{GOCE}} template (to the top of a talk page) not add a section to the end of the talk page following their tidy-up? Personally, I'm not a big fan of dissociating the template from any discussion that might eventuate from the copy-edit. Obviously more than one {{GOCE}} can be placed on a talk page over time, so could the template go in two places: one at the top for all time, and one in-line to add context to discussion? The in-line one would get archived eventually anyway (leaving the single one at the top of the page). GFHandel ♬  00:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The banner should go on the top of the page, not in bottom sections. This provides a record in case other editors from the Guild work on the article. You can see this on a number of GA articles, for example, Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. – SMasters (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

GFHandel makes a good point, though: It would be nice if the {{GOCE}} tag allowed listing multiple user/date stamps, e.g., user2=, date2=, as with the citation templates. Not something I can do easily myself or I'd WP:BOLD... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It already does this. Look at Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre properly. It lists 3 GOCE members and the dates of each copy edit. (You have to click on "Show" twice). – SMasters (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I never woulda noticed that because of the unique instance Chaosdruid added later. I never noticed this functionality before; wonder how I missed that? It might be something to include in a future Guild newsletter as a do-you-know sort of thing, I bet it's functionality a lot of people are missing. Anyway, I consolidated the GOCE banners while I was there. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the banner being at the top of the talk page, and the template seems to have more than enough structure to cope with multiple GOCE edits. I'm now only enquiring about the policy of adding a section to the bottom of the talk page following a GOCE edit. Is that generally encouraged, or are we just supposed to stamp the top and move on? If we are encouraged to add a section to the bottom of the talk page, what should it contain? GFHandel ♬  01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I never tag pages with the "copyedit" banner. Am I supposed to? Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I always add the GOCE banner, and I will additionally add a new section to the talk page if I did something other than straightforward and obvious copyediting: if I found errors that I corrected, if there are substantial problems, if I expect a change I made might be controversial, etc. I figure the banner serves the purpose of saying "I fixed your punctuation, spelling, and grammar", so if that's all there is to say, it suffices. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

GFHandel, there is no official policy on this, although the banner is treated as a header and should always appear at the top of the page (but underneath any article assessment such as FA, GA, etc.).For the bottom, it is up to individual editors. You can still add a note on the bottom if you feel like it, or if you have some specific comments you wish to make about the article. Reaper Eternal, the template is not compulsory. It has several functions: 1) Provides a record of work of the GOCE, and 2) Provides some publicity/PR for the GOCE. Many of our members will not use the template on small articles, but if they have spent substantial time on an article, they will usually put the banner there. This is also useful if we see the same article over and over again on the Requests page. The template is a good record of what the Guild has done for a particular article. – SMasters (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been concerned about several issues regarding this, as GOCE templates are treated like other banners though we have no "interest" per se in the article. As SMasters says, it should be treated as a header. When copy-editing one often finds issues that are not really in the purview of the copy-editor, as well as issues which one may not have enough knowledge about to "fix". These, and other comments, I always add as a "Copyedit Month Year" to the talk page (such as Copyedit July 2011 or Copyedit July 2011), as well as placing the "GOCEdone" template on larger and more important ones, such as those going to GAN, FAR or edits on GA/FA/A class articles. AS they are comments about the article, they should be placed after any other comments on the talk page, we could go the same way as peer review/GAN/FAR (transcluded GA1 etc.) though that would seem a little ott for us. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of a section (such as Copyedit July 2011), however I think the section title should be something like "GOCE copyedit July 2011" as that also sells the product (for want of a better expression). GFHandel ♬  20:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nowrap by Template:j

Reminder: Any word-joining of text can be done by "{{j|xx yy}}" using Template:j to handle the no-wrapping of text, such as with Interstate "I-95" in the eastern United States. The Template:j is a short redirect to Template:Nowrap, using just the one letter "j" to specify the no-wrap format. Some editors had complained that the non-breaking space " " was only a 6-character code, whereas "{{nowrap|}}" was an 11-character directive. Instead, "{{j|}}" is just a 6-character directive to word-join the text ("j" means "join"). So, feel free to use "{{j|(x-y)}}" dozens of times, per page, to prevent awkward wrapping of "x-y" in parentheses, or any short hyphenated or 2-part item, etc. -Wikid77 13:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This coding also replaces HTML with wiki-markup, which is always a good thing. Thanks. --Diannaa (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The usefulness of this work

So I started copy editing my first article today (just started editing Wikipedia not too long ago), and started getting really depressed, because I realized that some of these articles are very stinky and have no references at all, and that by the time someone gets around to doing a properly sourced article, they'll have to completely rewrite the thing, and the careful wording and prose copy editors spent so much time on will have gone to waste, and oh dear this is not a good sample of writing for someone who is supposed to be a copy editor :O oh well, I promise this is not how I edit articles... Anyways, has this issue been addressed before? Leonxlin (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Usefulness lasts for years: In general, many articles (even with few sources) are viewed by readers thousands of times, long before (years? before) the text is updated and verified. Also, some of us who copy-edit for grammar (and spelling) will add a few sources (or at least the section "References") to lead others to sources (to fix factual errors faster). Also, measurements, such as miles/km, are set using "{{convert|9|mi|km}}". Beyond those issues, copyediting can also improve common massive formatting problems, such as autosizing images (for PC/handheld viewing) with "thumb|upright=1.1" or aligning tables with mismatched, or over-wide columns, and articles with dozens of oppressive, bolded phrases (quieted to italics or gray-color headers). Hence, it is highly unlikely that time "will have gone to waste" when editing these articles. If nothing else, editors will see typesetting techniques (WP:TYPESET) and learn more about the subjects, to add more specific wikilinks which connect the various articles for new readers. However, I must note that copy-editing activities are intense work, especially with the formal lists of (huge) articles, so people should be prepared to spend 1-or-2-hour edit-sessions when improving large articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the motivational words. Leonxlin (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS question

On the article University of Pennsylvania in the section Rankings someone modified the subheadings to appear as ;HEADING TITLE instead of ===HEADING TITLE===. Can someone take a look at this and see if the change was correct and possibly take a look at the rest of the article so I can get it ready for a good article nomination? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is normally done to prevent the headers from making the TOC too large. In this case I can see a pretty long TOC. There is a parameter to limit the depth that the TOC diplays contents, but it is not generally that useful as will become apparent:

You could replace them with level 4 or 5 headers and use the {{TOC limit|x}} parameter (or {{TOC limit|limit=x}}) (explained here).

You need to remember that it is not hiding all those at header level 4 though, rather it hides any that would appear in the TOC at 1.1.1, or 3.2.2 for example. If using it always check that it does not hide things that are already in the TOC list that should not be hidden. If there are level 3 already in that section, use 4 for the ones you want to hide and set the limit at 3. If the sections starts with

• ==This== (1)and then moves straight to
• ====Other====, (1.1) it will not hide Other.

If the section goes

• ==This== (1)
• ===That=== (1.1)
• ====Other==== (1.1.1) it will hide Other.

I have a page set up as a demo where you can fiddle with the limit and see what happens User:Chaosdruid/leftnavbar/8.

As you can see in the UoP article this would not help, they fall straight after a level 2 header and there is no level 3. To use level 4 (====) for those with the ;Title and limit the TOC would not work. In these cases people commonly use the ;Title as a workaround. I have seen it used extensively in character lists for example. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

I recently signed up for the Guild's mailing list, but I haven't received the July wrap-up report. Why is this? --Nathan2055^talk 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

SMasters, who delivers the newsletters, hasn't gotten to it yet. Be patient, he said here that he's going to get the newsletters out within the next day or two. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to finish the final results and calculate the barnstars. I will be done that step later today and then the newsletter will be able to go out. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing technical articles: advice please.

I found Minimum description length in the lists. It was tagged not with {{copyedit}} but with {{spacing}} - a new one to me. Anyway, it was already rather nicely written - I've pedantically shuffled the commas and stuff, but that's about all. The only reason I could see for the tag is that it's written in mathematical-ish language. So I removed the {{spacing}} and replaced it with {{technical}}. But:

I'm not sure that tagging what are basically specialised technical or mathematical articles to be made intelligible for laymen is really fair. Some such topics are simply too specialised for a lay audience. In the present case, perhaps Minimum description length would be too difficult for the average 14-year-old, but I think it's as clear as one could hope an article on this subject to be (and I am a non-mathematician).

Would it have been wrong to leave it untagged, do you think? --Stfg (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

When you see a tag like that which doesn't make a lot of sense, it's always a good idea to see what state the article was in when the tag was added. Look at this edit to see why it was placed, and note in particular the comment for that edit. To me, it looks like the problem was handled a while ago, but no one bothered to remove the tag. Maybe the changes were gradual enough that no one thought it had been completely fixed, but eventually, it was. So the technical tag might not really be necessary, since, as you said, there's a limit to the simplification for a subject such as that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stfg (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's copy editing, but is it poetry?

Today, when the talk page discussion is raging
On how we can all make our prose more engaging
(Nay, brilliant!), we know it's quite tricky, because
We also must make it conform to the MOS.

The hammer of fools (you most certainly know 'im)
Would probably like us to make it a poem.
SMasters says not, and I think I agree
That poetry isn't the mission for me.

A suggestion was offered: we should do a check.
Some people don't like it, but - oh, what the heck! -
If there's a mistake, let's hope they will find it
And if there is not, then why would we mind it?

And if we are told that we dismally lack
The skills that are needed for GAN and for FAC,
At least we can carefully try to expel
The errors from stubs that were written to tell

Of buildings, soap operas, schools and oil spillage,
Of anime, manga and Indian village
(Which isn't so easy, as you will know if
You've examined Dianna's exemplary diff).

--Stfg (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Amazing copyedit! The poem isn't bad either. (Just kidding, really amazing piece of work as well)--Slon02 (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the Grand and Glorious Guild can find a better "exemplary diff" than one that adds a misspelling and doesn't correct these misspellings. Art LaPella (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

*cough* ... *cough* ... [1] we can all make mistakes or miss things :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I just spell checked it. Don't use mine as an exemplary diff either! Art LaPella (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Very nice Stfg! Lol. – SMasters (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stupid Toshiba does not know how to spell. The Dell in the basement knows how, but I hates the basement.

@Stfg: Like --Dianna (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Referring to a minor child.

I'm working on Tad Lincoln but am not quite sure how he should be referred to. If I were writing about his father I'd use: "Lincoln went to the toy store." Should it be the same for Tad or should it be "Tad went to the toy store."? I'm also wondering how to refer to Tad's parents; should it be "Mr." or "Mrs." Lincoln? "His father."? "His Mother."? "Abraham"? "Mary"? I want to make sure the reader can follow along with the article and not mistake the words to mean Abraham Lincoln. Thanks. Brad (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You should refer to his parents as Abraham and Mary Lincoln, and to him by either Tad or Lincoln, whichever you see fit. Be sure to be consistent in your labeling, though; don't call him Tad in one section and Lincoln in another. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

From what you say it would turn out like: "Abraham Lincoln accompanied Tad to the toy store". "Tad's father accompanied him to the toy store" would be more realistic? Brad (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why Tad though, surely it would be more appropriate to use Thomas? (also seems like Google has him at 6.5:1 in favour of Thomas). I would also suggest that the page move done in 2006 seems a little ill-considered, I would have merged Tad Lincoln to Thomas Lincoln. Though Google is not definitive, it seems those numbers are even higher in favour of Thomas (11.8:1) in Google book searches (44,900:3,800). Chaosdruid (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Lincoln was Abe's father and Tad's grandfather. Tad was named after him. Likely the hits you're getting are for Tad's grandfather. Brad (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah! thanks for explaining that one. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors to support university composition classes

Hello copy editors! I wanted to let you know that the Wikipedia Ambassador Program is supporting some composition and similar classes in the upcoming term, and we're looking for experienced Wikipedians to support these classes as Online Ambassadors. I think GOCE members would be a good fit for those kinds of classes. (And there are classes in a bunch of other subject areas as well.) If you're interested, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the guild?

The quality of some of the copy-edits performed as a result of GOCE requests is being questioned at WT:FAC. There's no doubt the copy-editors in question did their best, but it takes quite a bit of skill and experience to fulfil criterion 1a and nominators (including myself) are often blind to flaws in their own writing, which means they get a nasty surprise if they nominate a sub-par article at FAC. Perhaps the GOCE should be split into two different projects—one to focus on much more basic tasks like the {{copyedit}} backlog and one composed of editors who have the skill to take on more complex copy-edits aimed towards FAC? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem, HJ. How would we find editors that are skilled enough to write, copy edit, and/or improve prose in preparation for an FAC? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Dianna, as she's helped many articles up to FA class through copy editing efforts. But other than that I agree. Currently, the Guild is open to all members of Wikipedia, some better at copy editing than others, and oftentimes inexperienced editors do take on FACs. So there's definitely need for a change, and a split would probably work, although it might (or might not) be difficult to accomplish. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, part of the problem is finding editors with the necessary experience and then when you find one, they're often much in demand. Perhaps instead of a split, we could set up a separate subpage for editors who will take on bigger tasks or at least give a potential FAC the once over? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A separate subpage would take care of the difficulty in splitting the project. Sounds good to me. We still have to come up with a way to find experienced editors, but every other concern I had has been addressed. I've contacted the other Guild coordinators, so I'd like to hear from them before we do anything. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we actually need a sub-page, or do we just need a big banner on the Requests page saying something like Please do not assign yourself to a copyedit for FAC unless you have already copyedited an article that subsequently reached GA status ?

Because I am seeing this as a wider problem. Inexperienced editors ask around for what tasks they can do, experienced editors tell them "oh, go and copyedit some articles, start at WP:GOCE!", the first practical thing-to-do that they see on the GOCE main page is the Requests page, so they stick a pin in it and more than likely end up copy-editing a GA candidate. The assumption that everyone who has English as a first language, will be able to handle copy-editing a GA candidate without further advice, is wrong. There's links to the GOCE mentoring program, but how many of the newcomers actually use it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually a sub-page is a reasonable idea anyway, but I think a lot of newcomers would benefit more from some heavily-linked advice on how to choose which articles to copy-edit. (And other things to watch out for.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would put it the opposite way, such as "FAC articles are recommended only for those editors ..." That way you avoid possible hurt feelings.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have an assessment process, in which we determine which editors do and do not contain the skill necessary to copy edit a potential FAC? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There are currently eleven articles on the Requests page that are potential FA nominees, and only myself and Chaosdruid have much experience working at that level. Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) took four days to do, and I don't even know if he intends to re-nominate (there are still unresolved issues from the last FA bid). I guess the main point of what I am saying is that it is physically impossible for Chaosdruid and myself to handle all the FA requests. Less experienced editors probably should not be tackling these articles. But that's part of having an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Anyone can edit any article, and we cannot tell them not to, can we? Perhaps they could work under supervision. They could do the initial pass and then a more experienced person could give feedback.

One thing that has to happen, for sure, is for people to list their article well in advance of the date they list for FAC. Current wait time is three or four weeks. The idea of a sub-page would help organise the work, I think. --Dianna (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll add that page to my watchlist. I'll take biographies heading for FAC when I have time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes copyedit articles for FAC, and I've found that the best way to do them is to take them slowly over several days, since after around half an hour you can no longer spot the minor redundancies and comma errors that FAC reviewers love to point out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@HJMitchell: Holy Wood is a good article, a damn good article, and an important one, because it ties in to the Columbine disaster. Many page views every day. Thanks for offering to help out.

@Reaper: Articles on their way to FA will be closely monitored by their main contributors, so working slowly makes good sense, as then they have time to absorb and respond to the changes. --Dianna (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a banner on the requests page. I don't think that splitting the guild is the right thing to do.--Slon02 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point I'm assuming splitting the Guild is out of the question. The two main options that have been brought up are:

1. Create a separate subpage for copy editors that have experience enough to deal with FACs or GANs
2. Put a banner on the Requests page advising against copy editing an FAC or GAN without prior experience in copy editing said class articles

Of course, we could combine the two; that is, create the subpage and link the subpage in the banner. It would depend on what everyone else thinks, though. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Utahraptor is on the right track; splitting the Guild is not necessary if the FA and GA articles are listed separately, and inexperienced people are encouraged to edit elsewhere. --Dianna (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some people confuse copy editing with writing. Please see this. People at FAC expect copy editors to rewrite articles, polishing them to reach FA standards. That is not what copy editors do. Copy editors are like car mechanics – we fix things. But do not expect them to be engineers. For that, you seek the help of writers. It is a different skill set. If someone wants to, go and start a Guild of experienced writers. But splitting the Guild is not the answer. The proposal to separate FAC And GAN requests could be a partial solution. But at the end of the day, I fear that expectations will still not be met. People come to the Guild expecting an engineer to rewrite and polish prose, but they will get a mechanic that fixes technical aspects of writing (which is actually what copy editors do). And then they will complain that the copy editing is not up to standards. They have come to the Guild looking for a doctor, but they got a nurse. There's absolutely nothing wrong with nurses – they provide vital services. But they are not doctors. For that, you need people with a completely different skill set. – SMasters (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To add to what I just said, not all good writers are good copy editors (or they would not need to come to the Guild). And not all good copy editors are necessarily good writers. It is a completely different skill set. In the real world, copy editors are not expected to polish prose. If they do, it is a bonus, but it is not in the job description for copy editing. I fear that expecting the Guild to do so (without understanding fundamentally what copy editing is really about), will only open the Guild up to further (and misguided) attacks about the quality of prose. – SMasters (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes! I've been lurking over this today, and SMasters finally got at what was a half formed idea in my head. Polishing up the writing is a bit different from purely technical corrections, which is what copy editing is. You can copy edit without specialized knowledge of the subject. Of course, it is true that some people lack the technical knowledge to copy edit as well, and that is a concern, but it is better to get talented writers (hopefully, who are also knowledgeable on the subject) to improve the actual content, and leave the grammar, punctuation, and spelling to us. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Jumping into this with some trepidation - I agree with SMasters about the definition of the term copy editing in the real world, but on Wikipedia it has a different connotation. Either the definition is changed project wide, or the focus is changed. Everyone can use another set of eyes on a piece of writing, some more than others. Some come here with the expectation that prose will be polished, an expectation I've never seen refuted except in the posts above, and then go on to submit articles at GAC or FAC. If prose issues are raised, inevitably the response by the nominator is "nothing wrong with the prose, the GOCE copyedited". I was involved here long ago before wandering away. I've been on both sides - I've copyedited, in a mechanical sense, articles that were submitted to FAC, I've copyedited in a rewriting sense pages submitted to FAC, and I've reviewed FACs that needed prose work. I don't know what the solution is, but the expectations need to be lowered a little. It's difficult for reviewers who point out weak prose to have nominators refuse to hear; it's difficult for nominators to have a "copy edit" and find the prose still needs work; and it's difficult for the folks working here to bridge the gap. In my view it should be made very clear that the Guild can address MoS issues and the like, but not take on a complete rewrite. If this makes any sense. Just to add, I'm currently rewriting a page that had been submitted here for a copy edit, was substantially rewritten by a "copy editor" and now needs substantial work to get it back to it's original form and meaning. This is problematic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I do try, repeatedly, to stress the difference between copy-editing and editing to those GOCE members who are new to copyediting, or are new to GOCE. It is one thing for an inexperienced copy-editor to correct MoS and punctuation errors, and another for them to try and rewrite sections of prose into what they see as a "better style". Correcting prose is still part of a copy-editors function to some degree though, at least according to this page! Learning the intricacies of the MoS main page is difficult, and takes some time, I did not even learn about ellipsis having an nbsp before them until Malleus showed me a few weeks ago! Then there are the dozens of sub-pages, the MoS by project (television, BLP, etc.) and the project style guides. All these things take time to learn.

We need to monitor new editors more, as well as steering them away from those articles on the request page that may cause problems down the line. The most basic mistakes are not correcting things that need correcting, and are easily found. I make a point of introducing myself as checking their edits as they are new to the project, then giving a critique of what they missed (more important things only, not everything).

Then comes the important bit, pointing them where to go for the copy-editing exercises, pointing to the relevant MoS guides on things they missed, and copy-editing the articles myself and giving them the diffs so that they can see how I did it and where they may have gone wrong, or missed things. This is important, it is one thing to point out things on an editors talk page but, as well as to avoid their embarrassment, it is best to lead by example. I consider this the most important part.

I do not always receive a warming "thanks for the time" or "thanks for showing me how to improve myself", though I have done more often than not, but I have at least tried and then I keep an eye on their edits. If they are going to do something in the name of GOCE, then we have to try and make sure they are done correctly - something I see as part of a co-ordinators role, though unofficial as GOCE does not include that as part of the role.

We do need to address these issues, I am personally pissed off that Malleus rightly has certain negative opinions of GOCE, and am sure there are others. If they were unfounded I would not be pissed off about it, it would just be an opinion (albeit from someone I have great respect for as an editor and at GAN/GAR and FAC/FAR).

One thing we have to address is that this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, that also means that anyone can muck it up. If someone does a bad GAR, there is a process to deal with it, we simply need to install that at GOCE. Doing a bad copy-edit on a major article has to have consequences, even if it is just someone saying "please do not edit FA or GA candidates until you have some more experience", patting them on the back, giving them a cup of tea and pointing them in the right direction to improve.

That is the key, we have willing volunteers, we just need to help them get better at it - once copy-editing for MoS, structure, grammar and punctuation is automatic, fixing prose becomes easy and articles get improved, instead of altered from one editors style to another.

I have already suggested a couple of things regarding improvements to GOCE methods, but I think we all need to think more over the next few days and then work out what we need to do now to stop these bad FA and GA copy-edits, where we are aiming to go, and how we can do it. We also need to take a look at some of the articles that heave been done by less experienced editors to make sure they are ok. While the drive was on it was difficult to monitor those newer and less-experienced editors who were working on articles from the requests page, but giving out bonuses has also meant that some articles were copy-edited by less experienced editors and probably not checked.

For now I would like to suggest that only co-ordinators remove listings from the requests page and that co-ordinators check the edits that have been done before they remove them to the archive. I realise it is a little more work, but we are talking about trying to save the reputation of GOCE. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody remember the TV show called M*A*S*H? There was a character introduced at the beginning of season 6 called Charles Emerson Winchester III. He was shocked at the level and type of care being provided by the "meatball surgeons" on the unit, as his motto was "I do one thing, I do it very well, and then I move on." He was spending most of the day repairing abdominal wounds on a patient. However, while he was doing this, people were bleeding to death in the triage. So the other doctors had to show him some tricks to get the bleeding under control and perform more operations in less time. Patients were then sent on to Tokyo for more treatment.

Same deal with the Guild. We have a never-ending incoming batch of wounded, and will continue do do so, as long as anyone and everyone is permitted to write new articles. We also have large numbers of articles that are partially written in Sanskrit or Hindi when we start: Diff of Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. Every villager in India wants to write an article about his town, and they all need copy editing.

We also have this higher-level editing that people want completed. And the truth is, we have no one on our team that can meet Malleus Fatuorum's expectations of what an FA-level copy edit should be. I have helped with a few FA level copy edits, but mostly feel pretty lost while doing so, and lots of times my work is not considered adequate by the FA reviewers. Reorganising the work won't change this fact. Yet we continue to get requests for copy edit, as there is nowhere else for people to go. Malleus can't do it all either; he is already doing huge amounts of work, and has no interest in editing outside his chosen range of topics. --Dianna (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You make me feel like a bad person, but perhaps I do demand too much. Maybe the solution is for me to be prohibited from reviewing FACs? Just to correct you though, I've helped with articles ranging from Manga to classical literature, from Bollywood movies to early silent films, from medieval English bishops to 17th-century witch trials both English and American ... in short, there are very few topics I would decline to help with, and in truth most of those I do help with are "outside my chosen range of subjects". When I copy edit I'm trying to help editors who have an obvious passion for their subject to produce the best product they can, whether I'm especially interested in it or not. I most certainly do think that in the Wikipedia context copy editing involves rewriting, not just fixing grammar and spelling. There's obviously a limit to how much rewriting it's reasonable to expect a copy editor to undertake, but I'd make one suggestion: if a GOCE member copy edits an FAC, for instance, then they ought to be prepared to offer an opinion on whether or not the prose meets the FA 1a criterion. If they wouldn't be prepared to do so then they ought to think twice about taking on the review. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Malleus. I did not intend to make you feel bad. Your expectations are not too high; we simply don't have the editing chops to fulfill those expectations. I am more like the "meatball surgeon" doing triage, and you are more like the guy doing heart-lung transplants. They are not the same thing. But it is not realistic to expect us to turn away requests for copy edits on FA level articles, even though we are not always successful in helping get them promoted. That would not be fair to the people who make the requests. We are obligated to try. --Dianna (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course you have to try, and I've never blamed the project for that. This thread was prompted by a question I asked at WT:FAC; a nominator expressed some frustration after I suggested that his article needed to be copy edited before it met the notorious FA 1a criterion, which led to some bad feeling. Maybe your customers expect too much. Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Malleus. Now I think you are understanding the problem perfectly. --Dianna (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Jumping in again - I think one of the problems here, and please don't take this the wrong way, is that when the Guild went to a format of frequent drives and many awards, it diluted itself. There are copy editors on the project who can bring a page to GA or FAC. The first article I copy edited as a new editor I found on the requests page, and it achieved GA. I think this place has become more about the MASH unit Diannaa describes, trying to staunch the bleeding in the millions of articles, many of which quite frankly are of minor importance, rather than working to recruit strong writers who are willing and interested in prose polishing. I enjoy copy editing, but left here after the first drive which for some reason I profoundly disliked. In the drives many less than experienced "copy editors" have been recruited, and I think the focus has changed. When I review an article, at peer review, GA or FA, and suggest a prose copy edit, where now does the editor go? If this is a MASH unit, then a banner should be displayed with that information so people don't have unreasonable expectations. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely what prompted my original suggestion. There are a few editors who will go over your article line by line and make your prose brilliant and engaging, but I think most of them ceased any activity they had within the GoCE when it adopted this new format. So what does an editor do when they've written an article, pain-stakingly referenced every morsel of information and done their best to comply with the MoS, but, passionate as they are about their chosen subject, the prose just isn't brilliant and engaging? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the names on the most recent drive and didn't recognize any. When I was active here, admittedly the Guild was moribund, but there were a few editors with good writing skills who picked up articles from the requests lists. I think most of them are gone. Also, would like to add, that if I were to come here today as a new editor and my work was "checked" that would be the first and last time I'd participate, fwiw; nor am I particularly excited about picking up requests now if I face having work checked. I don't think that's the answer. The answer is either to be clear about the mission here and stop taking GA/FA requests, or to find writers willing and happy to fill those requests under the current format. Of course that would mean more work and fewer barnstars for the editors willing to fill those requests. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There's clearly a trust issue, and what's equally clear is that the GOCE does not have the resources to handle FAC copyedits, and perhaps not even GAN copyedits. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Truthkeeper88: When I joined the Guild in October 2009 there were 7488 articles tagged for copy edit (compared to 3746 today), and there were 78 articles listed on the Requests page, some of which had been waiting for their copy edit for ten months. There are no halcyon days of long-ago when the Guild just ran itself and all was tickety-boo. I would be interested in hearing any ideas you have for recruiting more copy editors, or improving the level of copy editing being done.

I see the checking of people's work and giving people feedback as an attempt to improve the quality of the editing and educate the editors. If you could explain in a little more detail why you object to this idea, I would appreciate it.

@HJ Mitchell, as I mentioned to Malleus yesterday, we don't presently have any editors on our team that can take an article to FA single-handed, but we are certainly willing to try and help out. I would like to point out, too, that virtually every FA article undergoes copy edits during its listing period; few or none already meet criterion FA 1a when they are nominated. The requirements are very strict for prose at FA. On the other hand, many GA nominees pass on prose immediately, without need for further editing, or with a single pass from one of our editors.

You sound like you are still in favour of splitting the Guild. None of the present team of coordinators came out in favour of that idea, so I don't see it happening in the immediate future. --Dianna (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that some of these comments are most unfair. The Guild still does help a lot of GA articles go through. Take a look at the archive. Copy editors everywhere work on both easy and difficult articles. Truthkeeper88, how can you not recognize any names on the last drive when all the coordinators participated, and most of us have been here for some time? Before the drives, the Guild had a very big problem. The Requests page backlog went back so far that nobody had any faith in the Guild. People just gave up waiting for months and months without any action. The drives are certainly needed. I disagree that good copy editors will go away just because we are running drives. It's like saying I'm a huge football fan and love working on football articles, but now that WikiProject Football is running a collaborative effort to improve some articles, bugger it, I'm outta here! That's just downright ridiculous. I think we all admit that there are gaps with quality and skill sets. But that does not mean there is no room for all. One of the biggest problems at FAC is that people mistake the Guild for a writers' workshop. It is a huge mistake to think that copy editors fix prose to the extent that it reads like a contender for the Man Booker Prize. It is simply not what copy editing is about. For prose that is "brilliant and engaging", go find a brilliant writer. Do not look for a copy editor. Unfortunately, we currently do not have a Guild of writers. Anyone here interested in starting it? – SMasters (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If the problem is with inexperienced users and the idea of reviewing every completed request from the Requests page, why don't we reinstate our inactive mentorship program? With the mentorship program, we can help new Guild participants learn how to copy edit, as well as provide feedback without performing reviews for every request from the Requests page. We can put a recommendation for the mentorship program on the Requests page to remind users that the mentorship program is recommended for all new Guild participants (I'll go into more detail later; it's getting late). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware that the mentorship program had become inactive. I think it's a case of nobody wanting to be mentored through the program. I have only had one person ask me to be a mentor, and we worked well together. Perhaps we need to provide more encouragement for inexperienced editors to join the program. – SMasters (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question about a writer's workshop, I might be interested in setting one up, but not in the current everyone is equal environment. Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I really didn't mean to offend but obviously have, so I'll let it go. The point I was making is that with a reward culture such as this has become, the quality will decline. Anyway, if you decide to set up a writer's workshop I'd be interested too. And no, it's not true that few or no articles at FAC meet the prose requirement when nominated. Furthermore I think it's really a problem when in a drive an editor picks up an article and claims credit that will result in a barnstar, but goes far and beyond copy editing into full editorial judgement, [2], [3]. The page was undergoing PR, I suggested to the nominator a copyedit and sent them to the GOCE, not for someone to get a barnstar during a drive, [4], but to help a first time GA nominee, I'm currently really busy IRL and don't have a ton of time for Wikipedia, but have been copy editing the article in question. It's not something that can be done, or should be done, in a day and added to a list of pages done with a word count. That's an enormous disservice and only makes work for others. This btw is what brought me here, not Malleus' thread elsewhere, although I did see that. Post ec - sorry Malleus, indented too much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if that was addressed to me or not, but I agree with you. Several editors spring to mind who nominate almost impeccable articles at FAC so far as prose is concerned, including you. Malleus Fatuorum 12:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're on to something, Truthkeeper. I created some charts to show activity in the Guild's Backlog elimination drives. The first chart shows participation in the drives in tens of users:

Participation in the Guild's Backlog elimination drives in tens of users

As you can see by the chart, we started with a low number of participants in May 2010. Then you see a large spike in participants, with over 100 in July 2010. I don't think the first drive pushed people away, but there is a possibility (even if it is small) that the succeeding drives pushed people away for some reason, as a decline in participants is seen from September 2010 to January 2011. In March 2011, you see an increase in the number of participants, but this number declines again, and has been declining since March 2011. When our September drive concludes, we'll see if this number continues to decrease, or if it increases. The second chart shows the number of articles copy edited in hundreds of articles:

The number of articles copy edited during the Guild's Backlog elimination drives in hundreds of articles

As you can see by this chart, we started our copy edit drives off in May 2010, when we copy edited under 800 articles. You then see a large spike in the number of articles copy edited, with over 1,000 in July 2010. This reflects the participation chart, as it should. You then see a decline in number of articles copy edited until January 2011, when it levels out. You then see an increase in the number of articles copy edited in March, again reflecting the number of participants. And like the number of participants, the number of articles copy edited has been decreasing since March 2011.

These charts indicate that the Guild's Backlog elimination drives have been losing popularity since it peaked in July 2010, with the exception of March 2011, where, again, you see a spike in participants and the number of articles copy edited. The question is, why have the Guild's Backlog elimination drives been losing popularity? Members of the Guild seem to be of the opinion that the drives are fine, but when you think about it, the Guild members have something similar to a conflict of interest in this situation. We need to listen to people who aren't a part of the Guild, like Malleus and Truthkeeper, and take their opinions into consideration before we can solve this problem. Truthkeeper's opinion above may be right; perhaps things went wrong for our drives when we changed to the new format of frequent drives and many awards. If you think about it, some of our drive participants may be in it for the awards, not for the copy editing. They briefly copy edit an article, say, "Done" even if it isn't done, and mark it as complete on the drive page. The concept of reviewing 10% of an editor's copy edits on the Backlog elimination drive is a good idea and would take care of this, but lately we haven't been doing that much. For example, during our last Backlog elimination drive, only 20 articles were checked, as opposed to the 34 that should have been checked. One user (Wikid77) copy edited 82 articles, and none of them were checked. Perhaps we could make this reviewing process more active as well as reinstate our inactive mentorship program? If we check more articles for quality during our drives (actually doing the 10% stated on the drive page), then we won't have as many problems with quality.

As for the decline in participants, perhaps it's time to develop our September drive invitation? SMasters could send them out to everyone who has participated in the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, whether they're members of the Guild or not, and he could also send them out to users who haven't participated in our Backlog elimination drives but might be interested in participating. Other members of the Guild could send the invitation to anyone they wish. Finally, I think we should have a notice about our mentorship program in the invitation, so that we can mentor newcomers and avoid problems like this in the future. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I do find it fairly disappointing that our drive numbers are decreasing, but frankly I'm not surprised. If a drive is propped up as a big and significant event- such as one only held once a year or so- then the hype might be enough to generate a lot of participation, although the frequency of the drives also has its benefits. Over time, as enough drives go by, the enthusiasm that comes with something that is new and fresh fades away, and people get tired of it- especially if the people who signed up weren't too keen on copyediting, and just signed up because a drive was going on or barnstars were being given away. It's probably too late to get those people back. However, we aren't done for yet. We can encourage member sign-up and retention by reaching out to our members by offering mentoring- I believe that our article reviewing, both for the drive and now the requests page- will help point out to members when their copyediting skills need help and can help get people interested in being mentored. After a person goes through that mentoring, I'd be willing to bet that he'd be more keen on staying in the Guild permanently, or joining if he hasn't already. However, besides that, it's important that we try to get new members. I'm also not sure how to do about doing this, since it looks like Wikipedia as a whole- and especially backlogs and projects- have membership difficulties. --Slon02 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm starting to lean away from reviewing copy edits of articles from the Requests page. Quoting Truthkeeper: "Also, would like to add, that if I were to come here today as a new editor and my work was 'checked' that would be the first and last time I'd participate, fwiw; nor am I particularly excited about picking up requests now if I face having work checked." Checking work will probably make some editors feel like they don't have good copy editing skills, and it will cause them to quit working for the Guild. And we will continue to see a decrease in participants and articles copy edited in our Backlog elimination drives. As I said in one of my earlier comments, I understand that the intent of this review proposal is good, but it only takes one misunderstanding to cause another serious problem for the Guild. Another thing I said is that we must take everyone's opinions into consideration, and that includes those outside of the Guild. I feel I must quote myself from my post above: "...when you think about it, the Guild members have something similar to a conflict of interest in this situation. We need to listen to people who aren't a part of the Guild, like Malleus and Truthkeeper, and take their opinions into consideration before we can solve this problem." Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so we have to listen to not only the Guild's coordinators and members, but the rest of Wikipedia, as well. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would guess that the decreased participation might be because the GoCE has become a bit like DFS, except that instead of a sale, it always has a backlog clearance drive underway. That's no bad thing if you want an ongoing drive, but as it goes on, people will get sick of it.

  My concern, though, is that the Guild's focus is on crappy articles, but many of the people who make requests here are looking for a push over the final hurdles towards FA or GA. So if the Guild can't help them, where do they go? My personal opinion is that the Guild should focus a lot more on the higher levels, and if that means there isn't a place of in a Guild of Copy Editors for people who can't copy edit, then I'm afraid I agree with Malleus—that's just tough. I copy-edit because I'm reasonably good at it; I don't audition to join bands because I can't sing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  The Guild holds the Backlog elimination drives to reduce the size of the copy edit Backlog, which is currently a little under 4,000 articles. Perhaps we could have the less experienced copy editors take care of the backlog and the less complicated Requests while the more experienced copy editors take care of the Requests up for GAN or FAC? But if we did that, we'd have to define what constitutes "experienced." And we could unintentionally push editors who think they're good away because they don't meet these qualifications. The way I see it, the options are:

1. Do as Malleus says and create a separate writers workshop
2. Create a separate sub-project for our more experienced copy editors
3. If option two were to be taken into effect, we could create a subpage for higher level copy edit requests, as suggested below in the Proposals section.

• The second option wouldn't be qualified as a split; the more experienced copy editors could continue to work for the Guild as well as the separate sub-project. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that there are no "shiny awards" given to people who edit from the requests page, they just counted towards a higher word count total during certain drives. Though their totals may have been higher by doing copy-edits from the requests page, and subsequently received an award, it seems (after checking the June and July archives) that only a few articles at GAN/FAC or GAR/FAR were been attempted by inexperienced copy-editors, several of which were checked and a couple were re-edited by co-ordinators.

At present we still need to check FA/GA articles and editors work on them. This could be dropped after a time, but even some experienced editors (and those with a few copyedits under their belt) are still not correcting enough errors (in fact some even introduce their own) to get an article to 95% correct with regard to MoS sub-page issues, comma splices, verb agreements, dates and commas etc.

I really cannot see how we can have an alternative to checks on those at GA/FA. Even a separate task would still be creating an elitist environment, though whether or not it is necessary, or would cause a problem, remains to be seen. I suspect that checking FA/GA noms is the best way to do this. While it is true that there might be some who would see this as a turn-off, I have never had a negative reaction from anyone I have previously checked as part of a GOCE drive checks, or when I have made "off the books" checks on peoples work on FA and GA articles. Most, if not all, have responded positively to the suggestions I have made regarding their work and how they might improve. Often these problems are down to a lack of knowledge concerning MoS, MoS sub pages, and individual project's MoS' and style guides.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that education is the key - after all I am still learning and I am sure that there are those out there who probably think, like I did, their work is good who would be surprised to find how much they have not learned yet. I know I am at least once a week when I learn something new—often from Malleus. Separating people will leave the less experienced with a smaller chance of learning from more experienced editors, possibly cause an "us-and-them" situation, or worse; if a new project was set up most of the good copy-editors would surely go there?

We really should be finding a way to persuade those more experienced editors back into GOCE related tasks, especially those that say they left due to the "new" format (forgive me I think that was before my time). Perhaps a GOCE GA/FA task force would be one step in the right direction, something I would perhaps support though only as a last resort if all else fails. My question then is what would bring those who have left back again? Chaosdruid (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We could track down those who have left and leave them a message on their talk page asking why they haven't been an active part of the Guild and if they're still interested in participating in the Guild. I'll get to work tracking them down when I get the time; I have to be somewhere in an hour. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For those that are not aware, the spikes were the result of two things. The first spike was because we were featured in The Signpost, and Jimbo participated, attracting a lot of interest. The second was because we put a blurb on the Watchlist notice. I am not in favor of creating a separate sub-project for more experienced copy editors (option 2). It goes against what copy editing is about, and will only add to the confusion. "Brilliant prose" can only come from writers, not from copy editors. Some sort of separate writers' workshop would be a better solution. – SMasters (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

Several different ideas have been proposed: Splitting the Guild; creating a sub-page for higher-level copy edit requests; adding a blurb to the requests page to discourage inexperienced editors from selecting articles that are on their way to GA or FA; reviewing articles for quality of editing when they are archived off the Requests page. Please comment on which of these proposals you support (it may be more than one; they are not mutually exclusive); or post further ideas:

My support goes to adding a blurb to the requests page (after reading Utahraptor's reasoning, I've changed my mind and am striking my support from the blurb) and reviewing articles for quality before archiving them. Ultimately, I agree with the people who stated that our job is to fix articles, not remake them, and that we just are not able to rewrite articles to make them fit FA-level prose expectations. I personally never copyedit articles that are for FA-instead trying to get general and GA level copyedits out of the way- because I know that it will involve so much prose-related work that I can't do, and quite simply am amazed (and appreciative) of the few people who are able to handle that level of work. --Slon02 (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be enough if we reviewed articles for quality before archiving them. I feel as though adding a blurb to the Requests page discouraging inexperienced editors from copy editing that are on their way to GA or FA would generate bad feelings towards the Guild, which, in turn, would cause more problems for the Guild. After all, as Dianna said above, this is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. We can't just put restrictions on what editors can and cannot copy edit. I understand that it's just a recommendation, but it only takes one misunderstanding to cause a major problem for the Guild. Plus, if we review the article that the inexperienced editor copy edited, and fix the mistakes (if there are any) that we find, and if we provide the copy editor with feedback about their copy edit, including such information as what they missed, what they did right, etc., then I think we'll be fine. Finally, we should keep an eye on the GAN or FAC in case any problems concerning our work come up. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, for now I would like to suggest that only co-ordinators remove listings from the requests page and that co-ordinators check the edits that have been done before they remove them to the archive. GOCE™ ISO9001! Chaosdruid (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I support coordinators reviewing completed articles from the Requests page, especially those that were nominated for FA or GA. I support only coordinators should remove completed articles. Removing articles and doing reviews is something all coordinators can participate in on their own initiative. We could put a blurb to encourage people to be competent: I suggest adding encouragement to be familiar with the WP:MoS and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to/Step by step guide before attempting edits from the Requests page. This could be added to the existing copy editors instructions. --Dianna (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Reviewing articles for quality before archiving them seems like an excellent way to increase quality and develop talent while avoiding possible accusations of elitism. In addition, maybe it could be good to review use of the {{GOCE}} and {{GOCEtb}} templates. In an article I recently edited, a later editor's work was undone with an edit summary saying "the article has undergone a copyedit before your edits so it doesn't need rewording", an appeal to authority that makes me feel very uncomfortable (and understandably irritated the reverted editor, who was being constructive). If these templates are given so much weight, maybe they should only be used after copyedits have been reviewed for quality? --Stfg (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I support:

1. Education: Regardless of what happens, we must make it clear what the Guild does and does not do. Copy editing is not full-on writing. We must cap expectations of people coming to the Guild expecting us to weave beautiful prose for their FAs. Yes, we do try to make things flow better, reorganize structure, etc., as well as fix technical aspects. But expecting us to write poetry is quite something else. Unless we make this clear, people will continue to be disappointed.
2. Quality control: Coordinators reviewing and removing Requests, as per Diannaa.

In addition, I propose marking individual GA and FA Requests with a simple label. Something like  Done, but replace the tick with the GA or FA symbols, and the word "Done" with "For experience copy editors" or similar. Like The Utahraptor, I feel that adding too much negative words in the blurb will turn people off. Newer members may skip the Requests page completely. We do not want this. We still want them to participate, but maybe think carefully before they decide to attempt an advanced-level article. I can make the templates for this if this proposal is accepted. – SMasters (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

From experience, a large proportion of FA nominators view a GOCE copyedit as an indication that the article's prose is now "good enough". For example, in the nomination of a FAC I was asked to look at yesterday, "The article has had a copyedit by the GOCE which should have cleared up any prose issues." Of course, there's nothing wrong with mentioning a completed copyedit in the nomination, but sometimes this is taken rather further. The recent controversial FA candidacy was an instance where the nominator seemingly took the view that reviewers were not entitled to Oppose based on prose issues just because a GOCE copyedit had been done - not the first time I've seen this. It's not surprising that reviewers act with incredulity when dealing with such misconceptions. I wonder if it might be worthwhile having a boilerplate piece of text to be left on FA requester/nominators' talk pages, by copyeditors (or indeed by co-ordinators, since co-ords are now to be reviewing FA copyedits) that not only serves as a notification that the copyedit is complete, but also gently explains that the featured article process is at least somewhat subjective, that a copyedit having been completed doesn't guarantee that the article will meet criterion 1a, and that it is expected that many further improvements will normally be expected during the course of an FAC. (I'm sure nicer words could be found.)

Now, I don't think we need such a template for copyedits-for-GAR. However, it might be useful to have one just to say the copyedit has been done, to recommend contacting the copyeditor or the guild if any futher help is needed, and to note that if the article makes it to GA and the nominator then decides to nominate it for FA, they might like to come back to the guild and ask for a "for FA" copyedit. Many people copyedit for GA in a different way to how they copyedit for FA.

Incidentally, there is a little related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#FAC survey too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be the FAC nomination Demiurge1000 is referring to, and I'm sure the nominator would welcome whatever further assistance the guild can offer. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I still feel that trying to get a "recognised" copyedit into the article milestones is a possibility. This would not be limited to GOCE members and people like Malleus and Truthkeeper could do them. Unfortunately we never got past the basic idea and my suggestion, mainly due to the July drive starting.

Mandatory checks should only be on FA and GA candidates copy-edits by new members and less-experienced editors. Someone who thinks they are competent enough should not be immune from being checked out of politeness. If they are serious about doing the job well, they should not be offended by being asked to allow checks. The requests are editors asking for help and we should have a responsibility to make sure that they are done correctly.

We also need to address whether or not mentoring can be used, perhaps asking that anyone wanting to take on FA and GA reviews goes through an initial mentoring process? Chaosdruid (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actions

I am going to add a column to the archive for "Reviewed by". Coordinators will be expected to help review copy edited articles for quality. Top priority will be to review articles that are FA candindates; second priority to GA and DYK candidates; ultimate goal is to have all requests page articles reviewed by a coordinator.

I am going to improve the instructions on the Requests Page to give more details of the expectations for coordinators.

We also have some support for improving the instructions for reviewers, but there is valid concern that these instructions need to be non-bitey. So let's work that part out here before it is added to the Requests page. The current instructions for copy editors reads as follows:

• Copy editors, please do not put yourself down for more than one article at any one time. Multiple bookings are not encouraged. If you have signed on but cannot fulfill a request for any reason, please update the status here so that someone else can continue from where you stopped.
• Guild members, remember to add {{GOCE|user=UserName|date=date completed}} on the talk page of articles completed.

Here is an initial draft for a new text:

• Please ensure you are familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and are familiar with the expectations for editing for the GOCE, as outlined in our Step by Step guide. Articles that are potential Featured Article candidates should only be handled by experienced editors.
• Please do not put yourself down for more than one article at any one time. Multiple bookings are not encouraged. If you have signed on but cannot fulfill a request for any reason, please update the status here so that someone else can continue from where you stopped.
• Please consider adding {{GOCE|user=UserName|date=date completed}} on the talk page of completed articles.

Please feel free to comment on or edit this proposed change. --Dianna (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest removing "or Good Article candidates", otherwise a newcomer is going to be looking at the Requests page with a magnifying glass trying to find an article that they aren't recommended against copy-editing. Complaints about inadequate copyedits of GA nominations do happen, but they are relatively rare, and the most recent example I saw also involved the nominator ignoring the guidelines on the requests page and not telling the copy-editor that he'd done so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have incorporated this suggestion. --Dianna (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

With the removal about the GA bit, I have no problems with the current wording. Looks good to go. --Slon02 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Would something along the lines of the DYK recent addition help? "When you leave your review, add a comment explaining that you are a new reviewer and would like a second opinion." Chaosdruid (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can't remember if I proposed this somewhere else, but how about a subpapge of the requests page for articles heading to FAC (and possibly GAN if it makes it more viable)? It might serve as a more visible place for potential FACs needing MoS/prose work, and might encourage more experienced copy-editors to frequent the page if they don't have to sift through requests for articles not going to FAC in the foreseeable future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Anybody? Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it would probably work. Our current system of reviewing requests isn't going so well, as one of our most experienced editors has quit the Guild as a result of the strict review process. Based on this, we do need to change the way we handle articles heading to FAC or GAN, and creating a separate subpage would probably work. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest a separate page for FA-related requests; it doesn't seem to make sense to move both FA and GA related requests, because then the "new" list would be longer than what's left of the "old" list. With regard to co-ordinators reviewing copyedits, maybe focus on reviewing the copyedits that were for FA first, as these have the greatest requirements? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        • If I don't recognise the username of the person who did a copy edit, I will check it over when I archive it. Most of our requests are for FA, GA, or DYK articles (August, 70%) so I'm not sure it makes sense to create a separate subpage. --Dianna (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
          • What percentage were going to FAC, though? I don't want to have to sift through potential DYK and GA nominations, I want to be able to give potential FAC nominators an honest appraisal—no, you'll never get it through FAC in that state in a month of Sundays (in which case I'd take on the copy-editing as and when I could); you're within a hair's breadth, it just needs a little polish; or the are no serious issues, and nothing drastic is likely to come up at FAC. The hope is that nominators can make a more informed decision about whether to wait a few weeks to have somebody go over the prose with a fine-toothed comb or whether they have a good chance of success by nominating straight away. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Addendum: why not have a one-month trial of my proposed format. If it's crap, we can fold it back into the parent page after the month; if it works, we can talk about keeping it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I am already giving extra care and attention to articles on their way to FA that actually have a chance of passing; articles that are close are getting multiple passes, and those that I think are not going to pass get a much more cursory look.

              As the one who is doing the daily maintenance on the requests page, I only see adding a sub-page as adding unneccesary complexity and extra work. I don't understand how doing it your way would improve the quality of the copy editing or the work flow. What am I missing here? --Dianna (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

              • I hope it would attract more copy-editors (ie those who are mainly interested in FAs) and serve as a central place to get feedback on one's prose prior to FAC (and thus hopefully intervene more gently before FAC when the prose isn't up to scratch) and to get more eyes (as opposed to one set and one coordinator checking them) on an article's prose. I don;t mind sorting the maintenance of it, and if it doesn't work, we can scrap it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a month-long trial, as I'd like to see how this would go; however, if Dianna still has concerns, perhaps we could try a two week trial rather than a month-long trial? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess if it's a disaster, that will be pretty clear after two weeks, but if it's not a complete disaster, we'll probably need longer to determine whether it could work in the long term. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If it survives a two week test trial, we could run it for another two weeks or a month, then discuss whether or not it's a good option. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds good. If you folks are prepared to set it up, let's give it a try. Thanks --Dianna (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I stole the header from GOCE/REQ and made a few modifications (it needs more, but I'm useless with markup). I've set the page up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Potential Featured ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Potential Featured Articles. If everyone's happy, I'll start advertising it in a few places, though if anybody could remove the artefacts from the main requests page, I'd be grateful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be just a redirect back here. --Stfg (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm ; fixed. I linked you to the talk page, not the project page (apologies). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The opening words ("This branch of the Guild of Copy Editors deals exclusively with articles ...") appear to get back to splitting the guild; would something like "This page deals exclusively with articles ..." suit better? Should there be a limit to the number of requests an editor is allowed to have alive here? "extended commentary may be better placed on the talk page" probably needs to be "... on the article's talk page" for clarity. (Any commentary placed on the requests page is going to get deleted on completion.) :Would it be good to have a "proof-reading" template, similar to {{working}}, so that the sequence would be working-done-proofreading-done, to ensure that each article gets at least one proof-read after the main copyedit? --Stfg (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(Redacted the above. Can't think what came over me to suggest even more bureaucracy!) --Stfg (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've implemented Stfg's suggestions, and given that nobody has objected, I'm going to try and get it off the ground. Any help in publicising it, or ideas of where I should place links to it, would be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You might want to create an editnotice for the Requests page that includes a link to the experimental FAC subpage. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

New requests page for potential featured articles

I've started WP:GOCE/FA—a subpage of the existing requests page dedicated to articles that are headed to FAC (see discussion above). The aim is to give feedback to nominators on whether their article's prose is likely to meet FA criterion 1a, and to assist in getting it there if it's not up to scratch. The assistance of experience copy-editors in handling requests during the page's trial would be greatly appreciated, as would any help in publicising the page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't see my previous comment, I would suggest creating an editnotice for the Requests page that includes a link to the FAC subpage. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I was thinking of suggesting it, but thought it would be a bit bold to just do it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be a bad idea to put comments arising during the copyedit on this page. I have it watchlisted in case something appears on it that I'd like to take on, but don't want it popping up every time you have a new comment on Boeing 767. Don't these belong on the article's talk page? --Stfg (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My first

Would someone mind looking over my first copy edit?--Taylornate (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall a very good job. Here is a diff with a few more minor things: Diff of Pancreatitis. Thank you for your interest in helping out with copy edits. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the diff. Thanks!--Taylornate (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Specialised drives

Dear colleagues, sorry I don't seem to actively engage with your good work. I wonder what people think about the idea of conducting the occasional narrow-focus drive. Some whole categories are pretty bad on WP: I have in mind business and management just now. Please see the note I've left at their WikiProject. It would require collaboration between copy-editors, copyright/plagiarism leading lights like Moonriddengirl, and the relevant WikiProjects. Also has good PR value for the GOCE, I suspect, in addition to its regular general c-e drives. Anyone interested in pursuing this? Tony (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a good idea. However, I don't think our members can cope with anymore drives. We are already struggling to do one every two months. Drives take a lot of work to organize, and it can also be very time consuming for participants as well. Perhaps if any collaboration was to take place, we can do it as an ongoing project? --SMasters (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that our current drive rates are a stretch already and that we wouldn't be able to handle yet another one. Having our drives every two months is essential to keeping the backlog down, which is a major priority of this guild. --Slon02 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be an interesting idea, a nice change; but given that there already so much material to get through, the dodgy stuff tagged for years and higher quality special requests, we really have enough to do. Giving copy-editors the maximum scope allows them to pick articles they find interesting. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ktlynch and feel that part of the GOCE idea is that we serve everyone equally - Dianna's M*A*S*H analogy - and that narrowing the focus to one subject area would just cost other subject areas. Also, part of our reward for doing this is that we can jump around topic areas and learn new stuff - perhaps even find new interests. Subject areas that want a copy-editing push might perhaps begin by looking for volunteers to copyedit from within their interest group. There are quite a lot of people out there who write wonderfully and certainly could do copy-editing, but don't. Best might be to start what would be primarily an in-project drive, and then advertise it to GOCE in case there's interest.

As for business and management, well, ugh, yes. There almost seems to be a culture of hypercorrected pomposity there. But who here wants to tilt at that windmill? --Stfg (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Drive awards

Every barnstar has a specific purpose, and they're all equally valuable (or valueless). The real worth of a barnstar comes from a fellow editor recognizing your work and personally rewarding you for it. So it doesn't really make sense for barnstars to be put in some kind of order and rewarded for a specific amount of copyediting. Therefore, I think the GOCE should follow WikiProject Wikify and adopt a specific set of awards for the copyediting drives. Thoughts? Swarm ^{u / t} 19:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are getting at. Is this not "some kind of order and rewarded for a specific amount..."? What's the difference between that and the GOCE's set of awards? Our system was adopted from the Good article nominations drives. --SMasters (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no difference, which is exactly why this is the new awards set for WPWF; that's the concept I'm getting at. Why is The Cleanup Barnstar more valuable than The Working Man's Barnstar? Why should the "Order of the Superior Scribe", which is "To be awarded only for the most exemplary or outstanding content review or article writing", be handed out to anyone who meets an arbitrary threshold? I wikified a couple 5k+ articles, a ridiculously effortless task, and I'm among the ranks of "the most exemplary or outstanding content review[ers]." Why? The answer to all these questions, of course, is no reason; thus, it would make far more sense to use barnstars that specifically represent a certain amount of copyediting. Swarm ^{u / t} 02:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I must have looked at an old link. This is nice to have, but we do qualify the awards when they get handed out. The award usually states how much work was done. So, while it is true that one barnstar is not really worth more than another, its use for the drive is quite acceptable. We could create a whole new set of barnstars like WPW, but this is quite a bit of work. Also, some editors like to collect conventional barnstars. With our system, they can aim for different types if they wish to collect them. If we have specially designed barnstars, some might view it as quite boring for their collection. Just some initial thoughts here, not saying no to the idea completely, but it's something that might require some consideration as to the pros and cons of doing this. --SMasters (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the current system is fine, as even if the barnstars might be awarded under more stringent criteria outside of this drive (and I'm sure that they are), the qualifying statement that we provide when we award the barnstar lets people know exactly why that barnstar was awarded, and I feel that it is good enough.--Slon02 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's "good enough, we're only talking barnstars, and I wouldn't expect either of you to actually do the work (we could easily have it done by a volunteer). And SMasters, that's all I ask: just give it some consideration. Best regards, Swarm ^{u / t} 21:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a little confused - wikifying a 5K+ article may indeed be effortless; however, copyediting one is certainly not effortless. Most of the 5K+ articles take a considerable time and are usually around an hour or two to complete. Any article of such size that has been tagged as needing a copy edit is most likely in a very bad state and takes a lot of effort, some up to four hours. There are ones that have been tagged incorrectly as a whole article instead of simply the section(s) that needs a ce, and here the editor would remove the tag, ce the sections(s), and only claim word count of those sections edited (thus not getting a 5K+ credit.

The main point of the drive is to reduce the amount of articles needing ce's, and specifically those with the oldest tags, as such it is possible that editors might do lots of smaller ones and leave the larger ones, or those which need lots of work. In these cases we would be left with a lot of older tagged articles of 5K+ that needed a lot of work. The barnstars reflect these goals - some for most ce'd, some for larger articles ce'd, some for total words. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Abscence

Hi all

I have been having some computer issues - first with a reinstall of Windows three weeks ago, then a broken graphics card, and now another reinstall of Windows. Thank goodness it seems finished now - the main issue was that having not registered immediately after the reinstall, service pack 2 did not get installed and that caused a knock on effect once my up-to-date drivers went on; after which service pack 2 did some strange things to my system and C++ 2010. Oh the joys of computing!

Everything is working now and I am on catch up after I get back home tonight. Sorry for my absence and hopefully all is back to normal for a few months until something else in there gives up the ghost :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyeditors needed

The Signpost is kind of hiccuping right now. Our primary copyeditor, Tony1, is on...strike. So that means we have a bunch of articles sitting on their bums, but they're all unvetted. Just felt like maybe some of you guys could lend us a hand and go through the ce requests at WP:POST/N? Thanks, ResMar 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Turn of the century" project

Listed on our projects subpage is a project to clarify ambiguous date references to the turn of the century. Might someone more knowledgable than I make a template for this?

In the meantime, I am going to just be adding the following to the edit summaries of pages I edit:

clarified date reference as part of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors|Guild of Copy Editors]]' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Projects#Turn_of_the_century|"Turn of the century" Project]]

Lhynard (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have gone through the entire list of "turn of the last century" articles. Lhynard (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

September cleared over 800 articles

For the backlog numbers, the relative count only dropped by 146 (to 3,801), but September offset the drop by adding "559 articles" (plus over 100 we fixed and untagged beyond the remaining 559). That gives a total of over:

• 146 fewer + 559 September tagged + 100 September done = 805 untagged articles

I see, now, how articles are getting copy-edited, and untagged, but not listed with the backlog-drive usernames (either editors omitted some of their completed articles, or people were not editing for the drive, or articles got deleted). Anyway, the total result, clearing over 800 tagged articles in September is impressive, even if some pages were not "fully" copy-edited before untagging. Just remember how difficult it is to copy-edit a set of over 800 articles, over 27 per day. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. There may actually have been many more than 559 articles tagged in September; it seems to have been an unusually active month for new copy edit tags to be applied.

Thanks also to those who helped close off the drive. My wiki-time has been limited lately so I really appreciate the help :) --Dianna (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And the 2010 part of the backlog reduced by around 24%.

@Wikid77: What's the technique for getting a count of the number both tagged and edited in the current month? --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The count of "100" edited from September new tags is an estimate, from daily watching the category grow to 559 and shrink on some days. -Wikid77 17:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I attempted to make the progress-boxes subst'able. That means you should be able to take a snapshot. If that fails you can cut-and-paste the preogress box instead. Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

I'm probably being dim here, and apologies if so. Is this the progress information on the drive page? At the end of a month, there were 559 articles tagged {{copyedit|date=September 2011}}. This could be because 559 articles were tagged in September, but more likely because 559+X were tagged but X were copyedited or deleted. Unless I misunderstood it, what Wikid77 wrote above seemed to show that he knows that X is more than 100, and I was wondering how one discovers that. --Stfg (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It was an estimate. I cannot think of a search technique to count the exact number. -Wikid77 17:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Completed requests for FACs

Just wondering what's the protocol for keeping/deleting/reviewing items on the FAC-related requests page? --Stfg (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you could handle it the same way as you have been doing the main requests page. Thanks for looking after this stuff, by the way. I really appreciate it. --Dianna (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Thanks for what you said. I'm glad to do it. --Stfg (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:GOCE/FA ... this may be hard to swallow, but I actually find it easier to copyedit for FAC than for WP:PR or WP:GAN ... there's a learning curve at FAC, but at least it's possible to say "people like this, they don't like that". At PR, I'm a little intimidated ... copyediting is a relatively small part of it, so I need to "choose my battles" ... but which battles do I choose? Which things are awful, as opposed to just "not recommended" by style guides? That's always been a tough question for me. Anyway ... I'm running for coord, and whether I get it or not, I'd like to "step up my game" here. If anyone wants to collaborate with me on a copyediting job for any review process (PR, GAN, A-class, FAC), then let me know, or even better, just tackle any of the current requests at WP:GOCE/FA, I keep an eye on those (mostly the ones that have a lot of narrative prose). One page we like to use over at WP:Milhist (mostly my doing, I have to admit) that you may find useful is WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I find PR to be pretty much like FAC, you just state your case. But as a reviewer I've always found GAN to be much harder than FAC; there's more responsibility, and more pressure to roll your sleeves up and fix it yourself. And for what reward? Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well good, I'm glad to hear someone else say it. I've been debating how much "cheerleading" to do on this ... I think I'm gonna go with "not much". Just ... I got most of my copyediting barnstars when I didn't know anything ... that's how easy it is to make friends by even attemping to help out at GAN and FAC. If anyone has questions or gets stuck, please don't hesitate to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing small articles in non-drive months

07-Dec-2011: I think we could clear more articles, and perhaps with less effort, by just quick-editing the tiny c/e-tagged articles during non-drive months. The small articles often require less mental energy (often less text to ramble into convoluted phrasing), so more articles could be copyedited without the "mental burnout" of cross-checking within the larger articles. Also, small articles tend to be less notable, so with them gone, there would be less clutter to obscure the remaining medium-size, more-notable topics during the backlog-drive of the next month. Plus, the editing of so many tiny articles during a drive month might give the impression of easy-padding of the article count. Hence, there are many reasons to clear small tagged articles in non-drive months. Of course, partial edits of large articles also helps later. -Wikid77 17:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

FAC requests page

Does anyone mind if I break the FAC requests page into two sections, one for what's called at WP:GAN "Arts" and "Everyday life", and the other for everything else? At GAN, they keep a pretty big backlog for those two categories ... and that seems to work, or at least, work better than the alternatives. I see our FAC requests page is starting to run a backlog along the same lines that GAN does ... which is fine, but I don't want that to obscure good work that's being done. Also, does anyone have an objection to an archive page for the FAQ requests page? (If it's there already, I don't see it.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving has proven to be pretty tedious, but if I'm elected lead coordinator, I plan on instating archives for both the main Requests page and the FAC requests page. As for the split, I don't see anything wrong with it, so I'm in support of it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dank, please could you explain a little more what the proposed split is intended to achieve? I support reinstating the archives and am willing to help with that (regardless of how many request pages we end up with). --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure ... to be clear, I'm just talking about two sections on the same page, not two pages. The sections over at WP:GAN are partly to make it easier for like-minded nominators and reviewers to hook up, but they also serve an important function of separating the parts of GAN that go fast and slow. If you didn't have sections at GAN, anyone coming to the page would get discouraged about the chances that their article would ever get reviewed. I don't think we need their level of precision, but I think we can expect that it will continue to be hard to find copyediting for every "Arts" and "Everyday life" request. With a little luck, we can keep the rest covered. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the page is now divided into those two sections ... feel free to revert, as always. I propose a two-stage process: for two or three weeks, we work on the FAC requests and on articles currently at FAC (I'll be working only with the lower section of WP:GOCE/FA, I'm no good with pop culture), looking at each other's edits and arguing when we disagree. (The only difference of opinion I'm aware of so far is that I like "because" and similar words less than some do, but everything is negotiable, and it wouldn't bother me to lose the fight.) In stage two, we recruit (here, in the Signpost, at WT:FAC and WT:GAN, wherever) for copyeditors who don't usually copyedit for FAC to come give it a try anyway; I don't know about you guys, but it's a huge help for me if someone fixes anything competently ... spelling, punctuation, anything from the WP:Checklist, whatever. Then one of the more experienced copyeditors can check the copyediting done so far, sort out any disagreements, and finish up, and we all get barnstars when the article passes FAC :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I disagree with doing this and I think you are running too fast with it. How does it relate to the consensus we established in the summer when we were discussing "splitting the guild"? What evidence have you for "I think we can expect that it will continue to be hard to find copyediting for every "Arts" and "Everyday life" request"? Up to now, every request has had equal status. Many of us pick articles on our preferred topics much of the time, and it makes good sense to emphasise doing what we enjoy and are good at, but at least some of us occasionally go back and clear the oldest, regardless of topic. It looks as if you are trying to create a 2-speed system where esoteric subjects get higher priority than "pop culture". I strongly oppose that.

(By the way, did you realise that one GOCE member accepts requests on his talk page, and it's the popular music regulars who most often go there? Since that's the category that gets by far the most requests here, his doing so is a big contribution to our ability to cope.)

Two decisions you wanted to make seem to me to have been actioned prematurely. You have tagged one article as "not done". What can that mean other than a declaration that GOCE will not be doing it? What is your authority for declaring that? Another you have moved from the FAC page to the other page, although the requester made clear made clear they were aiming at FAC. Dropping it on to the end of the requests page like that means it has been pushed 4-5 weeks backwards in the (metaphorical) queue and makes it more likely to attract editors who are not ready to work at FAC level. It would have done no harm to let it stay where it was.

"looking at each other's edits and arguing when we disagree": I hope we're not going to turn GOCE into a debating society about personal stylistic preferences, breathing down one another's necks and cluttering article talk pages with meta-discussions such as whether "because" is a good word or not. We're here to improve the standard of writing, not to stop people writing in their own "voice". --Stfg (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Anyone else have thoughts on what we should do with the WP:GOCE/FA page? - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I'm going to have to agree with Stfg. The size of our FAC Requests subpage doesn't constitute something like this. It'd be a good idea if it were something as big as the GAN page, but as of now the FAC page is much smaller, and doesn't really require something like this. Perhaps if its backlog grows we could employ something like this, but with the current size of the backlog, I don't think this is necessary. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll change it back. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Okay ... Stfg, the only thing I object to is the idea that I grabbed some kind of authority that wasn't mine; I don't think anyone's in favor of treating an article that failed GAN for extensive copyright violations as a FAC request. I was about to restore Rutherford ... I see you've done that. I do apologize for pushing hard and fast ... on reflection, it really was too much. If anyone wants to mark the requests differently than I did, feel free. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, Dank. I've restored chronological order and moved Griffin Rutherford back there, but retained all the comments you placed. Personally, I agree that Bhagat Singh should never have been put there and should now go. Coordinators? --Stfg (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

On the "because" point, the checklist currently reads as follows. Opinions on whether we should shorten or delete this point? If people are on board, this saves us a little bit of work at FAC, but I'm half in favor of deleting the point myself because it's not the easiest to swallow and digest. (Also, this increased the Checklist to 12 points ... and as Clemenceau said, the Good Lord had only ten :).

[quote] Give some thought to whether because, as a result, since, due to, thus, therefore, so, and other cause-and-effect words are the words you want in a narrative (storyline). Use after instead of because in: they retreated because the enemy broke through their lines, since the readers can figure out that one led to the other. Avoid "therefore" in: The ship stayed in port two days loading low-grade coal, and therefore never caught up to the fleeing destroyer. (Therefore ... because the ship stayed in port two days, because it loaded coal, or because the coal was low-grade? It's better not to raise the question if the answer isn't clear.) And of course, don't say or imply that one thing caused another if your sources don't back that up. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Stfg and I have worked out some of these points at User talk:Dank#Checklist comments. Any other feedback? One of my goals was to give everyone a chance to yell at a FAC reviewer ... at least I've succeeded with that ;) - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

January Backlog elimination drive

I have launched the January Backlog elimination drive here, so feel free to look over it and sign up. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

I apologise to Dank for my comment about Bhagat Singh above. Dank was clearly right: it was a GAN and should never have been listed in the FAC requests in the first place; it failed GAN for extensive copyvios; and it's now being rewritten, so copy editing the current version would be pointless. I've removed it from the requests page to ensure nobody is drawn into wasting time on it. I hope that's OK, but if not, please revert it. --Stfg (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, Simon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)