Archives

2010–2017 · 2018 · 2019

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

As the subject line suggests, can I work on multiple at once? I just finished a 16,000 word behemoth and kept thinking it would be nice to have a "palate cleanser" between sections. Would it be okay to tackle a short article that would take around an hour while working on a week long project? ~ Argenti Aertheri ^(Chat?) 00:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help, Argenti Aertheri. I understand your fatigue (having felt it myself), but copyediting long articles is a matter of choice. We discourage working on more than one article at once because quality tends to suffer. All the best, Mini apolis 12:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ok, thank you for the speedy answer ~ Argenti Aertheri ^(Chat?) 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Exactly how do words work? I read it over and I don't really know how to get them. Is it for every word you fix or rearange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatOneWolf ( talk • contribs)

@ ThatOneWolf: It's for how many words the article had before you started editing. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 13:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Tenryuu: So basically if I edit a bigger article that would mean more points? Wolf ^{( talk| contribs)} 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ ThatOneWolf: In essence yes, but that doesn't mean go through large articles as fast as one can; it's expected that more attention and time are going to be given to those, and in cases of poor copyediting a penalty may be imposed. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 13:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

ThatOneWolf: remember that the goal is to apply high-quality copy-editing to articles. The drive leaderboard is just for fun; some people find it motivational. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 16:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ok, I get it now. Thanks! Wolf ^{( talk| contribs)} 16:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Can any experienced GOCE member check my work on Pyaar Ka Dard Hai Meetha Meetha Pyaara Pyaara for the July 2024 Backlog Drive? Any help will be greatly appreciated!

• Note: Tagging the article for neutrality.

Thanks, TheNuggeteer ( talk) 10:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Looks good at a glance, and thanks for your help. All the best, Mini apolis 14:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Can someone please check my copyedits for the pages Flextime and Sam Nunn for the July 2024 drive?

Thanks, TheNuggeteer ( talk) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your efforts, but I question some of the changes you've made.

Flextime:

• "flexible hours" -> "flexible hour" – which should be plural, as it's the number of hours that is flexible;
• "hours must be worked" -> "...worked on" – questionable addition of "on";
• quoting "change the nature of the way we work" – which I don't see supported by a source;
• "organisations" -> "organizations" – the former spelling being British English, which may be appropriate to the article as a whole;
• "flexitime" -> "flextime" – the former being a variant given in the lead and which seems appropriate to British Commonwealth countries.

Sam Nunn:

• "for which he is a co-chair" -> "for which he is the co-chairman" – the former being better for the implied plurality as well as "chair" now being a likely title for its gender neutrality;
• "Nunn was born in Macon, Georgia, the son of Mary Elizabeth" -> "...he is the son of Mary Elizabeth" – the former is better, I think; if you're going to have the latter, there should be a semicolon, not a comma, before "he";
• "captaining the school's basketball team to a state championship" -> "captaining the school's basketball team to the state championship" – which reads well either way, but I would not have seen the need to change it;
• "supposedly a top choice" -> "supposedly the "top choice" " – is quoting "top choice" supported by sources, which I see as the only legitimate reason for doing so?

Dhtwiki ( talk) 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Fixed some of the issues, except:

• Organisations to Organizations = Seems better;
• Flexitime to Flextime = The main wording, Flexitime is just another nickname.
• quoting "change the nature of the way we work", quoting "top choice" = You're correct with the "source" reason, but there is another reason you can see at WP:QUOTE, to quote "claimed", "alleged", and other often "loaded" terms.
• "captaining the school's basketball team to a state championship" TO "captaining the school's basketball team to the state championship" = Does not need changing-back.

You can say to me your reason countering my reasons considering you are the more experienced editor.

Thanks, TheNuggeteer ( talk) 05:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The spelling of "organi{s|z}ations" should be decided by article style. Here, I think that you may be on firm footing in using the American spelling, as that seems the likely style at the start (per MOS:RETAIN, "...use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety."). But if "flexitime" is used in sources as pertaining to a particular nationality, I would consider using that variant in the text. I don't see how your section of WP:QUOTE justifies using quotation marks outside of direct quotation. If you feel the need to emphasize text, you can use the {{ em}} template, but that is undue editorializing if it doesn't reflect a source. Dhtwiki ( talk) 08:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi! Could someone kindly review my work on the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research article? Much appreciated, thanks! Pinecone23 ( talk) 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It looks good to me, after a quick read. I'm assuming that what you've taken out is unnecessary verbosity, that you've made the article more succinct without losing nuance. One hiccup I noticed involves hatnotes. The "Short description" template goes at the very top, before all the others, per WP:LAYOUT. Then, the "Maintenance, cleanup, and dispute tags" do belong after the "Hatnotes" proper (I tend to label all top-listed templates by that name), although for readability in raw editing mode, I would start each on its own line. Dhtwiki ( talk) 04:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much, I really appreciate it! I completely missed the layout issues regarding the tags, so thank you for pointing that out :) I believe I have reordered them correctly now. Pinecone23 ( talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there! Could someone possibly review my work on Surrealist Manifesto? I was able to remove a lot of fluff, but there were a few sentences I wasn't sure how to put in an encyclopedic tone. A fresh set of eyes to look over it would be much appreciated. Thanks, LeMeilleurMiel ( talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Both versions looked encyclopedic in tone to me. You took out a fair amount of text, which seems to be carefully done. Again, I'm just doing a quick read. However:

• "prior leaders of rival surrealist groups" – why "prior"? I would have left that word out;
• "Goll and Breton's conflicting beliefs led to a fight at the Comédie des Champs-Élysées" – it's "skirmish" in the source and it seemed as much street theater as violent fisticuffs, as "fight" would suggest;
• "Later sources describe Breton and having won." – "as" having won.

Dhtwiki ( talk) 06:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi! Could someone kindly review the work I've done on the Vyommitra article? Thank you! Pinecone23 ( talk) 23:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Looks good so far. Thanks for your help and all the best, Mini apolis 13:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! From a copy editing perspective, does it look finished? Personally, I cannot find any further issues that can be fixed by copy editing, but I want to double-check just to be sure I haven't missed anything. All the best to you, too. Pinecone23 ( talk) 23:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Since it's barely start-class, I'd say it's done. All the best, Mini apolis 23:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi! I've recently undertaken the article Yamajathakudu and managed to clean up half of the section marked for copyedit. however, after trying to decipher the second half of the plot summary, I decided that it was too confusing to continue. The phrases that got me stuck just clicked. I'm still curious: if I find myself in a situation where I am unable to copyedit everything in a section, what do I do? Do I place a template like {{ GOCEreviewed}} or {{ confusing}}? Do I roll back my edit? If not, do I still get points for the work I've done? Kindly, Pinecone23 ( talk) 19:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC); edited 21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You've done quite a bit to make the plot summary more intelligible (as well as making it more succinct, hopefully without losing helpful nuance). If you get really stuck, the question of placing {{ GOCEreviewed}}, along with a {{ Cleanup}} tag, as is recommended, is an interesting one, because the latter tag overlaps quite a bit with what I consider copy editing. However, if you really can't make headway, I would considering reverting your edits, including replacing the copy edit tag, in order to leave the article to someone who might have better luck. Dhtwiki ( talk) 06:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Restoring the article to its original state makes a lot of sense. I will keep that in mind for future articles during the drive. If I were to restore an article in that manner, do I leave a comment on the article's talk page explaining the revert(s)? Pinecone23 ( talk) 08:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You could leave an edit summary, as well as a note on the talk page. Also, if you have made real progress, but haven't completely copy edited the article, or section, you could just restore the copy edit tag, without reverting your edits. Dhtwiki ( talk) 06:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Does word count include templates? For now I'm not including them. Also, I just edited a 7000 word article, and it took half an hour. From looking at previous comments, it looks like I should have spent days, but it had only a few errors, and only in one section. Apollogetticax| ^talk 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Most word counting only includes rendered text. That might include, say, citations, if you include the References section to be counted by whatever tool you're using. The recommended Wikipedia:Prosesize tool wouldn't count references, nor does it count text within lists or tables. You didn't go through all of Miskito grammar, which must be the article you are referencing. Applying Prosesize to that article, I get a word count of only 1624, which doesn't include text within tables, which you did not address, or you would have probably seen the need for better and more consistent punctuation, at the least. I also question your removal of text (an entire section, at one point) for being unsourced, as the entire article is without any inline citations. Otherwise, I see you making some intelligent choices. Dhtwiki ( talk) 06:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

First of all, I am using Microsoft Word, as Prosesize isn't very accurate. Secondly, Miskito grammar is mostly tables. Thirdly, thanks for notifying me, I'll get to fixing the tables.

Also, that section I removed just didn't seem very encyclopedic or worthy to be included.

I'm confused. Should I count references? Apollogetticax| ^talk 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

See the other discussion you started for a reply I just made, before I saw your followup here. As I said there, you usually don't count references, but if you've done considerable work on them, I think that it's fair to include references, as well. Dhtwiki ( talk) 05:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply