User talk:Tony1/How to find good copy-editors
Feedack on how to improve this page is welcome. Tony 13:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, looks good. Question: are the numbers really necessary in "You’ll need to look for people with three key attributes: (1) interest in your topic, (2) skill at copy-editing, and (3) willingness and availability."? Perhaps "You'll need to look for people who are interested in your topic, skillfull at copyediting, and available" or something like that? Love it :) — Deckiller 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe not. Sandy has pointed out a number of ways to improve the page, so it's going to be revamped soon. And thanks for your changes. Tony 06:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just stumbled across this! The project is already a month old. Perhaps a link to it would be useful? I've joined up, too. Gzkn 02:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You might want to change your examples
[edit]I thought you might like to know that the user you seem to have linked as a good example of a copy-editor appears to have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Whilst the usefulness of the particular diff linked is clearly not diminished by the user's actions elsewhere, the obvious moral connotations of the word "example" indicate to me that your paragons of good copy-editing should also be users of good standing. It Is Me Here t / c 19:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
coverage
[edit]Hi Tony, many thanks for your impressive coverage of the conference in Milan. I have one question: can the sentence "Donors have a choice as to whether to follow corporate standards, which could initially be a struggle, he said, and since the FDC is making large grants, it sets higher expectations in terms of communicating entities' plans and filling in forms" imply that the FDC may favorably treat satisfying corporate standards? Because my recollection of what I said is that we DO NOT expect the corporate standards from the applicants, so the meaning is almost the opposite... :) best Pundit|utter 05:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)