Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Completed Articles Archive/January 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Additionally, this is my first attempt knocking off an article from the proofread list; please make additional changes as necessary, and please contact me (my talk page, etc.) with any feedback. Thanks. —beverson

Rintrah 14:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | Well, it's improved...— Deckiller 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few touch ups. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the terminology. (I come from a country where cricket is popular, although I don't watch the game much). Thanks for doing what I was too tired and unwell to do. Rintrah 07:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a run-though, but it still needs a lot of work. — Deckiller 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need more copyediting work, or just more work to be a better article? If the latter, should we move it to "finished", because we've copyedited everything that is currently there? Galena11 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we've done all we probably can do with it. The tone seems to have a lot of misplaced "informal British". — Deckiller 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'll move it down to "finished". Galena11 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed, wikified, added references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is in very bad shape - the LoCE tag on the talk page implies that the entire article was reviewed, and the section of quotes looked much better before - I will probably revert if I can figure out what changed - I've been trying to clean up, but keep finding more and more needs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea - I did enough cleanup in there that it's no longer dismal, but I'm too tired to look at the prose. Unfortunately, all of that copyedit work just done is based on a very shaky source - I left it all, but Smoking Gun is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • War Hawk This was a weird one. Sort of a stubby article at first, with some incomplete thoughts and weird references. Further research into the revision history yielded an older, much better version, to which I reverted. The original seems to had been lost in an unfortunate series of vandalism and incomplete revision in the past. Anyway, should be a quick proofread. —beverson 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Galena11 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Galena11 20:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Galena11 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Galena11 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Gzkn 14:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rintrah 02:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's  Done Rintrah 07:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job.  Done Rintrah 08:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Galena11 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Galena11 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Outriggr § 05:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rintrah 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if copy-editing this article was given a high priority. The feedback from the FAC has been positive with one exception. One reviewer has given support with reservations for the article due to prose issues. I don't think they are major, if someone here could copy-edit the article and post something at the FAC page here that would be great! Thanks. - Shudda talk 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to this later today. Gzkn 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to move this down after my copy-edit. It was promoted on January 20! Woot. Gzkn 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome a second opinion, maybe I'm being too modest. --BrokenSphere 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. A second opinion would be more assuring. --♥Tohru Honda13♥ 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rintrah has proofread it. --♥Tohru Honda13♥ 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Last proofread by Rintrah. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked this article over and only found one or two very minor errors. This article is really good and does not seem to need a copy edit--Puddytang 06:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DonePunk rock passed WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved down...Tohru Honda13: your signature is reeeaaally long in wikicode :-p Gzkn 09:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The backlog doesn't seem to have many cultured articles. Rintrah 17:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good now. --BrokenSphere 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the categories were incorrect. It was categorized as a World War II submarine, and launched/sunk in the 30's. I don't think the Type is a VII (those appear to be 30's U-boats), but I left it in as it's not something I'm an expert on. - Itsfullofstars 05:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I feel silly for not noticing that. There were 2 U-35s, each of which served in a world war, so I've added the uboat.net page for the WW I subject of the article and removed it from the Type VII category, as those were strictly WW II boats. However since there is only one U-35 article, I think a disambiguation page is in order to point out that there were 2 separate U-boats given the same number. --BrokenSphere 06:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aziz Abdul Naji: It's mainly the tone that needs work; it's about a Gitmo detainee and I'm not supremely knowledgeble in the cases and decisions surrounding it. The tone is clearly against the Bush policies surrounding the issue, and it need someone who can change the tone without changing the meaning. Many thanks to anyone who helps. Defenestrating Monday 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Completed_Articles_Archive/January_2007&oldid=1109517209"