Current FAC. Article has been through copyedit, but still getting a few prose/style comments in the response (although a lot fewer than there would have been a week ago). I guess this is the right place to put this? Thanks. Carre07:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all other concerns in the FAC, the only remaining issue is the quality of prose. I would greatly appreciate any help with regards to copy-editing. Dave101→talk08:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section has recently been spun out into its own page and I'd like some help summarising what's in the main Great Barrier Reef article. -Malkinann 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Environmental threats section has been summarised, but a copyedit on the Ecology section would be appreciated. -Malkinann23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is up for FA, this is the last issue, I think. It mainly needs work on repetition of words and sentence flow. I've been looking at it so long that I'm not picking up on errors anymore, so a fresh pair of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jude.18:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a copyedit on this, and when I added the tag to the discussion page found that this article was already c/e'd in April. Its in pretty good shape, so the proof should be quick. Galena1118:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just failed initial FAC review. One of the major objections was some of the language in the article; too "flowery". One reviewer also suggested a copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the article. I think the article's getting close, and I'd like to try again for FAC by the end of august or so, so if someone that hasn't really been working on the article can copyedit it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Dr. Cash21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently FAC, and the only outside comment (after one week) was that "it's not yet sufficiently well-written to be promoted" and to "find one or more copy-editors to run through the whole text". Unfortunately, I (as "only" a near-native speaker) lack some of the required professional writing skills, and I also don't know anyone close to this subject who may be interested in copyeditting this article, so I'm putting a request here. (It's really just professional grammar tweaking; all "technical" issues such as article structure and order of the sentences were addressed before the FA nomination.) Thank you; any help is appreciated. – sgeurekat•c10:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article received many copyedits by me and others in the past few weeks. FAC will likely close very soon, so if someone can give this article an extra pair of eyes, with a focus on slight tweaking or maybe just "proofreading", it would be much appreciated. – sgeurekat•c19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I bypassed the proofread on this one, because it was in nearly perfect shape already (I only added a serial comma or two.) Galena1121:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one isn't marked for copy-editing explicitly, just cleanup. However, I think it could benefit from it anyways. The original article was just a mish-mash of random facts, and I've started to reorganize it into a proper, sorted list, but could use some help if anyone's interested. The items that I have not yet sorted are under the "Other references" heading, and the last one I did was the matchbox twenty item. –Dvandersluis16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been heavily edited and reworked, it is unrecognisable as the article I had a look at a few months ago. In any case, it doesn't need a copyedit.Cricketgirl12:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(former good article) - I have been referred here by a peer reviewer who said "the tone [of the article] sometimes reads a bit unencyclopaedic." Any help would be great.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that a lot of structural changes have been made between July and now, because I got about 2/3 of the way through and had to stop. The structure needs some serious work. – Scartol · Talk23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this to the denied section because, based on Scartol's comments and my review of the article, it needs much more work from the authors before it is ready for a copyedit. Galena1114:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the mentioned sections of the article no longer exist or have been renamed. Can you clarify your request? Galena1115:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs more sources. I'm willing to do an extensive proofread later, but my main comment at this time is to reference more of the many assertions it makes. – Scartol · Talk16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to fail FAC soon, so I decided to put it here. It appears now that the main objection is the prose. I would like the help of someone who can write better English, enough to make it FA when it goes through another FAC round.Kmarinas8620:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what state it was in when it failed FAC, but the article currently has some serious flaws that go way beyond prose. (I noted these on the talk page.) Galena1115:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is an article which seems to be in constant development that I had been trying to keep cleaned up but my personal circumstances make it difficult for me to stay on top of this. If someone else would like to pitch in, that would be great. --JAXHERE | Talk13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved article here)It appears as though the development flurry has stopped on this, and it definitely needs a copyedit. However, it is a very long article and probably should be tackled in chunks, so I moved it here. Galena1114:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on the first half, but its in pretty rough shape. Will have to tackle the rest later. I finished the initial edit just because it has been here so long. However, it is un-sourced, has lots of extra material that shouldn't be there, and is generally not ready for a proof. I'll keep an eye on it and will re-list it if it gets better. Galena1104:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is to nominate this article for GAC and afterward for FAC. However, before doing this, some copy-editing should be done. Particulaerly the following things need attention:
This article has numerous spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammatical errors. I am doing all I can to copy-edit it, but I need all the help I can get. Thanks! --Stallions201018:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a large number of changes to punctuation, added some wiki links and deleted some redundant wiki links, and boldly fiddled with the prose. The truly big problem, which I could not fix, is lack of external support. The reference section needs to be re-worked in a consistent style, but before this can be done, many more citations need to be added. The proofreader who follows me will find plenty to do, but Lahore is an interesting place, and this article has good potential. Finetooth21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is any real crisis here. I'm just trying to help improve this article. It's a GA and I want to help make it the best it can possibly be, so if someone can come along and improve it any way that would be great. Quadzilla9902:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that I'm just not really qualified to edit this article...anyone with more interest in sports/athletes is free to have a go. Galena1119:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up to "Birth of modern Bathinda". After that is going to need some serious editing - the "for tourists" section needs tactful but comprehensive editing. Cricketgirl22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done proofread completed with minor changes.Gprince007 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)