A short article on a locally well-known Spanish illustrator, written by a Spanish-language speaker. I've done my best, but I can't be sure about the results and would appreciate if someone would check.--Lionni19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a lot of work. From looking at the talk page the article appears to have been translated word for word by a non-native English speaker,leaving all sorts of very obvious grammatical errors. While I have already done a bit of work on this article, more help is needed. --Oneworld2502:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, OneWorld, and see if I can iron out the prose.--RedPen 5 July 2007
- quite an easy cp-ed, although I have small concerns about formality of tone. There's a concern on the talkpage that a regular contributor ought to fix soon. Ready for proof. Cricketgirl04:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited this article as best as I could, but I would really appreciate some proofreading. The Other Work section still seems weak, but I'm not sure how to polish it further. Thanks. Cygnus.ion01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
, now in peer review as a preliminary step prior to FAC. The article is in pretty good shape but could use an outside reader. Suggestion to enlist someone from the League of Copyeditors was made during peer review. Buddhipriya22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galena11 was doing a wonderful job on copyediting of Ganesha but she not been active since May. I hope all is well with her. If she is inactive, is there some process for getting another member of the League working with us on that article? Status is that peer review is completed and we are just waiting for completion of copyedit before going to FAC. The article is in good shape otherwise. Buddhipriya04:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this article is like the plague. No one wants to touch it and I don't think it's because the article is really good. Any help you can offer would be great. CJ13:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No plague. I did some tweaking of the lead and the later sections and some larger re-casting of the History section. I also added some comments to the article's Talk page. Proofing won't be hard. Finetooth19:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Proofed this, adding a number of comments for clarification. Still has major NPOV and referencing issues, but I think LoCE has done all it can. Cricketgirl20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- copyediting is finished....but a few sentences were confusing....maybe someone with subject knowledge can contribute...also it is not NPOV and also doesn't cite sources....Gprince00715:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Cranmer(edittalklinkshistory) Currently Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Cranmer, and seems to be stalled as of 13 August 2007 on copy editing concerns. The last reviewer said, Oppose until properly copy-edited. Then gave some examples. Those were corrected. Then the reviewer said, "Thanks for addressing those points, but they're only samples." So, it looks as if the article is stuck because of copy editing problems. The article has been copy-edited several times and the reviewers last comments are not helpful. If there are problems, we can't find them. We need fresh eyes. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate entry: I'm requesting this article be copy-edited in response to reasons raised in its FAC review, with one of the suggestions being to give it a copyedit for prose, et cetra. -- SECisek06:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the c/e on this, but had a lot of issues/questions with context that need fixing (see COPYEDITOR'S NOTES in hidden comments within the article text). Other than these, though, The issues have mostly been fixed, and it is ready for proof. Galena1118:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from talk page: I posted a request for proofreading on this article on this project's FAC/FAR section, but as I saw some older requests apparently still unattended, I'm echoing my request on this talk page. Any volunteering help would be truly appreciated! Thank you. Parutakupiutalk || contribs18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA article, hoping to go for FAC. Factually very good quality and comprehensive. Compotent fresh eyes would be great though. Merbabu15:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for proof. Note that this article uses UK English, so proper usage is "U2 are" (not "is"). I have a question on the talk page about the use of "group" and "band" as singular or plural.Galena1121:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
currently a GA; since I wrote nearly the entire article, it's sometimes hard to spot my errors in writing. Still looking for hard references for a possible future FAC nomination. PhoenixTwo19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently GA and in peer review, expanded and getting it ready for FA. General copy-edit for prose and grammar required and highly appreciated (bearing in mind the FA criteria). → AA(talk) — 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is close to completing its peer review and should be up for FAC soon. Could I please request it be looked at soon (pretty please?... :) TIA. → AA(talk) — 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A nicely referenced and well PR ed article. Need some little help in copy editing. Some issues regarding grammer and sentence arrangement has been put up in FAC. Help me, its urgentAmartyabagTALK2ME05:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate entry: now in peer review as a preliminary step prior to FAC. The article is in pretty good shape with no major issues left to answer, except copyedit. Suggestion is made to enlist it to the League of Copyeditors during peer review. Currently in GAC.Immediate attention needed. Maximum parts done, required better prose in some parts.AmartyabagTALK2ME10:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current featured article candidate in which all issues raised have been addressed with one reviewer suggesting "Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout by someone new to the article." I would be grateful for help as my editing has been described as "unidiomatic wording and weird turns of phrase" Thanks — Rodtalk09:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter and there's only so far someone like me could go, maybe some other folks have a better angle on it. --BrokenSphere04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, we can remove the general copyedit tag and replace it for individual sections, but this page still needs work from someone familiar with the subject. --Sigma 704:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the article to the best of my abilities. Some more info can be added in the Tribes section by someone familiar with the topic. However, I think we can move this for proofread.Gprince00709:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the section on "contemporary Persian literature" needs copyeditting. This section has been added after the article was promoted to GA status. The contemporary section has a lower quality than the rest of the article. Obviously the article is very important part of world literature and particularly Asian literature. Many thanks. Sangak16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect my question about the usage of Persian vs. Iranian applies to this article as well. (See "Science and technology in Iran", below) Galena1119:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sangak, Persian is the language used in the literature, and should always be referred to as such. In context as a nation, all references to the country prior to 1935 should be "Persia", 1935 and after should be "Iran". Galena1119:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I made a large number of small changes throughout and a small number of more substantial changes to the contemporary section. I piped many existing wiki-links that caused redirects without pipes. I caught a couple of the Iran/Persia mix-ups. I can't promise I caught everything. Someone with expert knowledge could no doubt do better with the contemporary section. Finetooth03:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Easy. Cricketgirl 09:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)