Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2014

Channing Tatum

Can someone take a quick look at this article and tell me what I'm missing? It's on the November 2012 backlog, but I can't find a {{copyedit}} tag anywhere and it looks pretty good to me. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 21:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article was tagged with {{awkward}}, which adds the article to the copy edit category, in this edit. It looks like the text in question was copied and pasted from somewhere else, though, because the {{when}} and {{awkward}} tags both have old dates on them. One could dig through the history to figure out what exactly is going on here, but it's probably easier to go to the linked source, find an appropriate way to phrase the sentence in question, and fix the problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't know that {{awkward}} gave us the article :-). Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 02:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

...and my aged eyes often miss those pesky inline tags :-). Miniapolis 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Vladimir Kvachkov

Just finished this copy edit to the best of my abilities, I would like a senior editor to check it for me. Page needs content editing as well, not just copy editing, it needs to be tagged to whatever project does that. Vladimir Kvachkov Peeteygirl (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job—thanks very much! Content editing can be done by any editor, although WikiProject Russia members may be able to help. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fendry Ekel

This just popped up with a tag from July 2012 (and was copyedited last March), but is being assiduously edited by a brand-new SPA so it's probably best to hold off (if, indeed, another copyedit is needed) until the dust settles. I removed the {{copyedit}} tag and will leave a {{GOCEreviewed}} tag (with explanation) on the talk page. With our article numbers going up rather than down, we're busy enough as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 20:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Johan Grimonprez

I've added references, sections, and consistency to this former one-source BLP, but in the process trimmed out a lot of the cruft. I'd appreciate someone giving this article a review. PaintedCarpet (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. I fixed a few minor problems with the copy with this series of edits. I marked two places with {{what}} where words appear to have been left out of sentences inadvertently. You may be able to insert the correct words based on your knowledge of the article's history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I went back and fixed the tagged sections; the prose should be clear now. PaintedCarpet (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Magic numbers

Even though we have logged new 288 articles in January, and the tallies only show ~160 cleared, the backlog is way down. Is someone hitting and not logging shorties as I have sometimes done? Lfstevens (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I figured it was you, Lfstevens, but I hadn't poked through your file cabinet to look at your contributions (this time). This is where it would be useful to have a Watchlist-style feature that notified me when a category gained or lost an article. Do we have a reasonable way to do that? When I have been really curious, I have taken category-list screen shots or made copy-paste text files of article lists, then gone back later to figure out which ones are missing by doing a manual comparison. I could then find the missing article and see who had worked on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, June 2013 is way down compared to the end of November. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed and removed the tags on a half--dozen or so articles, in addition to the ones I've copy edited. I've been focusing on the January tags, and reviewing/removing tags on articles that are usually too short or gibberish-y. PaintedCarpet (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request Articles category on Leaderboard?

Idea: to help motivate efforts to reduce the backlog on the GOCE Requests page during the Backlog Elimination Drives, what do you think about adding a "Request Articles" category to the Leaderboard, say, below the "Oldest Articles" category, since Request articles are included in the 50% bonus score anyway? Just a thought ... JudyCS (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and I'd be willing to try it in March. My only minor concern is that Requests usually require copy editors with some Wikipedia experience and familiarity with things like the MOS and GA/FA criteria, since the articles are often up for evaluation under criteria specific to WP. Maybe a short guide on copy-editing Requests, with links to things like the Good Article criteria, would be useful.

Other thoughts? If there are no objections and I forget about it when I set up the March drive, please remind me here or on the March drive Talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the reasons we haven't done this recently are those that Jonesey raises: a concern that it would draw editors to the requests before they are ready for them. Whether that concern is justified or not, I don't know. We have occasionally had to ask editors not to do requests, and to strike "done" declarations, because of poor work, but that's probably needed anyway and the 50% bonus for requests already makes doing them attractive. I see no strong argument against it. Jonesey, I like your idea for a short guide. --Stfg (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Last call

The January copy editing drive ends in less than an hour. Please make any final edits to your article lists and the leaderboard (it is not updated automatically) in the next 12 hours or so. Barnstars will be distributed in the next few days. Thanks to everyone who participated; we did a great job of cutting the backlog. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)