Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2017

Lowest starting count ever

Not to jinx it, but an even 1600 is the lowest the backlog has ever been at the start of a drive. If we reduce it by at least 213 articles this month, it will be the lowest it's ever been at the end of a drive! Let's go, team! Tdslk (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit review request

This is my first elimination drive so I want to make sure my copy-edits are being done correctly. Here is the article I have just finished copy-editing (Hugo_(game_show)), please let me know if I should do anything else to it before I remove the tag and say it's completed. Thank you in advance. Karthanitesh (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karthanitesh, Great job! I made a few additional changes, mostly for punctuation and to remove peacock terms. Go ahead and remove the tag! Tdslk (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Tdslk. Karthanitesh (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional, unclear article fully copy edited?

Hi! I just copy edited Sarah Harrison (singer). However, it is still full of unclear (tagged) information, as well as a lot of promotional content. Please let me know if it counts as having been copy edited or not. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that promotional text falls within the "tone" portion of "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling", but maybe I just enjoy scrubbing it off Wikipedia! I made some additional copy edits to the article for tone and grammar, but I'd say you can go ahead and count it. Tdslk (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tdslk: Thanks for the copy editing! I think that we should split the article count 50/50, since you copy edited it at least as much as I did. I'll tack 356.5 words onto each of our word counts with a link to this discussion, so that other editors will understand why both of us completed the article (and why it had only half a word). Thanks again! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks, Noah! Tdslk (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect copy edit template dates being used

I was surprised to see such a large increase in the number of extant articles tagged as needing copy edits today, but what really surprised me was seeing that March 2017 was at 224 articles, since I had noticed that with the exception of June 2017, which was over 300, all of the prior months were under 200 articles. Old months should not be increasing, and certainly not by dozens of articles.

I took a look through the articles tagged with March 2017, and discovered one with that date that had been added on July 10. And then several more, to the point where there were dozens. All of these new copy edit templates were placed by User:Punyaboy.

But not only were new articles being tagged with March 2017 instead of the proper July 2017, but articles previously tagged were have their months changed. Between 07:41 and 08:00, eight articles were shifted from April 2017 to March 2017, followed by ten articles shifted from May 2017 to March 2017. Back on July 6, another eight articles were shifted from May 2017 to April 2017, and some of these were originally added in June 2017, and should have started with that date, not May 2017. One example of this is Rail transport in India, which was initially added (in this case on June 14) with an incorrect "May 2017" date, but was adjusted July 6 to seem even earlier with an "April 2017" date. And there were earlier cases of articles being originally tagged with the wrong month.

I have no idea what GOCE policy is regarding incorrect tagging in general, much less on this scale. I have already posted a notice about this at User talk:Punyaboy#Making requests using the "copy edit" template, though I hadn't discovered as much as I have at this point about the tagging issues, and there may be more.

For now, I'm going to concentrate on correcting or reverting all of the invalid dates to accurate ones. Please ping me if there's something else I should be doing. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In at least two instances, editors have challenged the necessity of the added templates and removed them—at Medium-capacity rail transport system and Plateway. Another was removed after very minor article edits. I've got about a dozen more articles to check before I'm done. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. Let's see what the editor making these apparently erroneous edits says. In the meantime, I have boldly removed the "date" instructions from the template's documentation, since the bot that adds the date works perfectly. Comments are welcome if you think I was too bold. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, if the editor hasn't said anything by now, I doubt anything is going to be said on the matter. In the past 24 hours, a new bunch of 13 articles have been templated, but they were all done with the plain undated "copy edit" template, to which the bot later added "July 2017". In the middle of these, Tdslk removed a number of them as not needing a copy edit, and posted accordingly on their talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset is correct. There are a number of basic train-related articles that have been tagged for copy editing by one user. Looking them over, they seem to be in decent to quite good shape, so I've been removing the tags with no or minimal copy edits. This relates to what I said in the coordinator elections, about tags being an imperfect metric of which articles truly need copy editing. The train articles I reviewed were not only not in the bottom 1.5 thousand articles on Wikipedia, but probably not even in the bottom half of all articles. I'd say the Guild's time would be better spent if we remove tags from articles that don't really need them. (Practically all articles have something that could be fixed, but if we added the tag to all of those, it would cease to be useful.) I haven't finished reviewing the train articles, so other Guild members should feel welcome to pitch in. I haven't been adding these towards my drive totals, as they don't seem to really count, but it does help the overall number of tagged articles to go down! Tdslk (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tdslk, another nine train-related articles were tagged today by this editor; it's why today's total number will go backwards instead of breaking the lowest number of articles ever barrier tonight. They did finally post a reply to you on their talk page, though. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BlueMoonset. I left another comment on the user's talk page since they didn't engage with my point in my first comment. The major public transportation articles all seem to be in good shape. I do a quick skim and if nothing egregious jumps out I remove the tags. I would recommend that others do the same. Tdslk (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need some copy-editing help

I am currently working on the Expulsion of Chileans from Bolivia and Peru in 1879 and I have come to a part where the original author used a translated quote from a Chilean historian. The problem was that the translated quote was grammatically incorrect. As a result, I used square brackets ([]) to make edits to the quote so it is grammatically correct but it looks a bit awkward. Is there a better way to utilize this quote because I believe that it adds to the article? Also, I should mention that I do not know Spanish and the citation (4th one in the entire article in the section titled "Chilean works in Peru and Bolivia") next to the quote has the original Spanish version of the quote so if someone could give me a better translation, that would also work. Thanks! -Karthanitesh (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:PMC, since the translation isn't credited I think you can just clean up the grammar and remove the square brackets. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 15:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks so much. Karthanitesh (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few templates removed prematurely

I noticed that a new editor, Kasc1996 removed copy edit templates from some pages. I left brief note on the editor's talk page regarding this and invited them to check out the Guild, and have begun going through the affected articles, doing additional copyedit where needed (and adding them to my drive list as appropriate). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Reidgreg. Although I remove the {{copyedit}} when when beginning a copyedit (after checking the history to see if someone else is working on it, a useful tip I learned from Stfg), we should only be working on one article at a time. All the best, Miniapolis 21:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new account with 16 edits, 12 of which include removing maintenance templates (also, in a 12-hour period). I believe the editor was making legitimate copy edits, but wasn't thorough enough to remove the templates. I hope I wasn't bitey – I try to encourage new editors to make small edits while learning how The Project works. Hopefully I haven't scared them off. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about being bitey in this case; someone who's that single-minded right from the get-go may not be as new as they seem. All the best, Miniapolis 22:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty Reduction Strategy in Honduras

Poverty Reduction Strategy in Honduras just showed up in the July 2016 category, which had previously been eliminated. It looks like an editor inadvertently removed the copy edit tag in December, and another editor correctly restored the tag today. This article will count as an "old article" for this drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Question

Just wondering if there is any thught being given to adding articles tagged for c/e in December and July requests to the cueednt drive? There are only a few old articles still to do and most of the June requests are either done or underway. Thanks.Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm a bit concerned about the quality of the copyediting; it's strange that the backlog is being reduced this quickly. All the best, Miniapolis 22:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twofingered Typist: There's nothing to change about the Requests page articles; all months are already eligible for the bonus. I would support adding December to the "old articles" bonus category once we've cleared out the earlier months, as we've done when this has happened in the past. Miniapolis: Have you done any spot checks of copy edited articles? The Reviewer component of the drives has been mostly dormant lately, but it might be good to revive it. Tdslk (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tdslk: No, I haven't reviewed the copyedits and don't want to; although previous coordinators have done so, I prefer the honor system. It's just that I know how much time I spend on good-faith copyediting (the barnstars and what-not got old fast), and I'm seeing numbers—in articles and word counts—that don't seem realistic. I hope we're not losing sight of our purpose (to improve the encyclopedia) with the drives and, particularly, the blitzes. All the best, Miniapolis 23:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tdslk: Actually the July requests aren't included in the drive's instructions, but that's fine, I'll carry on anyway. Miniapolis I assure you that every edit I'm making on WP is my attempt to improve it as the hours I spend doing so should make clear - over 11 to edit a GOCE request - a 10,000+ word article on a hockey team, for example. Cheers. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twofingered Typist: Perhaps another coordinator can weigh in here, but I've always read the directions as giving a 50% bonus for any Requests article, regardless of month. It's true that one of our stated goals is to clear the requests from June, but that doesn't mean people can't also work on Requests articles from July. Tdslk (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome a check on my copy edits, but I know a thorough check takes as much time as doing the article over again. I don't suppose Twofingered Typist and Lfstevens would consider going with myself and checking one or two articles from each other? The three of us are responsible for half of the old articles completed, and it wouldn't be bad to verify our quality. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reidgreg and Lfstevens I just went through a shortish article each of you edited and apart from two very minor wording tweaks found no issues with the quality of your edits - nor did I expect to. You are both welcome to check any of my edits anytime you wish. As a regular editor of GOCE requests, I think if there was an issue with the quality of my edits I'd have heard about it. Like Miniapolis I also prefer the honour system. I'm here to edit and improve WP - not to supervise. CheersTwofingered Typist (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively inexperienced editors, on the other hand, probably would welcome feedback as to whether they are copy-editing up to par, if well-intentioned (and need to be spotted if not). Dhtwiki (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly picked and checked Subcomandante Marcos from Twofingered Typist, which I know was a tough one. There was a fair amount of repetition in the multiple sections covering the Zapatista Crisis, but that's probably more layout work than copyediting. The prose was good. From Lfstevens, I picked three articles (since they were small) and found one awkward sentence, plus a bit of cleanup. (Could maybe watch dashes, spaces/puctuation at quotes/refs/inline maintenance tags, and the occassional acronym.) – Reidgreg (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! Lfstevens (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Eschatology

I've been working on this article for a little while now and although there is a lot to be done copyedit wise, I've also come to agree entirely with the rewrite tag on it. Unfortunately I don't think I have the expertise in the subject matter to do anything more than add a note on the talk page. But I'm not sure how to proceed with the copyedit tag—is it worthwhile to put it back on the page (I took it off to avoid confusion with other editors working in the drive) given that hopefully any copyedit will be pointless because the whole article will get rewritten? Moreover, should I continue my edit for grammar and consistent style when I don't think very much of the content belongs on the page to begin with? Thanks! Mehmuffin (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd see it through and take the credit; I'm mired in Iglesias, Sardinia at the moment myself :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Low backlog = more months with extra credit?

Hi! I noticed that the part of the backlog covered by the drive is amazingly low, with only 7 articles left! Stupendous job, everyone!

Since there are only 7 articles left, and there are another 12 days left to go, can December 2016 articles be counted as Oldest articles, giving people who completely copy edit them an extra 50% tacked on to their word count?

Please let me know what you think of this suggestion.

Again, great work, everyone!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Noah. TFT asked the same question above! We've done this before, and I think it would make sense. Do any other coordinators have any objections? Tdslk (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last time an extra month was added was in January 2017, and it wasn't needed until January 22 (January 21 ended with 6 articles left, just like July 19 has just done). Not adding an extra month now would effectively end the current drive's extra encouragement to review the oldest articles eleven or twelve days early, which would be a shame. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Others may not agree, but when an extra month is added before the final month is cleaned out the last few articles in the old month languish; I know this because I often end up finishing them, and they're a lot of work. Let's finish November before we add December. Miniapolis 13:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair's fair. Gotta eat your veggies before you can have dessert. (If these last couple are too tough, maybe check-over the work you've already done for anything you might have missed?) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've just taken the last November article, I took the liberty of opening December for business :-). All the best, Miniapolis 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: Thanks for making December articles count for the drive! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 18:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who worked on, and are presently working on, those last tough articles from October and November! – Reidgreg (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work to the old article crew! Enjoy your bonus month. Tdslk (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, everyone. I fully support the reasoning used here (i.e. eat your veggies, etc.). I have been busy IRL, but I have been lurking daily and sneaking in a copy-edit here and there. I appreciate all of you and your efforts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help Requested for reviewing my work

I just copy-edited one article and recorded it's completion of copy editing under my progress for the current back-log elimination drive.I have also removed this tag

from that article. I request some experienced editor to review my work and see if it is correct or really complete. also, I did not understand clearly as to when do I put *R in the articles list whom I have completed copy-editing. ( I have put *R on my completed article because I took it from "All Articles" list of GOCE). Please give me a link to the page of GOCE with copy editing requests so that I know that I can put *R in these articles when I complete any one of them.Thanks. Red Pen (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the requests page. It should be in the tabs at the top of most GOCE WikiProject pages. (BTW, your username caused me a little confusion. Perhaps you should state it as it appears in the page histories (ie, Vr parashar) instead of a custom signature that doesn't look like a custom signature?) The *R is only for articles that appear on the requests page. I'll take a look at your copy edit now. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the article could use more work. I've left some specific notes on your talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir for providing valuable time for reviewing my work and guiding my progress.Thank you and I will take note of your points and try my best to improve. Ok I will work on that article further to improve copy-editing there. Thanks. :) And sorry to confuse you sir with my custom signature Haha :D but I suppose I will be using this only in future also. Thanks for your help. :) Red Pen (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing articles

Unknowingly, I have been editing and taking credit for articles that some of you were already working on. That is not my intent, and I apologize for the mess. My general practice is that when I edit an article, I begin by removing the copyedit tag from the article, unless I see a GOCEinuse tag there. In that way I hoped to avoid having others start working on the article after I do. If others were to do the same, I'd know not to start even if the article showed up on my most recent search. In any event, I'll try to be more careful. Thanks for all your hard work. Lfstevens (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I learned from Stfg to do the same (after checking the history). Used to use {{GOCEinuse}}, but it seemed like every time I came up for air it would be removed :-). Great work on the drive, all. Miniapolis 13:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've always removed the tag last, but I think you make a good point, so I'll switch to removing the tag first. Tdslk (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another good check is the article's page history. If you recognize a copy editor's name or see copyediting in the summary for the drive month, there may be a potential conflict. It's usually easy enough to compare against the list of editors signed-up for the drive. Most old articles won't have a lot of edits for the most-recent month – but if they do, that may tell you if the article isn't stable enough for copyedit (i.e., if it's undergoing frequent revisions, copyedit may not be appropriate). – Reidgreg (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: please be aware that Seraphim System is already working on Topkapı Palace. This is the second time that an experienced copy editor has jumped on this in-progress copyedit. We shoud be better than that. Also, I think there may be an issue of conflicting instructions:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to#Removal of copy edit tag says to remove the tag only After you have completed a major copy edit (emphasis added).
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives#Instructions for participants says Copy edit the article. Remove any extant {{copy edit}} tags when you've finished.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2017#Totals says to remove the {{copy edit}} tag two bullet points above Place the article you are editing on the {{Working}} line.

I understand that the non-drive instruction (1) has to be different, because there's no safety mechanism to get the tag back onto an abandoned article. But instructions 2 and 3 should be consistent (also, technically, some of these instructions should be in numbered lists as bulleted lists do not have an inherent order of steps). I welcome any thoughts on this. It's happened several times this month and we really need to clear this up. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "being better than that" I simply did not notice this was already being worked on. Plain and simple. I always remove the copy edit tag when I start an article to avoid just this sort of oversight. I shall continue to do so. I will be extra careful not to "steal" (not my words). This is the first time in my experience that this has happened to me. Thanks for pointing it out.Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm someone who prematurely removes copyedit templates from an article on the backlogged list because that prevents people searching the list for articles to copy-edit from wasting time looking at an article that's already taken. So, the instructions should account for the value of doing that. Note that when I remove the copyedit template prematurely, I say that I'm doing just that in my edit summary, in case, for some strange reason, I never get back to the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually state "beginning copyedit" (with no abbreviations) in my edit summary when removing the tag, so those reading it will know I intend to work on the article. About "being better", I just feel with the large number of volunteer-hours we're putting into this, and the attention-to-detail applied to copyediting, it seems that we could be just as thorough in checking for conflicts like this. (Plus, you know, copyediting across the series of instruction pages.) I apologize to those involved; I knew there was an issue but thought I could address it after the drive was over. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reiterate that an article should only be "claimed" for a drive or blitz (whether or not {{Copy edit}} is removed at that time) after the history is checked for ongoing work by a drive (or blitz) participant; I was going to tweak the instructions cited above to reflect current conditions, but don't want to encourage gaming the system with the mass removal of tags before cosmetic changes. IMO, this drive is getting a bit overheated and we seem to be losing sight of the object of the game: improving the encyclopedia. FWIW, the barnstars and leaderboard awards get old after a while. All the best, Miniapolis 13:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July drive: 24 hours and 3 goals to go

There's almost 24 hours left in the drive, and there are 3 goals within reach:

10 copy edit requests from November 2016 (1) and December 2016 (9) remain
May 2017 on Requests page has one unclaimed request
June 2017 on Requests page has one unclaimed request

Barring a last-minute flurry of new copy edit templates being added to pages, this drive will end with the lowest post-drive total of outstanding requests ever. Congratulations! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List cleanup

FYI, I quickly went over the article lists and added a *O for several articles from December which were copyedited before December was added to the "old article" months. With the possible exception of some strikethrough on a Working line, I don't believe there's anything that will break the drive script. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I won't have time to run the script until August 7. If someone wants to take on the barnstars before then, you are welcome. You can see how it is done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2017/Barnstars. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]