Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2013

leaderboard

it's been 3 days now, and i haven't been placed on the leaderboard when i should've been there since day 1. is this some kind of personal attack? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hold your horses! I've done it for you this time, but please note the parenthesis immediately above the table, saying "(update your own numbers)". --Stfg (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh, i'm sorry. I guess i got used to the AfC buddy then. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a bot to do this automatically would be a small effort, but I think there are more pressing concerns for people who are capable of doing so... Something to remember tho. Mathijsvs (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:FoCuSandLeArN

I don't know what you guys want to do about it, but User:FoCuSandLeArN, the most prolific copy editor in this drive, is doing some pretty sloppy editing. I think all of his articles will be rechecked, but I've checked some of his recent ones below with some notes. I'll note that it's fairly late, so I'm not going through these with a fine toothed comb, I'm just grabbing what's blatantly obvious. Ryan Vesey 07:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Title of article not bolded in body, spelling of title not corrected in body, grammatical error introduced into second sentence
[2] Grammatical error introduced into the end of the demographics section, fairly clear grammatical error missed in the second paragraph of the lead, clarify template broken in the public schools section, many more obvious copy edits that he missed were fixed in these edits
[3] I can't see any blatant issues
[4] Possessive error in the first sentence, the which template in the first sentence of the history section isn't directly related to copy editing, but is disturbing because it was clearly the Russian Empire, grammatical error left in "Tsarist generals entered into negotiations with him and repeatedly offered him to join the service of Russia" grammar and spelling errors introduced/left in "Kizbech not only organized military campaigns, but showed courage and heroism. On January 30, 1830, with 4 thousand Highlanders, Kazbech and attacked Elizabethan village, but was defeated by a squad chieftain. In October 1838, he received seven serious wounds, and his sons were injured and eventfully died from the injures" "citati needed" template introduced.
[5] Blatantly incorrect notability tag added but not directly related to copyediting, comma splice left in lead
[6] No blatant issues, where template is inappropriate but not directly related to copyediting

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I will take a look at it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need any reviewing help? The random example I just looked at had some easy deletions made, but there wasn't a full effort made on the article body. That or the editor should brush up on style fundamentals. Dementia13 (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly some cause for concern here. I'd be interested to hear what the editor himself has to say here. Looking over his talk page, I'm not especially impressed with his responses to criticism, but hopefully we can have a more civil discussion here. Apologies if anyone wanted to keep this semi-secret, but I'm erring on the side of sunlight. --BDD (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with that, and I hoped it didn't appear that I was attempting to keep this semi-secret. He edited this page above so I was operating under the assumption that it was on his watchlist. Ryan Vesey 04:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, as this is the talk page of the drive page, which he has edited often, it may very probably be on his watchlist, but watchlist only shows the most recent edit, so a notification would always be desirable in cases like this. I would actually have emailed Torchiest rather than do this, to avoid the public embarrassment. --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! So much for public embarrassment! Anyway, a few clarifications are in order: 1) I've just bought a new keyboard and several typos (i.e. templates) might be due to that fact. I wouldn't intentionally place an incorrect one, and I might not have caught them upon checking the articles afterwards. 2) You can't honestly judge my copy editing by just one-sidedly sampling 6 articles, and as a corollary, you are intentionally extruding my faults without appreciating the good contributions I've made to those same articles you've mentioned, plus many others. 3) I am surprised nobody came up with any of this on the previous drive or during this one. This matter should have been addressed beforehand, and I find this inquisition quite intimidating, my unintentional wrongdoing notwithstanding. User Ryan Vesey has been anything but polite during his unjustified and adamant persuit of my public demoralisation, therefore if my work will be thouroughly judged I'd request he stay out of it, and experienced unbiased editors would step in to do so. Hope this helps. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Ryan Vesey has brought up a reasonable concern in a reasonable way. With a modicum of effort his insights should help improve your editing and the project. Criticism can be galling but it shouldn't be taken as a personal attack, and certainly not as an inquisition. A simple statement recognizing the errors and concerns (which you sort of started above) and effort to improve and all would be well, in my estimation. . Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If the six edits referred to above were the only bad ones you made (I can't say either way, having only reviewed your work at Cowboy Bebop, which was satisfactory), you still have hundreds of good edits. But you shouldn't have any bad edits. I have no desire to see you crucified over a new keyboard or anything, but could you address the edits Ryan brought forth directly? Do you think you deserve the credit for them? Do you stand by your work? --BDD (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I will look at the aforementioned edits and take the appropriate measures and meditate on what needs to be done. I just think Ryan Vesey didn't adequately approach the problem, with the amount of respect any editor deserves. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that this discussion is just about FoCuSandLeArN, it seems to me that the best place to have it would be on F&L's personal talk page. If we want to talk about how we, as the Guild of Copy Editors, want to create and maintain standards within our community (which is a conversation that I think we should have), should we move this to a more central location, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? Tdslk (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't revert anyone who wants to move the discussion or anything, but inasmuch as this is about FoCuSandLeArN's work in this drive, I think this location is as good as any. We'll at least spare him the bright orange alerts. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the next step is to review all of the copy edits individually, do you (GOCE coordinators/members) want my participation/assistance? I feel that FoCuSandLeArN's concerns with my reviewing capabilities are unfounded (I noted that there weren't copy editing problems in 2 of the 6 articles I reviewed above). If you feel that it is best if I step away from this aspect of his editing and let you deal with it, I am happy to oblige, but I would appreciate it if a record of the reviews is kept with information on which articles did or did not need fixing, at least while the review is going on. Perhaps a system like we used at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2012/June#Deathlaser wikification issues Ryan Vesey 23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting in my two cents here. I'm new to the GOCE and to these drives, but I have excellent facility with English grammar and punctuation, and I'm learning the ways of Wikipedia bit by bit. I looked at RyanVesey's list of comments above, and one question occurs to me: what is the standard for removing the copyedit tag? I'm sure that any experienced editor could find flaws in my copyedits, but I have no doubt that the articles I have edited (60+ in two drives so far) were in far better shape after my edits than before. Some of them may be in need of more editing, but they were so rough before I started that by the time I was done, making one more pass was just too daunting. I am satisfied to remove the copyedit tag when the article is readable and does not have any glaring errors, though I notice from watching my watchlist that I occasionally miss a simple spelling mistake or punctuation error. That's OK with me.

I put more emphasis on article readability and less emphasis on WP style issues like making sure items are spaced properly or using en/em dashes in exactly the right way. I am working on those things and improving as I go, but at some point, I am satisfied to remove the copyedit tag and get on with my life; we can't leave these articles tagged forever. I tend to ignore articles' other issues/tags, lest I get bogged down forever on one article.

So my questions, after that rambling introduction, are: Did FocusandLearn leave the articles much better than he/she found them? Are the errors noted above copyedit errors, errors of WP style, both, or neither? If the articles are noticeably better, I am proud to have that person as a fellow GOCE member. Should we try to be self-aware and ask for help when we might be a bit sloppy? Sure. For me, WP is all about incremental improvement over time. In that respect, it's just like real life. Jonesey95 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having looked at this, checked some articles, and read the comments here, especially Jonsey95's excellent remarks, I have an idea for a relatively simple solution, I hope. I will just take a 10% haircut on FoCuSandLeArN's totals for the drive, advise care in the future, and invite everyone who has participated in this discussion to assist in double checking the articles. Instead of trying to keep track of how many articles have how many problems, we can just look for major issues. Generally, F&L is fixing the serious problems, while some new errors are occasionally introduced as well, but leaving most articles in better shape than they were beforehand. I doubt anyone has a perfect record on their copy edits though. I have already checked the first four articles on his list and made a few quick corrections. Let me know if this is acceptable to everyone, and we can get back to improving the encyclopedia. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to endorse Jonesey95's comments, which I believe to be spot on. By the way, the standards we apply to requests should be higher than for tagged articles, and beginners here should hold back from requests until they have some experience and enough MOS knowlege, especially for FAC requests. But generally, for GOCE there is more work than workers to cover it. The important concept here is net improvement.

Ryan, I think things would be less tense if you would step back from the reviewing now. It's not a question of your language (or any other) skills, but your interaction with F&L has been quite heated (on his talk page as well), and I think you should let others take over the baton now.

Torchiest, good call. The piano tuner is coming this morning, but I'll review a few later today. --Stfg (talk)

I also think that's a fair judgment. It's not going to knock him off any of the leaderboards, recognizes his significant contributions, but also includes accountability for substandard edits. FoCuSandLeArN, what do you think? Does this sound fair? --BDD (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, if you find substandard edits to an extent that merits such a penalty. Four (finickity) specific points have come to light thus far. If you find more then fair enough, but if we're talking about 4 typos on less than 3% of the articles I've reviewed, then we should all turn in 10% of our word counts, because we all make "imperfect" and subjective edits. This isn't me trying to derail a conversation which should fall upon quality, nor is it about me not handling criticism (I'm very wary about my faults and errors, and you'll find I'm very active and have progressed enormously since I began editing quite recently), and least of all am I telling you that the GOCE doesn't deserve our very best; this is me telling you fellow editors that this whole affair and its underlying bureaucracy has most definitely put me off any further GOCE participation. Of course we're all accountable for our edits, but this extensive ridicule and red tape-laying is beyond my capacity. I know you're all well-wishers, so I'll leave you with a quote I like: "A man inherited a field in which was an accumulation of old stone, part of an older hall. Of the old stone some had already been used in building the house in which he actually lived, not far from the old house of his fathers. Of the rest he took some and built a tower. But his friends coming perceived at once (without troubling to climb the steps) that these stones had formerly belonged to a more ancient building. So they pushed the tower over, with no little labour, and in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions, or to discover whence the man's distant forefathers had obtained their building material. Some suspecting a deposit of coal under the soil began to dig for it, and forgot even the stones. They all said: 'This tower is most interesting.' But they also said (after pushing it over): 'What a muddle it is in!' And even the man's own descendants, who might have been expected to consider what he had been about, were heard to murmur: 'He is such an odd fellow! Imagine using these old stones just to build a nonsensical tower! Why did not he restore the old house? he had no sense of proportion.' But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea." - Tolkien. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now we can move on. Stfg, you said what I've been thinking; it was beginning to look like a vendetta on Ryan's part, detracting from what we all want to do (which is improve the encyclopedia). Every so often an editor loses sight of the big picture, but that's hardly a capital crime. All the best, Miniapolis 01:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of backlog status as of end of drive

I have uploaded a screen shot of the month-by-month category table to the Commons. I would like to add it to the drive page to archive the drive results (and next time we should take one at the start of the drive too, for comparison), but I am respecting the "do not edit" tag at the top of the page.

The image is here. I took this screen shot a minute or two after 0:00 UTC on 2013-04-01. Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add it. That proscription is mainly to prevent additional copy edits being added to totals after the fact. Thanks for doing that by the way. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]