Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/August 2011

Figures

Those figures seem low. If you tally up the total of articles for individual editors on the drive page we get over 500 articles edited. That would mean we have had 200+ tags added during the drive?

Is there anyway to check the category lists to see why/if/how that is happening? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This month, at least 430 articles were tagged as needing copy edit (see here). If you look at the chart on the main drive page again, you'll see that on several days, the number of articles in the backlog increased (July 5, up by 17; July 7, up by 2; July 8, up by 3; and July 15, up by 6). Hopefully this sheds a little light on the matter. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! That is a lot! 14.5 a day almost, too high methinks. Maybe we should look at whether the latest additions actually needed tagging? Also for the last three months I suppose. I will have a random sampling investigation for the July additions in a moment. (also Doh! for me not seeing that simple solution lol) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many newly-created articles are absolute rubbish and not worth working on at this point. Typically they do need copy editing, but many will not survive AFD and thus are not worth our while to deal with. In my experience it is better to work from the other end of the backlog. Occasionally there are exceptions: Catherine the Great is on the July 2011 list, for example. This is one that would be of interest to me, and it is an important article. --Dianna (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have a volunteer work at the more recent end of the backlog and sort out the workable and not workable articles? The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 18:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, --Dianna (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations results so far (conducted on 20 randomly chosen pages):

Accumulating Space Device (ASD)Y [AfD]
Aforcom fortheY Done (40) [AfD]
Angus, Thongs and Perfect SnoggingY
Blenko Glass CompanyY sort of, as it appears well written
Charrua Rugby ClubeY Done (183)
Convent of São Francisco (Vila_do_Porto)Y
ESWAT: City Under SiegeY Done (405)
Fantasy tropes and conventionsY sort of Done (1242)
Flashpoint (comics)Y
Gauri Shankar KalitaY Done (210)
History of Christianity in HungaryY
Imtiaz Alam HanfiY Done (434)
Toni-Leslie JamesY Done (349)
Kala-prayojanaY Done (944)
Koothuparamba firingY Done (257)
Marwa Fashion FlameY Done (173)
Napoleonic Wars casualties Y Done (250)
Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf: The Super Snail AdventureY Done (217)
Refrigerator carY
Starwood (nightclub)Y Done (364)

Y = accurate as far as needing a copyedit : Done = ce completed in 15 mins or less : [AfD] = Current Afd on the article

Conclusion - it seems that the placement of the tag was correct in all cases.

Of the two AfDs at least one is being greatly contested, one is not; one page (Marwa Fashion Flame) appears as if it should be deleted and may well be prodded soon.
11 were completed in under 15 mins each, many were 10 mins or so and two (Fantasy tropes and conventions + Imtiaz Alam Hanfi) were around or slightly over 20 mins each.
7 remain. These are fairly lengthy and require around an hour or more on each.

Quite an efficient couple of hours work really. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can use catscan to produce a list of articles under a certain size, that would probably do for a start. DO we have a template or category for "on hold" or similar? Chaosdruid (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that of the 20 articles listed above, three are gone. One has become a redirect and two have been deleted. So 15% of your work has been for naught. That is why it might be better to work on articles that have survived the deletion process --Dianna (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]