Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2014

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Principality of Nitra

Dear User:Baffle gab1978, I appreciate your hard work. I can now enjoy reading the text. :) Borsoka (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries; because I c/e'd in November I didn't have to make many changes, and I wanted a quickie for the drive. ;-) Good luck with your GA nom, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This blitzes business is weird

Now we are at it again. These Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2014 business is making users do short and incomplete copy-editing like in the case of Murder of Sherri Rasmussen. Not that the article needed major work but two small edits, come on we all know the article probably needed more work. Either do your work as you yourself has assigned to do or do not do at all. Just being frank. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why would the "blitz" format make you do work other than in the normal way? Regardless of whether or not its the month long backlog format, or during periods when there are no "contests", the effort should be the same, no? Onel5969 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Excuse me? I did my best to look over that article. If little changed, then it's very likely little even needed to change. Perhaps the article has other needs, needs that a copyedit cannot address. You yourself say the article may not necessarily have needed "major work", but I didn't see anything glaring about the article. I checked over it, and being a stickler for grammar myself I didn't see much that even needed improvement. I have some pretty high standards for grammar if I do say so myself, and if there's anything that needs fixing that I overlooked and should not have, WP:SOFIXIT. Turning it over to the Guild of Copy Editors isn't an excuse for not doing anything yourself, it's just a second pair of eyes looking over your work. My apology is only to cover the fact that there were sentences in there that weren't even coherent to me (I know there was at least one) so I did my best to fill in the missing words; all I asked is that if you found any such instances that resulted in a change of meaning from the facts then please fix it as soon as you can to avoid anyone from being misled by the article. It is as I see it a sensitive subject where errors are not to be taken lightly and anything that inadvertently changes the meaning of a sentence from what was intended to something entirely different needs to be addressed right away. If in the end I did no such thing, then okay, I'm glad. I just figured since you nommed it here, you had some expertise in the subject and you'd be able to help me out in that regard, fixing what I accidentally broke but doing so in a grammatically-sound way.

You're welcome, by the way. Sorry I tried. Lazy Bastard Guy 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have found that some Requests require much less copy editing than a typical article tagged with {{copyedit}}. The latter usually means that someone found the text so challenging that they didn't just fix it. The former is often an article that has been worked on with care. I read about eight random paragraphs from the current version of the article mentioned above and found them to be surprisingly well-written, well above the usual WP fare.

It's not always true that Requests are better-written, but that has been my experience. Some Requests require very few copy edits. Editors are welcome to do more than copy editing, like removing puffery, fixing formatting, adding {{convert}} to numbers with units, and formatting references, but none of that that is required.

BabbaQ, specificity, rather than generic "we all know" statements, would help. If you find examples of needed copy editing that were missed in this article, I encourage you to fix them yourself or post examples here, in a friendly, constructive way. Maybe we can all learn from each other and become more thorough copy editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Phew, okay, I've calmed down a bit. I'm sorry if I was a bit snippy with my initial response above. I'm still a little irritated by what I feel to be BabbaQ's implication, and for the moment it's put me off further copyediting, but hopefully we can work it out. If there's nothing to fix, one cannot prove there remains something to be fixed. I'm in a better mood and would like to hear how the copyedit was, in your view (and I quote from my talk page), "anything but complete". Lazy Bastard Guy 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Beta editor - adding 1400+ spaces without notifying me?

Is there some facet of the "Beta editor" that has made it into a semi-autonomous editor? I made a little change, trying to place a date in a sentence, and simply moved "in 19XX" to an earlier place in the sentence, and changed "he joined" to "joining".

When I looked at the edit history, I was amazed that it was telling me I had added 1,459 characters!! It seems that while I was moving the text around, something or someone added lots of spaces to the punctuation of the refs ... has it always done this? Should it be doing this? I am reluctant to ever use this beta feature again if it really is doing things and making changes I have no idea about, and then telling the world that I did it - not good! Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

From your diff it looks as though the visual editor has added a lot of spaces to the article in citations etc. I'd stick to the trusty edit window if I were you! ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll pursue the matter through the beta editor pages, just wanted to see if someone else had noticed anything similar, and to let ppl know. I guess it won't cause too much of an issue on larger edits, or on wikimarkup - as the beta editor stops the edit and forces into normal editing mode if it detects changes to wikimarkup, such as refs or links etc.

When changing a single punc. mark, or a couple of words, it is easier to use the beta, and as it is live, one does not need to preview, as it is changed live in front of your eyes ... ah well, I guess they did not cover that eventuality. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an issue with the VisEd Beta and {{sfn| & {{sfnm| templates. Further info - (MediaWiki) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Impressed

The current total of 35 requests is the lowest I've ever seen. Great job on the blitz, everyone! --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Great use of sarcasm there ... lets try and keep things positive, perhaps a little spin? "35 requests, although disappointing, has allowed us to see areas in which we can improve." - nah, not working ...

I will be returning more over the next few months as my RL commitment level drops off and I can get back to GOCE again, it has been an annoying period of abstinence. I did join a little late in this one, but every little helps and 35 is better than none :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What was that all about? I wasn't being sarcastic, and the number of requests genuinely is the lowest I've seen. It's great that the Guild is keeping on top of the backlog. Not so long ago, it was around twice as big. --Stfg (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am impressed as well (no sarcasm here, and I didn't perceive any in Stfg's post). It was a great blitz. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Apologies, I guess you meant "total of 35 requests left", rather than "35 completed". Chaosdruid (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes, I meant ~~that~~ the former. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline Silent Spring?

Onel5969 is concerned here and here that this article has problems, including POV and uncited text, that need fixing before a proper copy-edit can occur. I agree with his/her assessment and I think we should decline the request. GOCE is not Cleanup. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I will defer to the judgement of these two editors. I suggest notifying the requester with an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's OK I'll take the request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sally Kellerman

May I please request someone to copy/edit the article on Sally Kellerman, that I have worked tremendously hard on. I am trying to make her article meet GA standards. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Avario87 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will move your request to the Requests page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Template for abandoned requests

I've made a template to use when requests appear to have been abandoned. I've mainly done this to save myself typing the whole text out every time, and to make life easier for coordinators and our successors. It's currently at my sandbox and I plan to move it to Template:GOCEce-abandoned when it's ready (other suggestions welcome). Please can you check that the text and parameters are correct and appropriate? Feel free to edit the draft template as appropriate; I think the text is a little long-winded but I couldn't think of a better way to request updates. If you can improve the text and/or the parameters please do so. All comments are welcome; thanks. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it reads very well. I inserted a space between the text and the signature, and this shows up all right in the Cheese example on the documentation page itself, but not on the template page where the documentation is transcluded (even after clearing the cache). I'm puzzled about that. Anyway, great idea. --Stfg (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Simon; I haven't found the problem you describe—perhaps your space has fixed it. I found that the section divider added by the template did not include an 'edit' link; I've no idea why this should happen but I've removed the sectioning script and it appears to function well. I've also simplified the text and removed the sentence "This message is a request for an update on the progress of your copy-edit", which is redundant and stating the obvious IMO. The template's text should be clearer now; maybe I should request a thorough copy-edit just to make sure! :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hehe. It looks good. Whatever was stopping it this morning, the space in the cheese example (Emmental, maybe?) is present now. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Simon; I've now moved it to template space at Template:GOCE-ab—I thought I'd make its name shorter and easier to remember. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the above template is less adaptable than i'd wanted so I've created a template based on the above one; it's for instances where the copy-editor has made no edits to the article. It's at {{GOCE-ab-noedits}} and I've added it to our templates page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack Parsons & absence

Hi all

Apologies for my absence, had an abscess come up on my neck after an insect bite, recovered(ish) now, so back to it tonight or tomorrow. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. Glad you're on the mend. Take care and all the best, Miniapolis 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

RL drama over, copyedit finished - apologies for the delays. An interesting read indeed! Have asked for a coordinator to give it a look over due to it being the first big CE after a fairly long break, and have marked as done on the req list. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Béla the Blind

Baffle gab1978, thank you for your thorough and bold copyedit on the article about an unhappy Hungarian monarch. Sorry for the stupid mistakes I made, I must concentrate in the future. I hope this will be our next GA in a couple of weeks. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries; anyone can make typing mistakes—I make them on-wiki quite often. Good luck with the GA nom. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Sloviansk

Although I jumped at the chance to take a break from pop culture, IMO this article (formerly Sloviansk standoff) is much too unstable for a copyedit at this time. All the best, Miniapolis 23:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A clear decline, without prejudice to future resubmission when the article is more stable. Any copy edits we might do now would be wiped out in short order. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; the article describes ongoing events and is massively unstable. I'll ~~inform the requester~~ and archive (Miniapolis has already informed her/him; thanks :-)). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving, Baffle, and I appreciate the second (and third) opinions. All the best, Miniapolis 17:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Pipe industry of Russia

I'd like to suggest that we now remove this request. User:Jaytwist did some nice cleanup on it back on 28 April, and I've just fixed the format of the citations. There remains plenty to do on the article, yes, but I think what it needs right now is scoping, expansion and better sourcing, not copy editing. I rather agree with what User:LukasMatt said on the article's talk page about the article, and those comments can be used by article developers in future. Imo the more personal aspects of those comments are very unfortunate -- we are here to help.

May I suggest that in future we avoid de-tagging tagged articles and adding them to the requests. The main effect is to bump them up the priority at the expense of other articles. The purpose of the requests is for us to help those editors who are putting effort into articles and want help with prose, not to become an article rescue facility. In fact I'd like to propose that we systematically decline requests for articles from people who have neither worked on the article nor indicated any intention to advance the article themselves. --Stfg (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What "personal aspects"? Quotations, please. I wrote those comments to provide helpful guidance to the author.

--LukasMatt (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, Stfg, your remarks are perfectly on the mark. I appreciate your support.

--LukasMatt (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've refactored so that my comment isn't broken up. An example of "personal aspects": "I do not think the authors have put sufficient effort into it". And, especially in the context of that opener, things like "You must test every external link in an article. If you find an error, you must make an effort to fix it.", while obviously sound, can come across as critical and bossy when phrased like that. "You make a good effort (though overzealous [smiley] )", in the context of these criticisms, is patronizing. As I said, I agree with the advice, but when we make such points in the second person, tone becomes vital. The creator of the article has a Russian username. I don't know his level of English-language or wiki skills, but I think he was making a contribution, and we could be gentle about skills.

By the way, it's unusual to put {{GOCEreviewed}} on the talk page of an article for which there's a request; more normal to discuss directly with the requester. By and large, GOCEreviewed is for when we decide, for whatever reason, to remove a copyedit tag without copy editing. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must disagree. As an active GOCE member for over three years, I have never seen an editor raked over the coals like this simply for submitting a copyedit request. Stfg, you're probably unaware of this rant, which IMO (combined with this) has a chilling effect on the whole request process. I, for one, do not like being bullied, and the requesting editor is doing more for the GOCE than LukasMatt is. Miniapolis 20:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I must have miscommunicated somehow, Anne. Apologies if so. To be clear, I agree with what you just said. --Stfg (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A process comment from the lead coordinator of the GOCE (that's me): rejecting a copy edit Request should be done only after discussion on this Requests Talk page and confirmation from one or more of the GOCE coordinators. A lone editor, even a GOCE coordinator or other very experienced editor, should not make that decision unilaterally.

We have rejected some copy edits in the past few months after reasoned discussion on this page. We have also accepted and copy-edited articles whose rejection was proposed, or found some middle way involving future resubmission by the requesting editor.

LukasMatt and other copy editors, in the future please post any queries about specific article requests on this page. I always find it helpful to bounce ideas off of my fellow copy editors (a good and constructive group, by and large), especially when I'm feeling like posting a rant somewhere.

As for this particular article, I propose rejecting it as a Request, re-tagging it with the copyedit tag, and adding some additional constructive comments and links to sources or example articles to the Talk page. I would appreciate hearing feedback on this proposal from Baffle gab1978 (GOCE coordinator) and Dthomsen8 (the requester). – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the request should be declined; the article has only two references and is subject to further development, making a full c/e pointless. FWIW I've given it a quick c/e and add appropriate tags. GOCE isn't Cleanup. I hope that will be satisfactory to everyone here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Pipe industry of Russia

(moved from Reqests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)) This is an important article being threatened with AfD deletion, but the decision was Keep. It has a Copyedit tag, which I will remove to conform to the instructions above. This is the first time I have made a request here, so please let me know if there is anything improper about this request.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Working LukasMatt (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done ~~LukasMatt (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)~~

Not done (yet :-)); please see my talk page. Miniapolis 13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And I don't think it needs it. Please see the talk page. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've done a quick cleanup c/e; I second decline. See my talk page comments (above link). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Exception for nominating featured articles

Hello. Am I allowed to nominate Metallica for copy-editing, although it is an FA? I've checked the prose and tried to correct some issues, but I'll definitely need help from a member of the project. The article is in really bad shape, and since I don't want to open a reassessment, the article would benefit from some copy editing.--Retrohead (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The one you've nominated has been an FA for over 6 years, and the prose in FAs does tend to degrade over time. Getting it brushed up is a very useful thing to do. I wouldn't even call this an exception. --Stfg (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Rules of the Game

I accepted this article for copyediting because it was next on the list, not realizing that it was the subject of an edit war between the nominator and Beyond My Ken, who claims "stewardship" (a euphemism for ownership) and reverted with a keystroke a couple of hours of painstaking copyediting. Therefore, I'm done with this one; if anyone else feels up to this hornets' nest, good luck. All the best, Miniapolis 13:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I am quite surprised that, as an admin. you are not familiar with the concept of "stewardship", since it is embodied at WP:STEWARDSHIP, a section of the ownership policy page. It is not a euphemism, but a real relationship with an article of a different nature than ownership. However, it does, unfortunately, require a certain amount of good judgement to differentiate between the two. BMK (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As an admin, I'm quite familiar with the difference between stewardship and ownership. Stewardship acknowledges collaboration; when "stewardship" exerts a chilling influence on other editors (get my approval for all edits, or I'll revert), it becomes ownership. Reversion of good-faith edits should be based not on IDONTLIKEIT, but on policy. Miniapolis 15:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has seen lots of activity in the last 24 hours—including some tit-for-tat reversions that indicate an ongoing edit war (or skirmish at least). I've put the request On hold; shall we wait a week to see whether the dispute is settled? If the edit-war continues after the week, I agree we should decline it as unstable. Anyone else? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deoliveirafan and Beyond My Ken and Howunusual: I am mentioning you here because you have made recent edits to this article. The Guild of Copy Editors prefers to take copy edit requests on articles that are stable enough that thorough copy editing will have a positive, somewhat long-lasting effect on the article. If you can discuss and agree on the article's Talk page (not on this page; off-topic discussion posted here will be removed) that you are willing to take a break from the article, we will be happy to come back and give it a thorough copy edit, after which you can discuss (on the article's Talk page) any edits that you see as inaccurate or inconsistent.

The article could benefit from a copy edit. I see, for one thing, that quotation marks are used inconsistently. A competent copy editor will clean up that inconsistency and a hundred other minor errors, leaving the article in better shape. Please post a note here if you can come to an agreement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have posted an outline of the edits I made to the article on its talk page, to make it easier for anyone to comment on them, section by section. I would point out that a period of quiescence, because one editor withholds themselves from both editing the article and engaging in discussion on the talk page about the edits (as opposed to the editor), does not define a "stable article". The article will only be "stable" when the editors interested in improving it discuss changes to the article together and come to some consensus about them.

I therefore suggest that Guild copyeditors should not take up the article again until they see that all parties are involved in productive discussion and have reached a consensus. BMK (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. ~~I have always been very satisfied with the work of the Copy Editors Guild so~~ I would appreciate giving this article another chance after about a week. I will personally not work on it until then. My only comment is that in two of the sections I experimented with block citations at the end of each paragraph, which I quickly decided that I didn't like and will eventually put all of the citations after the correct sentences. Otherwise I completely agree that the article could use a good CE from an honest User.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed Beyond my Ken's talk page comments and I agree his changes are benign. Since ~~two of the three~~ the two editors in this dispute agree the article should be copy-edited, I'm willing to take it on a) after the week's hold has passed and b) once I've finished whatever c/e I'm doing at the time. Like every editor here, my edits are subject to review; if either party disagrees with my edits I'll stop and decline the request. It can always be re-added once stability is achieved.

Deoliveirafan, the GOCE doesn't make "official" copy-edits diff; rather we're a voluntary Wikiproject whose aim is to improve Wikipedia by improving grammar, spelling, flow, layout etc. and improving conformity to the Manual of Style where appropriate. I'm not sure what you mean by an "honest user"; I hope we all have the same basic intention to improve articles.

I've no idea how Howunusual is involved here—apart from one blanket reversion at the article and trolling at AN/I and the article's talk page. i think s/he can be ignored in this context. That's my offer anyway; if that's not acceptable to one or other involved party I doubt we can move forward with this request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking back my compliment to the Copy Editors Guild. If you are all so willing to allow BMK to continue this behavior and throw around insults then I suppose you don't need any compliments from me and I will respect you as much as you respect yourselves.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Deoliveirafan, I'm trying to work out an acceptable solution to an impasse; nobody is throwing around insults here. I called Howunusual's comments trolling because they don't help the situation; indeed that editor has no history at the article under discussion. S/he waded into your dispute with BMK by blindly reverting after seeing the ANI thread, claiming authority from a talk page consensus which doesn't exist. I'm saying we should ignore him/her because s/he isn't interested in improving the article and has probably moved on elsewhere. I'm offering to copy-edit the article in good faith (see above); my offer still stands but my patience isn't infinite. Spitting the dummy isn't the best way to secure my—or anyone else's—help. I just copy-edit; I don't do drama or play games, full stop. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please take all drama and personal attacks to the article's Talk page or elsewhere (or nowhere). They are not welcome here.

Editors are allowed to edit, and impolite people are allowed to throw around insults at the risk of their own reputations and at the risk of being blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. We at the GOCE are here to edit prose, not to get involved in Talk page drama, ANI, or any of the other meta activity that goes on at WP. We have proposed a way for your copy editing request to be honored. It is up to the involved article editors to work out a way to welcome, or at least tolerate without instantly reverting, a good-faith GOCE copy edit. We look forward to seeing if you can work this out; I believe that you can do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying that I am "trolling," uninterested in in improving the article, and acting "blindly" sure seems like throwing around insults to me. I found BMK's behavior antagonistic, and in a thread devoted to BMK's behavior, gave my opinion--with diffs. There was in fact a consensus before BMK's edits--the last stable version. That is, by definition, the consensus version. He changed that, and it seemed obvious to me at that time that Deoliveirafan objected to the changes, thus, no consensus for the changes. However, I apologized for my revert anyway, so Baffle's comment mystifies me, and their proclamation "I just copy-edit; I don't do drama or play games, full stop." is hard to take seriously. Howunusual (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take this discussion about the article to the article's talk page. If the involved editors will allow a GOCE copyedit, come back here to let us know. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978: it's been a week and the article has had very few edits. I am willing to take on this request if you want to pass. I recommend putting a note on the article's Talk page asking editors to discuss any questionable copy edits before reverting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Jonesey. I'm up for this; actually I finished doing the X-Men one earlier today, so I'll begin it in an hour or so. Thanks again for your patience; I'll try not to tread on any toes and yes I'll inform both of the involved editors above. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Request Question

Hello Guild,

I'd first like to say thanks again for the recent work on Demi Lovato. For the future, I'm simply curious about one thing: are there members any willing to accept direct requests (asking through user talk page of a member of the Guild)? Thought it could be useful.

SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi :Snuggums, I'm sure some members would be happy to be asked to help, though I think you'll need to ask individual members whether they'd accept direct requests. It wouldn't hurt to ask them, though some (inc. me) do state explicitly on their user or talk pages that they don't, for various reasons. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, though I hope that's useful. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Will make note of that, and I've noticed there are users (i.e. Miniapolis) who specifically indicate they don't accept such requests. Your words were useful :). SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 22:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate copyediting

Hello. I've noticed that Metallica was removed from the waiting list with the justification that the copyediting was done. To call this a proper copyedit seems unserious at least. The article has some serious issues with the prose and only that edit won't do the job. The user who did the task, MrWooHoo, has minor experience on how this process works, and I think it would be fair to return the article to the list.--Retrohead (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll unarchive and return this to the list. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline Draft:Crucible Industries LLC?

Should we decline this request? The article is a declined AFC submission in Draft space, which according to the reviewer Timtrent includes inappropriate references. Once again (and I know I sound like a parrot!) GOCE is not Cleanup. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Baffle, the last thing I would want is another editor to clean up my article. I've been happily working on it. @Timtrent: (Fiddle Faddle) recommended your group and the submission of this article. I don't know if you noticed his commendation. Because he writes under two names it may be a bit confusing. At the same time he commended it because he felt like I had addressed his comments. He also asked the group to not be involved until it was accepted. Thanks. Alrich44 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"I commend this potential GA to the GOCE. I believe it will very soon be reviewed and accepted by the WP:AFC team. I am recusing myself from the review since I have given Alrich44 a deal of guidance to assist in bringing it towards "excellence in acceptability" and it was my suggestion that they approached the GOCE team with a view to your helping move it, once accepted, to GA status. This is really what one might term "Early Warning" so that one of you can enjoy adopting it and running with it almost as soon as it moves form the Draft: space to become an article. Fiddle Faddle 19:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)"

Alrich44, I don't doubt either your or Tim's intentions, but we do say at the top of the Requests page, "Please do not list articles awaiting review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation; such requests will be declined". We say this because articles in draft space, especially failed AFD submissions like this one, often have notability problems and are subject to deletion or severe pruning. Copy-editing is an involved process that often takes several hours; making the text conform to Wikipedia policies such as neutrality, original research, and guidelines like Words to watch and the Manual of Style, as well as fixing errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling etc, takes a lot of time. It's pointless asking us to do all this work if the article is later deleted or severely reduced in size; all our work is then wasted. If the subject's notability is established and the article is accepted into article space, I'll be happy to see it listed here or tagged with {{copy edit}}. Let's see what others have to say. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. I can add it back after it passes. Cheers. Alrich44 (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alrich44; good luck and I hope to see the article in article space soon. Happy editing, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I ought to have been aware of the rule and I suffered from premature inclusion

Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

...And Justice for All (album)

I don't know what it is about these heavy-metal articles, but after the trouble I had with Megadeth I thought twice when Retrohead (inexplicably) asked me to copyedit this page. I don't mind at all having my copyedit tweaked, but when it's back to what it was when I started I know I'm wasting my time. Hate to bail again, but this page needs a new set of eyes. All the best, Miniapolis 17:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Miniapolis, don't get me wrong, I appreciate your edits. I've reverted a few sentence because I believe the previous version was better, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate your hard work there. If you are busy with other things, can you at least finish the 'Music' section and do the 'Live performances' in addition? As I noted in the ce request, I was mostly worried about that section. Again, my sincerest apology if you found offended by my actions.--Retrohead (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no; it's hard to work—and keep in mind that this is volunteer work—if I have to keep looking over my shoulder to see if what I'm doing is being undone (although I discovered your reversions by accident, when I returned to the Music section and had a déjà vu moment). It makes sense to stand aside and let the copyeditor do what you've asked them to do; I don't care what an editor does with an article after I'm done copyediting. This also happened with Megadeth, and it got nasty (see the diff above). Miniapolis 02:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline Waverley Line?

I've abandoned my copy-edit of this article because large parts are copied, mostly verbatim, from various pages of [1]. I've templated the page and have listed it for investigation. The requester will be informed. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What a disaster. Good investigative work on your part. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; the text was so detailed yet lacked references so I Googled some samples. I didn't want to leave copyvio text intact and a full rewrite would have been inappropriate for such a long article. I'm sorry you've had such bad luck with this request; feel free to resubmit if and when it's rewritten. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephen III of Hungary

Vantine84, thank you for your throughout copyedit, I highly appreciate it. Now I can make a GAN for it. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good luck! Please let me know if I can be of assistance during the GAN. — Mr. V (t – c) 02:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

John Bauer (illustrator)

Thank you for a most awesome copyedit of this article! I have already praised Onel5969 on his talkpage for his thorough and excellent work, but I wanted to say it here as well. The article goes straight to the GAN queue now. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Good luck in the GAN process! I'll be following it. Onel5969 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Daybreaker (Architects album)

CC-BY-SA declaration: copied from Requests page here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This needs copy editing to pass as a Good Article, as it failed it's last one because of grammar. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Working. Some good work has already been done on this article. I'll just give it a quick tweak. --Stfg (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned. I've done up to and including the Singles section, but from Live performances on, it still needs copy editing. I'm afraid all those rather uninformative quotes were sending me to sleep, sorry. This is no minor task still: it's very verbose, heavily overlinked, song titles are sometimes italicized while album titles sometimes aren't. No need to credit me when it does eventually get archived. @Jonjonjohny: please note that I've placed a couple of {{clarify}} tags. The post-texts should explain them, but just pop over to my talk page if you want me to expand on them. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg: Do you want to collaborate on this article. I tried editing it and it is clear to see that we need more than just one editor on it.Mirror Freak 20:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MirrorFreak, but no. It doesn't need multiple editors, just a willing and skilled copy editor to complete the job and Jonjonjohny to clarify the tagged points. I wanted to help, but it's a big job and the subject doesn't interest me at all. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Working—I'll give it a go. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Matthias Corvinus

Baffle gab1978, thank you for your amazing copyedit. Now the article is ready for a GAN. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ladislaus II of Hungary

Blackmane, many thanks for your throughout copyedit. The article is now ready to a GAN. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Blackmane (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A note of thanks

Baffle gab1978 (talk) has asked you to join them for a nice cup of tea and sit down here.

The Requests page is now down to 21 articles as of my timestamp; I think you all deserve a cuppa! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A fresh cup awaits you :-). All the best, Miniapolis 17:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Decline List of Boy Meets World characters?

I think this article is unsuitable for a copy-edit. It's completely unreferenced and is thus original research. Whilst plot sections don't need references because they're directly referenced from the original media, it's my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) that character information over-and-above the credits needs referencing. It's also my contention that much of this list article comprises synthesis of characters' traits, relationships and doings. To bring this up to an acceptable standard, much of the text would need to be removed, making a full copy-edit pointless. For comparison, List of Grey's Anatomy cast members is a Featured list. I've put the request on hold for now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Although the requester is one of our regulars, I agree. All the best, Miniapolis 17:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

St. Nicholas' Deanery Church, Znojmo

CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from the Requests page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Short article, needs a little copy editing doing for grammar and a couple of links adding. Not much though. Thanks, C 679 11:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Warning: the article appears to be a copyvio of this. I've put the boilerplate on and sent it for investigation. If anyone wants to take it up and thoroughly rewrite it, please do. Otherwise, I recommend declining this request. --Stfg (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's a copyvio; it's too similar for coincidence, and I see the creator Janhb1 (talk · contribs) has some copyvio warnings on his/her talk page for adding other Czech church articles from the same website. It could probably be speedied via {{db-copyvio}}. I agree to decline the request; there's no point copy-editing text that might be deleted. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up, agree it could be subject to speedy deletion and of course the copy edit should not be done. Thanks, C 679 06:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both. I tagged rather than G12'ed because it's 5 years old and has some editing history, but checking again, the editing is mostly addition of categories and very minor tweaks. I've now replaced the copyvio boilerplate with a G12, and we'll see what happens. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Haj Omran

I've archived the request for the above article here as declined because it's a one-sentence stub and not suitable for the Requests page. I've however done a quick clean-up and added geographical coordinates, which the requester wanted. I won't be claiming credit in the archives or the drive. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs (video game)

CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Requests page [2]. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC) The article is currently at FAC, and got a lot of criticism for its prose. The entire article is in dire need of copy editing urgently, as it may fail the FAC if it's not done in time. Currently the lead, gameplay, gameplay and downlodable content are the most important sections to get done. Please, I really need help with this article. Multiple editors taking on different parts of the article are welcome, as long as they get the job done. Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Blackmane Will be taking this up. URDNEXT (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Working Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask that this request be closed? At the moment, instead of copy editing, the text is going through some major reworking. Refs and text are still being added. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Both editors John (talk) and URDNEXT have said they're done for now and you can continue. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Abandoning this for now, and recommend closing. I've left comments at the FAR indicating that the main text and sourcing isn't stable enough for a proper copy edit yet. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting Decline; article is clearly unstable and not ready for a full c/e. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Decline, without prejudice to a future request once the article is stable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The FAC is likely to be archived within a couple of days, due in no small part to the primary nominator having retired from Wikipedia. Tezero (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

AKB48

CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Requests page [3]. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I copyedited this article about a year or two ago with some extensive rewrites amidst some heavy debating over the organization of the article. It has since settled down, however, an editor slapped a "fanpov" tag on it and I would like to get another editor to go through it to neutralize the tone of the statements that might still be perceived as such. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking very briefly at it, AngusWOOF, I can kinda see what they meant. I wouldn't call it fannish, but there are parts that read kinda like something from the group's website or a blurb about them in a list of Japanese girl groups hosted by a magazine about Japanese culture or something. It's difficult to explain what I mean; I certainly wouldn't say it's a major issue. It's probably the worst in "Concept", "Musical style", and to a lesser extent "Promotion and media"; History, for example, doesn't have this problem, but does have the common "On such and such a date, such and such happened" disease. I'd recommend focusing on editing the sections mentioned for a more explicitly encyclopedic tone, though if you'd like I can still help with that when I've got the time (probably in a few days from now). Tezero (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(I posted this on Tezero's talk page previously but thought I'd share here: ) Unfortunately, the Concept section is the one I've been trying the most to present neutrally as it contains a lot of idol business specific jargon like how the auditions, graduations, elections and other gimmicks they put together work. The musical style section I listed as presented by the journalists instead of fans. I agree the history is rather dry with the timeline like presentation... -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Miniapolis for the thorough copyedit! -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Statistics about requests for 2013

I've been meaning to re-do this analysis for quite a while. I did it last fall for the previous 10 months or so, but I wanted to do it for a whole year. I analyzed the request-to-completion time for all requests made in 2013 that appear on the 2013 and 2014 Archive pages.

We completed 527 requests in 2013 and 2014 that were requested between January 1 and December 31, 2013. This includes Declined requests.
The average completion time was 41 days. (The median time was 42 days.)
The longest wait was 90 days, and that was not an outlier; 51 articles waited 71 days or more.

The waiting time changed through the year. It spent the first quarter of the year in the 30- to 40-day range, crept up to the 60s and 70s in the second quarter, and then the average got back down to the 30s after our August blitz and some dedicated work by a few editors, and one editor in particular, during the rest of the year.

Request wait times, 2013-01-01 to 2013-12-31
Days	Number of articles
0	11
1 to 10	56
11 to 20	32
21 to 30	43
31 to 40	107
41 to 50	132
51 to 60	49
61 to 70	46
71 to 80	43
81 to 90	8

After June 23, 2013, our longest wait time was 77 days. The second-longest wait time after that date was 54 days.

I haven't looked at 2014 yet. I'll probably wait until early next year to do that, now that I have a spreadsheet all set up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool; thanks for doing that Jonesey; the stats are always useful and it's good to know how we've been doing. The End-of-year report says we did 545 in 2013, though that does include those requested in 2012. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified the sentence above. I decided to count by when the request was made, rather than when we finished copy-editing the request. I think that will make it easier to compare from year to year. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. I haven't worked on requests for awhile. I may go that way for January, after doing shorties in November. Lfstevens (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline Hiking equipment?

This article reads like an essay of practical advice about hiking equipment rather than a Wikipedia article. Although it has references, it seems to consist mainly of original research. I think this needs more than a copy-edit to make it comply with WP policies. I've put it on hold while it's discussed here. I'd like some other opinions about this article if possible, because I'm inclined to decline. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Parts of the article are good descriptions of hiking equipment, but other parts (whole sections, really) appear to conflict with WP policy, specifically Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. If I were to take on this copy edit, my first task would be wholesale removal of the how-to sections, followed by copy editing of the remaining prose. Editors who worked hard to create this material might be upset at this radical pruning, so it would need to be approached carefully.

Examples of sections that read as how-to guides: the second half of Planning and checklists, the second half of Ability and availability versus specifics, all of Equipment organization, the Change of clothes section, the Continuous clothing-sleeping layers section, and more. This is not a comprehensive list.

I am pinging Alrich44 to let the requesting editor know about this discussion and to request that editor's thoughts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jonesey95, thanks for the ping, and Baffle gab1978 for starting the discussion. Would you both look at the version prior to my last set of edits? Are we better off with an undo, and then I simply add the items I think are worthwhile? I approached the changes as a summary of some of the books and research I've done. So, including more references wouldn't fix it? Alrich44 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alrich, well done for taking this article in hand. Unfortunately adding more references won't solve the problems Jonesey describes. The version before your last set of edits here is mainly a long list of equipment, so I don't think that's an improvement either. I think you've added some useful, encyclopaedic material, but it's mixed with unsuitable material like the "Knowledge" section, which is written like an essay. WP articles should contain factual imformation, not opinions or advice, however well referenced. "Knowledge" is also off-topic; the title of the article is "Hiking equipment", not "Knowledge needed for hiking"; see WP:COATRACK.

If you agree, I'll do a procedural decline and a clean-up so other editors won't spend time fixing text that will be stripped out. I'm willing to make the article more encyclopaedic, which will mean removing much of the unsuitable text and rewriting the remainder. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, I agree. Hopefully, the article will still be an improvement from what was there. By the way, is there a way to include information from "how to" books in Wikipedia? Like, quoting from a first-person source? Alrich44 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start going through it later tonight. How-to texts from books can be used and quoted where relevant to the article's subject, in the same way any text can be used. The WP article itself shouldn't instruct though; we shouldn't say things like, "To make an omelette, first crack the eggs into bowl and remove the shells". It's the use of the instructional tone that's problematic, per WP:NOTHOWTO. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Baffle gab1978, Thanks for helping with the effort, and the explanation. You and your work are appreciated. Alrich44 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline Investigative Project on Terrorism?

User @Atsme: posted this today, asking us to fix a litany of woes, mainly dodgy sourcing and BLP issues. That's not the purpose of this project or this page; that's what Clean up is for. It's already tagged for cleanup, and a copy-edit at this stage would be pointless. I've placed the request on hold whilst this discussion occurs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. I confused the two projects. I'll withdraw this one, and move the request to clean-up. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Baffle gab1978.

No worries, and thanks. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now removed the request, per the above. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Swapping requests

I have noticed that the backlog is taken care of chronologically, so I have a kind of odd question: I now have two listed requests, but I actually want the latest one (hoopoe starling) copyedited before the one I added earlier (Rodrigues Starling). Would it be a problem if I swapped their positions? FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The polite way to do it, I think, would be to ask first (well done!) and then to re-post the early one at the end of the current list, with a new date/time stamp.

The Requests list is generally edited chronologically, but there is no rule about it, and some editors prefer to choose subjects with which they have some familiarity or affinity rather than copy-editing an article that they will not enjoy or think they will not do a good job on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, the subject is practically the same (recently extinct Mascarene starlings), so at least that shouldn't be a problem... FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline Green Arrow in other media ?

This article has lengthy walls of largely unreferenced text, comprised of plot details and minor media appearences. I don't think a copy-edit would be useful here; I think a request at Cleanup would be more helpful. I think we should decline this request; I've placed it on hold pending this discussion. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Done.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Declined - moved to Cleanup. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a similar case with Black Canary and Black Canary in other media, I have moved those others as well. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thnaks @Cambalachero:, I'll check them out to see what's the problem. I've reverted your arbitrary deletion; discuss here before removing requests from the Requests page. They can be put on hold if necessary. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Black Canary in other media" is unsuitable for copy-editing; however I think "Black Canary" is worthwhile copy-editing, although it too contains unreferenced fancruft. I'll place both on hold while this discussion occurs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline El Marino?

This article is currently the subject of an edit war between Diego Grez and AndyTheGrump. It would probably be best to decline this until the dust settles. --Biblioworm 00:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've placed the request on hold; i agree there's been an edit war there, there's an archived ANI thread here. Grez is the requester; from the history it seems Andy was trying to remove COI/POV problems added by Grez, so it might be worth asking on Andy's talk page before commencing c/e. I'm not inclined to involve myself but will see if things settle down. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, the requester Diego Grez says "I think the article is okay, but it might need minor corrections".diff. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, for the "article is okay" I meant it was, in my opinion, well redacted. --Diego Grez (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That was at 21:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC), when the article was at this version, full of the self-promotion that is the subject of the ANI case. The edit warring has continued since the ANI case was archived (without conclusion). I agree with Biblioworm, it would be a waste of a copy editor's time, and should be declined. --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Declined and archived. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline Black Canary in other media?

As noted in the above discussion here, I think this article is currently unsuitable for copy-editing. Its walls of text contain mostly unreferenced plot details that needs stripping out, making a copy-edit pointless. I think the other article, Black Canary, can be copy-edited. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have copy-edited stuff like this before, where the blocks of text are way too long. Plot summaries (and similar stuff, like this article's sections) are allowed to be unreferenced (see MOS:PLOT: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations...."), but they should be reasonable in length (see MOS:PLOT again; I enjoy reading it from time to time). I think it's reasonable for us to accept it, maybe with a note on the article's Talk page that a GOCE copy edit has been requested and that the copy edit will be shortening sections that are too long. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take it off hold. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)