Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2017

Should we decline 2016 United States election interference by Russia?

Should we decline the request to copyedit 2016 United States election interference by Russia? It has had over 100 edits in the last five days, many of them significant. I suggest that we decline, without prejudice toward resubmission when the article is more stable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we have no choice but to decline at this time; BroVic is right that requesters are unrealistic in listing new articles too quickly. All the best, Miniapolis 01:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I marked it as Declined and notified the requester (requestor?). – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake news website

FYI, there was a move discussion at Talk:Fake news website/Archive 2#Requested move 7 December 2016 in which some editors suggested changing the scope of the article and rewriting it. Apparently a lot of material crept in that doesn't necessarily fit under the original topic. I'm not sure what to conclude from the now-closed discussion. Reidgreg (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked the link, since the discussion (which was closed as no consensus for a move) was archived. Sounds like under the circumstances, we should decline for instability at this time. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 15:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we decline Fake news website? My initial thought is that it has been pretty stable over the last week; here's a diff since December 31. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been checking up on this page every few days with the hope that it would reach a stable, editable state, but now it is the subject of a merger proposal with two similar, overlapping articles. Pinging Sagecandor for an opinion, but I think we need to decline this for now, without prejudice to resubmission after the dust settles around the three articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. All the best, Miniapolis 14:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A request that should probably be redirected to WP:3O

I commented on the requests page, but should possibly have raised it here: WP:GOCE/REQ#Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action relates to a dispute on a talk page between two editors, which involves both a problem with the English and also, imho more significantly, issues of POV, due weight and ownership. As it involves only two editors, it would qualify for WP:3O, and I suggest it might be better sent there. It would be difficult to resolve simply by copy editing without taking a view on the other issues. --Stfg (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an odd situation; I've never seen a request to copyedit a talk page. IMO it's unnecessary (you're right, Simon, 3O is the better option but we certainly don't have to bring it there) and a slippery slope; whoever does any more copyediting should be familiar with WP:TPO. Think we should decline any further involvement as beyond this project's scope. All the best, Miniapolis 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Anne. By the way, if anyone should try to pitch in on that talk page, it would then have three editors involved, which would disqualify it from WP:3O. So would copy editors please take care to avoid doing that. (Too late, I see). As you say, it shouldn't be us to send it to 3O, but do you think it would be good to decline this request and advise the requester to do that? --Stfg (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Anne, please would you review the discussion that has happened on (our) requests page. The situation has become a bit of a mess. Any idea what can be done now? Simon --Stfg (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The text that was proposed for addition was already present in the article in an appropriately sized summary form. After reviewing the text that was proposed for addition, I removed one redundant sentence from the article that was in the wrong section, moved a reference for that sentence to the next section where it belonged, and provided some feedback on the proposed text on the talk page. I don't think there is anything further for us to do unless Mehdi ghaed or NPguy would like to request a copyedit of the whole article, which is the normal process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The question of "appropriately sized" is the subject of the dispute between the two editors. The "normal process" for that issue would have been to decline the copy edit request, to recommend they go for some dispute resolution, and not to get involved at all as copy editors. Miniapolis above suggested that we should decline any further involvement, and that is what we should have done. It is not a question of what more we should do; it's one of what if anything we can now effectively undo. Or did you see yourself as providing the needed dispute resolution? I'm not seeing anything like it, even after the latest clarification. Dispute resolution doesn't consist merely of making a disposal. It consists of specifically addressing the points made by both sides, inviting reply, and standing ready for further explanation if needed. --Stfg (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw myself as providing outside, disinterested feedback and contribution, as well as assessing the need for copy editing that section. I also asked the disputants for feedback. I am happy to decline the request and recommend formal third-party dispute resolution. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

After looking at this and the discussion on WP:GOCE/REQ, I think we should decline this and recommend WP:DR. To call this a request for copyediting is nuts. All the best, Miniapolis 00:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Anne. I agree. Simon --Stfg (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Peruchazhi

The requester for the article Peruchazhi has been blocked as a sock puppet; this requester was also a significant contributor to the article. I think that we should therefore decline the request.

I recommend placing a copy edit template at the top of the article as a show of good faith, however. It was nominated in the past for GA status and was declined for prose quality. It would be nice of us to get around to it at some point. I do not hold any of these positions strongly, so contrary and concurring opinions are both welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, since we're busy enough with all the new tagging :-). Miniapolis 14:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement

I just thought I'd provide a link to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations because hardly anyone is expressing an opinion on nominated articles, so nominations are languishing. I thought there may be some editors who, in addition to participating in our project, might be interested in participating in WP:TAFINOM.  – Corinne (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this! I found the project from your talk page and I think it's a fun way to collaborate with other editors. I also noticed that there aren't many nominations. I'll try to help out :) –gwendy (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The Tip-Toe Catch

Since this article was deleted as the creation of a blocked editor, I've archived the request. Miniapolis 20:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Request article is extended edit-protected

I just looked at the request for Oppam and the article is currently extended edit-protected & cannot be completed at this time. – gwendy (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I took a closer look at this and the article is protected due to Sock puppetry, and that sock puppet is the requester, The Bat Totem. Does this nullify the request? – gwendy (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes; I'll archive it as declined. All the best, Miniapolis 15:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback for Melissa Farley

Thanks to Miniapolis: for adding a criticism section to Melissa Farley (requested 2017-02-08), unfortunately it has since been removed once more leaving the article open to accusations of NPOV. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't think I did, but it's been a while. This should be discussed on the article talk page or WP:NPOVN. Miniapolis 17:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A fair number of IPs are Requesting copyedits for articles they haven't worked on

I've noticed a spike in new IPs nominating articles that they say they want to nominate for GA or FA (or take a GA to FA, only the article in question isn't a GA). The thing is, they haven't edited the articles previously, which automatically lets out FA, and for GA they're supposed to consult with the article's significant editors on the talk page before nominating. In one case, User:2405:204:4188:2798:3CE9:46B4:53EA:73E2, the only three edits for that IP are the three Requests made here, all within a few minutes on April 14. This address is very close to an IP nomination the next day, by User:2405:204:418C:174A:C00F:4136:2A4A:E4A2, with the same sort of request.

With Requests currently at very high levels, it seems a shame to see new ones that seem to be circumventing the rules and piling on the number of active requests. The coordinators may want to take a look at some of the recent requests. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right, although I'm damned if I can figure out why they're doing this. In light of recent events and out of fairness to good-faith requesters, I think we should limit requests to registered users only and will put a note on WT:GOCE/COORD. We can discuss it here. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, Miniapolis, and thanks for noticing and posting this, BlueMoonset.  – Corinne (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. We could rescind the rule if the backlog ever disappeared, but that's not the case at the moment. Tdslk (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

IPs are people too, so I don't know if I would be comfortable with that limitation. I would be open to limiting requests to people who have done significant work on the article, though, and enforcing that as a rule. I'd like to hear from other coordinators and other folks who work on requests a lot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Jonesey, no one is saying that IPs aren't people but this problem isn't going away. The consensus among the coordinators is that this is what we need to do; the only other editor I can think of offhand who has a dog in this fight is Twofingered Typist. Miniapolis 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And, judging by behavior, this looks like trolling. Miniapolis 23:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with the rule being "no IPs, unless they have done significant work on the article," which does not seem to be the case for the requests in question. Tdslk (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I like this version. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I like this version too! – gwendy (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And me. I checked all of the IP nominations before I posted this topic, and remember thinking that the Eddie Eagle one had been submitted by an IP who had done a great deal of recent editing on the article ... and then that it would be a shame if that nomination was disallowed along with the rest. Great suggestion, Tdslk. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably a pile-on at this point, but I also agree with the suggestion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As do I. Thanks for asking. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Great suggestion, Tdslk, and I'll tweak the instructions ASAP unless someone else gets to it. Another suggestion—I think we need to go back to two requests per editor until the backlog is more manageable. I've never seen it this bad; 60 was the norm for a long time, but now we're inexplicably pushing 100 and it's unfair to editors patiently awaiting a copyedit for a potential GAN or FAC. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 13:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the situation for which we enacted the two-request limit. I think we should grandfather in all of the existing requests from IPs and three-request editors, since they were submitted in good faith using the existing instructions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey. Great minds think alike; I've changed the guidelines to reflect the grandfathering. Maybe now we can get the requests page back down to 60 or so :-). All the best, Miniapolis 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oofah. I ended up declining and archiving seven requests, six of which were probably from the same (dynamic) IP. Thanks again, BlueMoonset, for pointing out the problem and hopefully the requests page will return to a reasonable length. We need more copyeditors working on requests, and new copyeditors should be encouraged as much as possible; if the requester isn't complaining, the copyedit is good enough :-). WP:VOLUNTEER. All the best, Miniapolis 23:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section copied from Requests page archive here by me, Baffle☿gab 19:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs somebody to address the close-paraphrasing issue as pointed out the last featured article review in January 2017. The article needs to be checked from the beginning to the end to find if there is any unintended close paraphrasing with uncited sources. Earwig's copyvio detector's check showed that the article is unlikely to be plagiarised, but Graham Beards is still not satisfied, and requires close paraphrasing issue to be addressed before it can reach featured article status. If this article can reach featured article status, the US$ 100 in Bitcoin will be given or divided among the three most significant contributors of close-paraphrasing checkings. Thanks. Cerevisae (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Working Blackmane (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. Cerevisae (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cerevisae: Please note that given the size of the article and the disjointedness of some of the text, this may take a bit of time, but will do my best on it. Blackmane (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time. Cerevisae (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll jump in on this article with you Blackmane. Jasphetamine (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cerevisae: There are problems with this article's content that are beyond simple copyediting a small amount of close-para copvio. I've brought it up in Talk:Sarawak.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasphetamine (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) Because of the close-paraphrasing concerns (the fixing of which is really above our pay grade) and Cerevisae's semi-retirement, this article seems to be languishing; perhaps it's time to decline and archive. Miniapolis 19:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Fully support you on that opinion Miniapolis. For the record Blackmane did great work editing and was also very helpful to me by gently reminding me GOCE members can say "This is not what we do." and step away. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

For the benefit of harried archivers, Blackmane is continuing the copyedit :-). Miniapolis 23:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll not leave a copyeditor behind! I'll return to Working on the page as well. Jasphetamine (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Going to step back from this one. Jasphetamine (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

American Pekin Duck

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section copied from Requests page archive here by me, Baffle☿gab 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

General consensus on the talk page of this article has been reached that it needs copy editing. EditSafe (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This request must be rejected. The article has been undergoing content disputes. Also, the requestor has been disagreeing with and reluctant to accept the changes made by another editor. George Ho (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 On hold. Since this request is so new, I am putting it on hold in the hopes that editors will work out their differences before this article reaches the top of our Requests queue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is reported at WP:dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:American Pekin_Duck#Previous_and_current_revisions. George Ho (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The DRN case is closed. The RfC has started, but the editor (EditSafe (talk · contribs)) who requested the copyediting frequently makes premature archiving and premature moves. Also, the RFC may be improper. --George Ho (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Now the article is reverted back to the other editor's version. I think copyediting is unnecessary at the moment; I notified the other editor, who will improve the article soon. --George Ho (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

EditSafe, do you still want a copy-edit on this article? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. EditSafe (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95, you might want to reconsider. The requestor disagreed with the outcome. George Ho (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, another editor who did the version promised to work on or expand the article anytime soon. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. No drama. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles Now Listed as GA

A large number of GOCE requests are often already under review for GA status. From my reading of instructions for requesters this is "putting the cart before the horse" so to speak. I was having a look at the next article on the Request list British Army and see that it was listed as a GA on March 18th - grammar, punctuation, MOS compliant etc... Is there a policy of declining an already (presumably) well-written GA, and should it be declined on those grounds, or should I start a c/e? Any thoughts? Thanks. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The wait for a GA reviewer can take months (the longest wait at the moment is a hair over six months), so I imagine some people expect that GOCE will be copyedit before a GAN finds its reviewer: 473 of 545 nominations are currently waiting for a reviewer. This can't be counted upon, and some articles find reviewers right away: it depends on what a reviewer finds interesting. However, as we've discovered at DYK, a GA reviewer can miss things, and unfortunately some of them are not so good at spotting textual infelicities. So while a GA should be clear and concise, there's no guarantee that the reviewer will have the ability to find issues. If nothing else, a listed GA that may be lacking in the prose department can have those shortcomings fixed at GOCE. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have found that nearly every article can use some prose polishing. In my experience, GAs are the easiest, most fun copy editing that is available here on Wikipedia. It is easier to polish prose that is in pretty good shape than it is to shape utter rubbish into something that is barely readable. To each his own, but I would not decline an article just because it has already passed GA. Make it sparkle! – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I just looked at British Army and found inconsistent use of serial commas, an erroneous antecedent in the sentence beginning "In addition to its ongoing conflict", inconsistent year ranges (yyyy-yy and yyyy-yyyy), broken formatting in the Notes portion of the Personnel section, and more. It could use help from a skilled copy editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just accepted the British Army request, which at my 2,000-wpd average pace should be a three-day job. In a better world than this editors would wait for the copyedit to nominate for GAN or FAC, but with the list so long I understand their impatience. Hope I can lose those serial commas, because they drive me crazy :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a strong personal belief about whether serial commas should or should not be used, but in copy editing, I bow to WP style, which says that the only rule is that they be used consistently within a given article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Good points, all. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Archiving requests

I just archived a completed copy-editing request and noticed that the articles are being archived in order of completion, and in sections accordingly (e.g. article requests made in February and completed in April are going into the April to June section). This seems easier in terms of adding articles manually. However, a commented instruction at the bottom says, Add a new row to the bottom of the table corresponding to the date of the request. This isn't being followed, possibly because the instruction is contradictory (request order won't necessarily correspond to adding items to the bottom of the table). In any case, the instruction could be made more clear, probably by bringing it into line with present practice. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke and for archiving. I've tweaked the instructions at the top and bottom of the edit window to reflect current practice (which has been the practice since I showed up here six years ago :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 13:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Dhtwiki: *@Miniapolis:I've looked back over 2016 and it appears to me that most articles were archived by date of completion as well - not by date of request. I also noticed that the archive periods are four months - not three (my fault). Would someone like me to move the December requests from 2017 to 2016 and reformat the January-March table to include April? That way, at least 2017 will be "correct" even if other years are not. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC) P.S. When I edit the the table I see only two instructions:

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Add a new row to the bottom of the table, following the format below.

2. Remember to remove the article from the requests page.

Perhaps #2 should be" Archive article by its REQUEST date" and current #2 should become #3?Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to do it if you want; I've just begun copyediting British Army and am busy with that. The tables are now in three-month sections because the large number of requests makes my browser (and that of at least one other archivist) wheeze :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to clean up the 2016 archive yet; it's on my to-do list. Take a look at the 2014 and 2015 archive pages to see how it should end up. It doesn't really matter how they are sorted, since all of the columns can be sorted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Articles are now archived by their request date. Instructions have been clarified. I checked 2015 and it appears that at year end the tables are combined into one complete table for the year. It is true that the output of a table can be sorted but not the underlying data so moving articles between tables has to be done manually. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but now are we expected to insert table markup to archive by request date? If so, that's going to be a real PITA and consensus should have been assessed first (especially among the coordinators). I see no problem with archiving by completion date. Miniapolis 23:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears to me that we archive in the same way that we always have. I think the least complicated way to archive is to do it the way we have always done it, adding the new completed request to the bottom of the list. If someone wants to reorganize the list occasionally, that can happen separately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I read the first thread of this conversation by Dhtwiki where they pointed out that articles were to be archived by completion date and responded to that with my comments above. I took "feel free to do it" as agreement that articles were to be archived by request date and acted accordingly. It's easy to fix if someone would let me know what they would like done.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for creating a tempest in a teapot. What I meant by "feel free to do it" (which you had no way of knowing :-)) was that I didn't want to do it because I was too busy with other things. I archived a few requests yesterday, and the sortable tables mean I can tack 'em to the bottom like I've always done. Thanks for the help, Twofingered Typist. Miniapolis 14:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominators haven't noticed the reduction to two requests per editor

It looks like people haven't noticed that the limit on copyedit requests was reduced to two on April 17. Three of the April 18 nominations were by people who already had two prior requests: the articles Vikram Batra, Third Eye Shoppe, and Pru (album). (The first of these is for an article that isn't even in mainspace yet.)

It might make sense to decline all three because of the recently announced limit reduction and not archive immediately; that way, more people might notice that there has been a reduction. (If they just disappear, people may not know why, and more over-limit requests may continue to appear.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I usually put a friendly note on the requester's talk page, giving them the opportunity to choose which request(s) they would like to remove. I have had 100% amicable cooperation so far. Here's what one of my messages looks like. A GOCE coordinator should probably do this communication. I am not available to do this until about 10 hours from now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Declined the latter two and notified both editors; Another Believer has graciously replied. Archived Vikram Batra, since it's not even in mainspace. Miniapolis 21:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about people not noticing the new limit. I was used to the 3-limit rule, so I didn't stop to read the instructions and simply submitted my third request. Folks will get used to the new limit, and you are doing them right thing by nicely informing users on their respective talk pages. I went ahead and removed one of my older requests, since it was least time sensitive of the three. Thanks again for the heads up, and don't worry, people will learn quickly. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Glory (1989 film)

A quick question. If an editor's name displays in red should they be considered the same as an IP? If so, on Glory (1989 film) the requester has made only four very minor edits to a caption in the article. I wonder then if the request should be denied? Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No; that was apparently a temporary problem which has not recurred (yet :-)). NeoBatfreak is one of our regular "customers", and I just link to their talk page. We have no contribution requirement for requests, although it can certainly be taken into account when deciding to accept a request (FWIW, I don't). All the best, Miniapolis 14:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Some editors choose to have non-existent User pages, not even redirecting them to their talk pages. It's beyond me why someone would choose to be unhelpful in this way, but there is no rule against it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I thought I recognized the monicker.Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Red-linked article requested by now-blocked sock

The Akbarian Bengali calendar article was requested by a now-blocked sock on April 27; the article was renamed, the redirect deleted, and there's currently about it being a fork of another article. I imagine the best thing would be to delete the request, but I don't know whether archiving should be involved or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My instinct says disregard the sockpuppet's request and delete it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The redlink obviously makes a copyedit request moot :-); I'll decline and archive it for the record. All the best, Miniapolis 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Rahian-e Noor

LouisAragon Hello, LouisAragon - I was just looking through the list of requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and looking at some of the articles, and I came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Rahian-e Noor, requested by Saff V., who says it may be nominated soon for DYK. I clicked on the link to look at the article and saw a tag that made me think this article might need more work than just a copy-edit. I wonder if you could take a look at it and let me know how close the article is to being well written enough that a simple copy-edit could be done. If you think it really needs work by a person who could read the original article and polish the English article, do you have time to do that? If you do, perhaps the copy-edit request should be put on hold for a while. Saff V., is there any rush? Miniapolis, you might be interested in this.  – Corinne (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely too rough a translation to copyedit, IMO, especially for DYK. I think we should decline until the dedicated folks at WP:PNT can make it intelligible. All the best, Miniapolis 02:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it seems Paradoxasauruser has copy-edited it. It is now archived.  – Corinne (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In copy-editing, I did read sources (some were in English) to strengthen the body of the article in addition to grammatical and syntactical fixes - I'm not convinced all of the references are top-notch, but I feel the major ones are at least functional. I chose not to remove the rough translation template as I'm not a native Persian speaker and I didn't want to unilaterally judge my own edits as accurate and intelligible to the average English-language reader, but I do feel they are, if anyone else wants to put an eye to them. -- Paradoxasauruser (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Schadenfreude

Since the article expansion by the requester was a copyvio (since removed), there now seems to be no reason for a copyedit (especially since our backlog is up to two months) and we can decline this. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 20:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I had a quick scan of the article and it appears to be in reasonable shape for the most part. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Switching places for my entries

Hi, I was once told it was ok to switch the places of one's listed entries here as long as I asked on the talk page. Would it be ok if I swapped the entries for Istiodactylus and Guadeloupe amazon, since the latter has already gotten a GA review now, and will therefore be closer to an eventual FA nomination? FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That is OK. People do that occasionally. Please ensure that you do not modify anyone else's requests. The format of this page can be tricky sometimes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do it now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Datone Jones

Since requester UCLAgirl623 has received an indefinite checkuser block, I've declined and archived this article. Miniapolis 00:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Indian Navy

I took a look at Indian Navy to see if it was something I would like to copy-edit, and I saw several alarming tags at the top of the article. Is this article still in flux? Do the tags themselves invite continuous editing? What do you recommend, Jonesey95?  – Corinne (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like one editor, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, has been doing a ton of work on the page in the past two weeks. I'd say check with them to see if they plan to make further substantial changes soon. Tdslk (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I marked it as "on hold" on the Requests page for now. Check the article's history in a while to see if it has settled down. Asking the current busy editor about their plans, as Tdslk suggests, is also a good idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, Corinne, and Tdslk: Firstly thanks for taking interest in this. Actually the articles is completely outdated, interprets lot of wrong information from unreliable sources. I have been working on the article for the past two weeks and it'll take me another couple of weeks to complete. Actually I want a thorough copy edit for the article, but only after I'm done. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian Air Force

Jonesey95 Should Indian Air Force also be put on hold? See discussion on requests page. Also see Jasphetamine's question.  – Corinne (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I've declined and archived it. There are too many unanswered questions (the requesting editor used another editor's signature, and a third editor has content issues), and we're busy enough as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm automatically removed from work status on this page right? I can't find it to remove the template. Jasphetamine (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Jasphetamine. Once a request has been declined, it is archived (with an indication it has been declined), so I don't think you have to worry about adding or removing any work templates that had been placed at the request. Is this right, Miniapolis?  – Corinne (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Corinne. Miniapolis 00:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I pulled the in use template from the article so at least that is setJasphetamine (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous Environmental Network

Vansk007 started a copyedit of this request back on June 12, and hasn't edited Wikipedia since June 18. (An "inuse" template, left on the article, was removed by a bot on June 14.) Under the circumstances, if we want this request from May to be completed by the end of the current drive, it should probably be put back into circulation so someone else can complete it. Vansk007 did leave a number of comments on the article's talk page back in June, and they haven't yet been acted upon by any other editors. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure how long we should allow an editor to work on an article, but definitely not for over a month! Tdslk (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

See "Instructions for copy editors" on the Requests page: Acceptances that appear to have been abandoned will be checked after a reasonable period, usually one week after the timestamp. In cases of complete inactivity we will ask for an update on your talk page. If no response is received within one further week, the {{Working}} template will be removed so other editors may complete the copy edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps the other May article, Angels with Dirty Faces, should be pinged as well; Wilhelmina Will last edited the article a month ago today. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we have six articles with working tags that are over a week old from six different editors. I'll leave some notes on talk pages. Tdslk (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Tdslk (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment March

I was going to copy-edit Impeachment March, but seeing as it's in the middle of a merger proposal (which is fairly likely to succeed, I think) it doesn't seem stable enough. I've notified the nominator, Another Believer, and have posted a comment on the article's entry on the Requests page but I don't know the correct procedure (I'm very new to this project). Should the article be removed from the requests? Any advice would be much appreciated. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 13:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The article was nominated for merge consideration when it was much shorter. I don't anticipate the discussion resulting in consensus to merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian Navy request

The article has been under expansion for quite a while, with the estimated completion date continuing to move out. The latest estimate is July 30, a full month beyond the end of the discussion on the Requests page. It might be best to decline the request, and let it be resubmitted once the article expansion has finally been completed and the article is once again stable. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

In light of the current tag on the page, because we have plenty of other requests I agree. All the best, Miniapolis 22:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Tdslk (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal

Jonesey95 I'd like to copy-edit West Bengal, but I'd first like to ask you about two things in the requester's statement:

1) What is "FARC"? Does the requester really mean a Featured article review, or FA review, so is a Featured article candidate, or FAC?

2) I am wondering whether I want to copy-edit the article while changes are being made to it in response to statements at the review. Is there any way either those edits could be put on hold or this request could be put on hold so there are no conflicts?  – Corinne (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

1. See the very top of Talk:West Bengal. Also see WP:FARC.

2. Follow the link from the talk page to the FAR page (Wikipedia:Featured article review/West Bengal/archive1), and you will see that the comments there are pretty old, so you probably don't need to worry about a lot of changes. Also check the article's history, and you can see that it has only about a dozen changes in July, most of them small. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonesey95. You're right, and I'll proceed with the copy-edit. Now I know where to look next time. Thanks again.  – Corinne (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Want to try my hand at copyediting

Can I use the GOCE template while I copyedit?I have contributed by trying to unofficially copyedit Gunday. Please review my contributions there(I have not finished copyediting).If there are any problems coordinators can contact via my talk pageLakhuria (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Lakhuria (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. {{GOCE}} is generally used on the talk page of an article for which a copyedit has been requested on our requests page after the copyedit has been completed. You can try using {{GOCEinuse}} during a copyedit; I used to, but when it kept being removed I stopped :-). I took a quick look at Gunday and your changes are good for the most part; "the latter having composed the lyrics", though, sounds a bit awkward to me. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to are useful guides. There are no "official" copyedits; the GOCE is just a project focusing on article improvement. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lakhuria. I think it's great that you're interested in participating in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors project. I use the {{GOCEinuse}} template when I copy-edit. I have found it reduces the changes of encountering an edit conflict while I am copy-editing. If I leave it up, it will be removed automatically after about 24 hours of no activity. Then you can re-post it when you resume copy-editing. Usually, though, I remove the template myself if I know I will be taking a break from copy-editing the article. When I return to the article to resume copy-editing, I always look at the revision history to look at any edits that have been made in the interim. Besides the links provided by Miniapolis above, you can also refer to WP:Manual of Style, and you are welcome to use (or copy) anything at the top of my talk page – to copy something, go into Edit Mode, highlight what you want to copy, then paste and save to your user or talk page. Then click "Cancel" (on my talk page) to get out of Edit Mode. After you get used to the basics, if you want to spend time on spacing details, see User talk:Corinne#Nbsp. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me or Miniapolis.  – Corinne (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sustainable Development Goals and Iran

I was just looking at the article Sustainable Development Goals and Iran, which is in the list of requests. I was puzzled not only by the formatting in the Criticism section (headings are names preceded by a bullet), but also by the content of these sections. They seem to have only a tangential relationship to the larger topic of Sustainable development, perhaps focusing on a very small part of what is meant by sustainable development. Saff V., you know I am always happy to copy-edit one of your articles. I just wanted some feedback from other experienced copy-editors.  – Corinne (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read the sections, but I would start by making them into subheadings, using three "=". – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Religion in ancient Rome

The way I read the original request, the requester basically wanted a trim. However, Seraphim System got involved with sourcing and what-not (which was contested by other editors working on the article) and now wants to spin off another article. I'm going to ping Harizotoh9 and see what they want to do; if they still want a copyedit we should leave it here, but if the page is going to be overhauled I suggest we decline. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 15:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you decline, and also that you strongly encourage those in effect denouncing articles here to give details as to what they actually think is needed. This project has the potential to do harm as well as good, and I think Harizotoh9 has previous form here. I have commented on listings here (not by him) of both Christianity and Islam, which at best were likely to waste the time of all concerned. At Religion in ancient Rome, I have already greatly reduced the length of the lead, which was one obvious problem (by moving chunks to an "Overview" section below). The article is rather too long, and splitting is probably part of the answer, but that can be pursued on article talk, which fortunately does attract some responders - Seraphim System, Harizotoh9, and myself are already there, plus a couple of others with more history in the article, and good knowledge. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I was hoping to hear from Harizotoh9 (who requested the copyedit), but it's starting to look like the page is too unstable for a copyedit at this time. All the best, Miniapolis 23:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear what was contested was my attempting to reduce the length without using the sources, as disputes arose to what information was critical to the article, what was not, and even what the sources actually stated. So I did go to the sources, and I can confirm there are some issues with the sourcing. I haven't given up on it as much as I have a busy few months and some of the proposals need to be discussed (like spinning out.) I also don't want to sink many hours into improving an article, if editors aren't happy with the work I am doing (so I am concerned about stability because of the objections on talk such as calling a requested copyedit a "denouncement", when the issue is that the article is not even in good enough shape to be copyedited). The other issue is spinning out the history section which I have read thoroughly - this follows a chronological order that covers topics that already have sections dedicated to them (like temples, etc.) - the article is organized mostly by topic, which is appropriate for an overview article of this type, but the history section has important information that isn't clearly within the section that deals with it. It is essay-like and has some POV issues including the note that "This section should be about the conflict between the Plebeians, etc." - This would be relevant for a history article, but it is not relevant for an overview article about Religion. It is mainly a discussion of the political conflicts surrounding the religious institutions of Ancient Rome. It does have information that could be merged into the sections, but it is really a separate article entirely. To be clear, I do support declining, because of stability concerns, and because an RfC will be needed to resolve the question of spinning out - this is not a decision that a copy editor can make unilaterally, imo. I will probably return to the article at some point, but not in the immediate future. Hope that makes sense. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If we don't hear from Harizotoh9 (whom I've alerted to this thread) in a few days, I also suggest that we decline. Sometimes editors make a request and then disappear. All the best, Miniapolis 16:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Miniapolis, it's been a week since you posted to Harizotoh9's talk page, and the editor has been active in the interim (including replying to another post below yours on their talk page). A decline is indeed in order now. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the only coordinator, and am aware that Harizotoh9 is ignoring this thread without removing their request (which they can certainly do). Since the consensus is to decline, any coordinator—or editor familiar with archiving—can decline and archive the request. If no one else does so, I'll get to it when I can. Miniapolis 19:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to decline this request. The article is not sufficiently stable, and the requester, Harizotoh9, did not respond to requests for comment. I have marked the request as declined and archived the details, and am copying the original request and accompanying discussion from the requests page.

Copied from Requests page:

B class article with a lot of content. Could use a copyedit. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Working Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(Note: Waiting for response to queries on article's talk page.)

Pinged Seraphim System, who hasn't worked on the article in a while and may have been a bit overenthusiastic. Miniapolis 16:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually going to propose spinning out part of the article, so this may take a while because I need input from other editors. But if anyone wants to take over that is also ok, I am going to be pretty busy for the next couple of months. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

See talk. Miniapolis 15:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)  Request declined.  – Corinne (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)  – Corinne (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95 It seemed there was a consensus to decline this request, so I marked it as declined and archived it. Is there a template for a notice to place on the requester's talk page indicating the request has been declined?  – Corinne (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I checked Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors templates, and there doesn't seem to be. Since you've done the heavy lifting, I'll let them know. All the best, Miniapolis 23:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a side-note on the templates, would it be alright if I was to go through and make an updated version of the LOCE templates to GOCE to be used on talkpages? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but the LOCE tags have already been duplicated by GOCE templates. Templating a declined copyedit (which I prefer not to do) can be done with {{GOCEreviewed}}. All the best, Miniapolis 13:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about a Reviewer

Hello everyone. My request for "My Man" (Tamar Braxton song) had recently been addressed by an unregistered user. I had some concerns as the copy-edits were the only things under the user's contributions, and they had use some questionable language and misspelled several words in their edit summaries and message (i.e. "yu" instead of "you"). This user's contributions can be found here. I have also noticed that another unregistered user has also been doing copy-edits on here, and that they use the same type of language in their edit summaries and their comments. This second user's contributions can be found here. For instance, both 94.196.106.199 and 94.196.68.132 use the phrase "mendings" when referring to their edits. I am thinking that both of these users are the same person. I just wanted to raise this to the attention of the copy-editors on here, as I am not entirely sure what should be done about this. And a quick thank you to BroVic for addressing my concern on my request. I greatly appreciated their response. Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, don't fret and just believe that the editor was acting in good faith. Your article will be edited. I had a good laugh when I had a look at the "mendings". Please don't lose a moment's sleep over this. It's the web. – BroVic (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's clear that it's the same editor, who gets assigned a new IP address by their ISP every time they access the internet. However, since the "Done" tick is an indication that the edits are indeed done, perhaps the GOCE coordinators should be aware of this potential issue, so they don't archive the "done" reviews if the articles still need more work. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I've pinged the IP with a request to work within their present capability, and have advised that the request not be archived until it's completed. All the best, Miniapolis 22:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two more articles completed by what appears to be the same editor. We'll certainly do a careful review of every article done by an IP or new user. Tdslk (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And I've heard off-wiki from the IP, who is thinking of returning from a self-imposed wikibreak. I'd like to remind everyone to AGF, even (and especially) from IP editors. We have much to do, and need all the help we can get. Article improvement is a lot more than drives and blitzes. All the best, Miniapolis 22:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Miniapolis You said you pinged the IP editor. I thought pings don't work with an IP editor.  – Corinne (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

By "pinged", I meant that I left a message at User talk:94.196.106.199. Miniapolis 02:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. Thanks for explaining.  – Corinne (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses everyone. I was not too concerned about the user's edits as it is always good to have more people interested in working on copy-editing on here and to contribute to Wikipedia in general. I did not mean for my comment to be negative towards that particular user. I just wanted to raise the guild's attention to it. Thank you again for all of the discussion on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we ask that requesters commit to reviewing our work?

I'd like to propose adding a statement to the "Instructions for requesters" along the lines of: "You should only make a request if you can commit to reviewing the completed copy edit for factual accuracy." This is inspired by two events. 1) I just declined the oldest article in the list, Microsoft, because the requester, who was going to take it to GAN, has announced their Wiki retirement. 2) This recent complaint from an editor about how GOCE members had introduced factual errors while doing our work. Since we rarely know as much about the article subject as the requester, factual errors can creep in, which could hopefully be caught by the requester. In practice I think most of our requesters do already review our work; the purpose of the statement would be to set clear expectations and to officially establish that we may decline requests from banned/retired users and from "drive-by" requesters. I think this matches the implicit principle behind our decision to prohibit requests from IP addresses that had not edited the requested article. Does this seem reasonable to others? Tdslk (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There's too much drive-by requesting, and a surprising lack of good faith in that thread on Johnbod's talk page; I'm starting to feel like Rodney Dangerfield :-). I respect your decision about the Microsoft article, but IMO a requester's retirement is irrelevant to a page's need for improvement; editors retire (and come out of retirement) all the time. A blocked editor is different, because the request may not have been made in good faith. Thanks for a good suggestion and all the best, Miniapolis 13:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with asking that requesters commit to reviewing our work both to ensure no factual errors were introduced and to ensure that citations appear in the right place (sometimes, in the process of re-wording a sentence, it is hard to know where the citation should go). Regarding your decline of the request to copy-edit Microsoft, I can certainly understand, but in situations like that, where the requester announces retirement, if you look at the recent editing history, you might be able to find another experienced editor with an interest in the article who would accept the responsibility for reviewing our copy-edits. Regarding the complaints about GOCE copy-editing at User talk:Johnbod#Problems?, I've been following that discussion, and I just posted this. Perhaps I should copy this last comment here since it contains a proposal.  – Corinne (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the purpose of the Requests page is not to pick out articles most in need of improvement; those should get tagged and piled on to the backlog. Rather, the requester is saying that they have taken a special interest in the article, and wants us to assist in making it the best it can be, often as part of a Good/Featured Article Nomination. Without that involved editor, there's no reason to work on Microsoft over, say, Apple, Intel, or whatever comes up when you click the "random article" link. In practice most of our requesters do have this kind of involvment, and I don't think we need to scrutinize each request for editor engagement; this would only come into play when we do notice something awry, such as when the large, highly visible articles Christianity and Islam were requested by new editors earlier this year. Tdslk (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, Tdslk, but I thought you were asking what course to take in the specific situation of when a requester, who was an involved editor at the time of the request, announces, for reasons we may not ever know, his or her retirement from Wikipedia. Other than simply rejecting the request, which is one alternative, I was just suggesting a way to find an editor who would take the responsibility of reviewing the edits after a GOCE copy-edit. Regarding the other issue, of someone who has not been much involved in an article posting a request for a copy-edit, I haven't really paid much attention to that; I've generally gone on the assumption that the requester is involved and will review the edits. I'm glad someone keeps an eye out for the uninvolved-editor-requests. Jonesey95 seems to be good at catching those.  – Corinne (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I propose a slightly different modification to the instructions, only because it has worked very well for me. These instructions would apply to copy-editors, not to requesters. See this talk page conversation for an example. I did the following:

1. Posted a new section on the requested article's talk page, informing watchers that I was about to begin a requested copy edit.
2. Followed up with "Some problems I found while copy-editing:" (that I was unable to resolve on my own)
3. Concluded with a statement that "I am done with my copy edits" and an offer to watch the page for a while in case anyone had questions. I sometimes ask editors to ping me or put a note on my User Talk page instead, since I do not like to watch article-space pages.

Again, this process has worked well for me when editing Requests. It notifies all page watchers that some action is about to occur on a page, which can head off reverts and edit conflicts. It also gives watchers an opportunity to say "Please don't start your copy-edit because [insert reason]." It then notifies those same watchers when the copy-editing process is done so that they can look for things that I missed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey. Are you proposing that as an alternative to my proposal above, or just as an additional idea? I like your idea; I think it would be especially helpful when editing high-traffic pages. But I feel like it's addressing a different issue than the one I was concerned about. Specifically, I feel like there is an implicit agreement made when someone requests that we (the GOCE) copy edit a page. We could edit any of 5 million pages, or make a whole new one, but we're agreeing to give a requested page special attention. In return, it seems like it's not asking too much to expect that the requester also be working on the page, because then we can collaborate to make it the best it can be. I feel like this is already the case for most of the Requests we get. What I'm saying is, if there is reason to believe the requester won't be reciprocating in the collaboration, that we should pass on the page in favor of another article from our large backlog of requests from editors who are actively working on the article. If we did turn down a request (and this would be infrequent), we could always later accept the request once the requester shows that they are engaged with the article. Tdslk (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I like Jonesey95's three-step process, above. I've been doing steps 2 and 3 all along, so would only have to add the first step, placing a notice about an imminent copy-edit on the requester's talk page. I wonder if a special template could be made for this type of statement; it would save copy-editors some time. Regarding Tdslk's proposal, how do you suggest we go about determining whether a requester is actively involved in the article and, following a copy-edit, would presumably review our edits and discuss any remaining issues? Would we simply look at the revision history of the article and see if the requester had made any recent edits to the article? If so, how many recent edits would be sufficient to say the requester was involved? How have you gone about making this determination?  – Corinne (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, I'm proposing this as a statement of principle, not some strict legal definition. If we post it as an expectation, I think we can Assume Good Faith on the part of requesters and don't need to aggressively scrutinize their edit history. It would only come into play if there was a specific situation like, say, we notice that the original requester has since retired, or that two new accounts have requested reviews of core articles on major religions. And sometimes that could happen and we don't notice, and it wouldn't be a big deal, but if we do notice we can point to the statement as a reason to pass on the article. Tdslk (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to institute a mentoring process for new participants at GOCE

In response to complaints expressed at User talk:Johnbod#Problems?, I made the following suggestions. I have copied the last two comments from that page here for our further discussion:

I think that could help, certainly. One issue at present is that watchers of the article aren't aware that a GOCE request has been made. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, isn't there a template that anyone can place at the top of an article that s/he thinks needs copy-editing? If so, then perhaps the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors could create a different template that says something to the effect that "A copy-edit has been requested for this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and will take place in the next few weeks", and placing this template at the top of an article could be made part of the process of requesting a copy-edit. Regarding improving copy-editing at the GOCE, perhaps new participants at GOCE could be assigned to one of the coordinators who would review the first few copy-editing efforts and, if the copy-editing shows problems, the copy-editor could be assigned a mentor. Perhaps it should be two mentors: one a GOCE coordinator (or experienced GOCE copy-editor) and the other an experienced content creator/editor. I'd be glad to help mentor new copy-editors. Jonesey95 is about to take a wiki-break, so may not be able to respond until his return.  – Corinne (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 – Corinne (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I just posted a response on Johnbod's talk page, to the effect that we don't need a new dedicated template, just some way of notifying the more discerning and demanding of our clientele that an article they care about is about to get a makeover. Also, I think that we shouldn't let the issues that arise trying to satisfy the more demanding editors skew our efforts too much, but if individuals are moved to do more mentoring, that can't hurt. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I would support both proposals. A template that a requester could add to the talk page of the requested article saying, "User has requested that a member of the Guild of Copy Editors review this article for Reason" sounds like a good idea. Also, an understanding that an editor doing their first Request page article(s) have their work reviewed by another GOCE member would help ensure consistent quality. Tdslk (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, you say we need "just some way of notifying the more discerning and demanding of our clientele that an article they care about is about to get a makeover", but, if not a template-type message, what do you suggest? Are you saying you think the message should be placed on individual editors' talk pages? If so, how would a requester know on which editor's or editors' talk page(s) to place such a message? Doesn't a message at the top of the article make more sense? Anyone really interested in the article would see it. I think it would be best to continue this discussion in one place, and I suggest that it continue here since it is with regard to the GOCE project. A link to this discussion can be placed on Johnbod's talk page.  – Corinne (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I meant to suggest to notify via a message or, if necessary, a template on the article or article talk page, not notify individual editors. What I perceive the situation to be now is that sometimes an editor requests a copy-edit that, when taken up, is objected to for apparently perfectly good reasons, with a considerable amount of upset resulting. Placing a notice of an imminent requested copy-edit—where interested subject editors can be forewarned and discuss the appropriateness of such a request beforehand—is something we haven't been requiring requesters to do. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing the opinions of the GOCE coordinators and other members of the project; Jonesey95 is on a wiki-break until early October, so we'll have to wait for his/her reply. In the meantime, I took a look at the templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Templates, and I found this one, which I do not use: {{GOCEstartce}}. In the example showing how the message looks, I think there may be a mistake because it says "Hi WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors" which I think it should be "Hi User name:User" since it is designed to be left on the talk page of the requester. I wonder if this template is being used at all. If not, it could be redesigned with a new message. If so, a new template could be designed. Miniapolis, is this the time to ask for suggestions on wording, or should we wait until we have a consensus that the kind of template that Dhtwiki is suggesting is even needed? I have a question for Dhtwiki: How often does that situation arise, where someone submits a request for a copy-edit of an article, and other editors find out and, for various reasons, object, and "a considerable amount of upset" results? If it is not very often, can't it be dealt with when it occurs? I just wonder if the opposite could occur, where placing a notification at an article that a copy-edit has been requested could cause more arguments than we presently see. Is that a possibility? Just thinking out loud, so to speak.  – Corinne (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Substituting, rather than transcluding, that template makes it work properly (although I don't use it either) and I've noted the need to substitute it on the template page. WP:KUDZU; I have little enough time for copyediting as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this will help as the problem usually arises from misused sources (which subsequent source checks have revealed) i.e. the editors who would be reviewing had distorted sources or possibly just misunderstood them in the first place. I would consider getting rid of the template entirely and only allowing formal requests and nearly 100 percent of templated backlog articles are not ready for copy edit. Ideally, these articles would first go through a full source check and meet minimal quality standards before coming to us (and thus not waste our time). This would require a substantial investment of community time. I certainly think source checks should be ENTIRELY independent of involved editors who have worked on these articles (and often disrupt copy editors work.) I think declining is the best move we have now because I hate to see copyeditors hard work improving articles reverted by involved editors over content disputes - source checks have shown that independent verification of sources is needed, not from the regular editors Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Did anyone actually read the discussion at Longquan Celadon before taking Johnbod's complaints seriously? I did the copyedit and first of all he started the discussion by calling me stupid. He started hounding me and following me to niche articles I work on, until I ceased work on the article. An independent source check I requested on the article PROVED that the sources didn't even support the statements. The article was poorly quality to begin with and should have been declined to begin with, we certainly don't need to waste resources on "mentoring" over Petty behavioral problems and the inability of some editors to collaborate respectfully. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Dhtwiki said it best above: "we shouldn't let the issues that arise trying to satisfy the more demanding editors skew our efforts too much, but if individuals are moved to do more mentoring, that can't hurt." Tdslk (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

C/E request for Fawad Khan

I was about to start this request but I found a {{Original research}} template at the top of this BLP article, which has recenty been demoted from GA status. I'm concerned that a significant rewrite may be in order before it's suitable for an extensive copy-edit by Guild members. This isn't to say a c/e shouldn't be done, should someone feel their effort will be worthwhile. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that under the circumstances, the request should be declined. Too often, a copyedit request is synonymous with "Fix this article" :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The talk page for the article has some extensive back-and-forth about the prose and about the reliability of sources. I posted there to ask the editor who placed the OR tag to explain why the tag was placed. If there is just one section with OR and we can edit the rest, it may be worth working on. Let's at least put it on hold for now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist has taken it on, which is a good outcome, so we can probably close this now. Thanks both for your comments, and for TT for doing the work! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by request by IP

Dakshina Kannada was requested by an IP in their only edit so far. Shouldn't it be deleted, since IPs are only allowed to make requests if they've done significant work on the article? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This one is questionable. A few different IP editors edited the article recently, all from Karnataka, India. The requester is also an IP from Karnataka. Many of the recent edits before that were made by Mony-Mony, who was blocked on 28 October, apparently as part of a sock puppet investigation (although I do not know much about SPI). To this reasonable person, it looks like the request is from the person who used to be Mony-Mony, who is now blocked, but other reasonable people may come to a different conclusion.

I think we are justified in declining this request per our rules. I think we should put a {{copy edit}} tag at the top of the article to show good faith. Someone will get to it eventually as part of the regular backlog work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree about this request and Barbuda below. All the best, Miniapolis 14:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Request  Declined. I'll leave it on the Requests page for a day or two in case the requester is watching the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Barbuda

This appears to be a request by an IP who has made only one minor edit to the article. I recommend declining and tagging it with {{copy edit}}, unless someone sees a reason to do otherwise. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Jonesey95, as Fearless Leader around here, do you want to take care of the declining and tagging, both of this one and the previous one? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Request  Declined. I'll leave it on the Requests page for a day or two in case the requester is watching the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Archiving query

I've been doing some archiving of completed requests lately, but I'm stumped as to what to do with Batman: Under the Red Hood, which seems to have been copyedited as far as possible nearly three weeks ago, but there were/are issues with the Plot section that made it infeasible to copyedit. It would be great if one of the coordinators could please check this and do whatever the next appropriate step is, whether closing/archiving or something else entirely. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Plot section looks ready for copy-editing to me. What am I missing? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The plot section is over-long and needs reducing to <700 words, per WP:PLOT; perhaps that's what the accepting editor is worried about. In any case, I can finish it if no-one else wants it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked and made the word count 660, so i was speaking out of turn (struck). I still think it needs a major pruning though; it's full of waffle and inconsequential details. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Bullfrog Productions

I've moved the request 'discussion' over from REQ to allow discussion to occur. It's high time we completed this request, IMO. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; moved from Requests page by me. diff Discuss here.

I'd like to get this up to GA. It failed the first GAN because it was believed copy editing/rewriting was needed. I'd like to make sure it's all good before renominating. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Working Toreightyone (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: @Toreightyone:'s last edit to this article was at 00:00, 30 October 2017‎, and s/he is currently active elsewhere; last edit as of my timestamp is 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Since my post another edit has occurred at the article; I'll keep watching. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Note 2: @Toreightyone:'s last edit to this article was at 03:12, 21 November 2017‎‎ (UTC), and s/he has not been active since 14:15, 20 November 2017‎ (UTC) , as of my timestamp. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Note 3: I've templated her/his talk page with {{GOCE-ab}}. I'll copy-edit thread to REQ talk; please discuss here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it's time someone else picked it up; requested copyedits are expected to be done in a timely manner (a week or so), and if a copyeditor doesn't have the time (or interest) to complete a request they should say so :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the delays as the Women in Red contest took up most of my time. I am close to finishing up with one more edit on the way. If any editor sees any obvious errors, feel free to edit. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Again, I apologize for the wait. Best of luck, Toreightyone (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Dec. No. 5946/212/2015

This request for the above article sounds to me like; "can an expert in the Romanian legal system please fix this confused article", which isn't the GOCE's purpose. I doubt the aforementioned expert will show up so I'm bringing it here for discussion, none of which, of course, prevents a c/e from occurring. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Law is the best place for the requester to ask for help. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The changes since the last GOCE copy-edit back in February 2017 are not drastic, so it is probably amenable to a copy-edit again. What I usually do where there are both content and prose questions is edit the prose as well as I can and leave {{clarify}} tags (with an explanation) adjacent to any prose that I can't fix because the meaning is too unclear. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Jonesey, it's good to get other thoughts on this kind of thing, and this is my thinking too—a copy-edit isn't a content review. I didn't know it had been here before (didn't check its history). I'd be willing to take the request, although I'm not a Romanian lawyer, if it's still here when I've finished my current one, taking onboard your comments. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done; it was less work than I expected and there aren't any really dodgy texts in there. Note the requester reverted some of my edits. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your copy-edit! I didn't "revert" your changes, I just looked over the article once again and edited the things you got wrong (e.g. you mixe up the names sometimes). Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries; I'd assumed from the context "the singer" refers to Stan and not her manager Prodan; my mistake, thanks for fixing it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Joanne (Lady Gaga song)

I'm just commenting here to comply with policy (because of WP:OWN issues), but I'm not really interested in engaging in edit wars. Too exhausting. If you review my edits to Joanne (Lady Gaga song), you'll see I made pretty conservative edits that mostly amounted to grammar correction and prose improvement. Two editors reverted all the edits, despite my efforts to be civil and explain my changes using policy. Unfortunately, the editor who passed it to for GA (who actually did a great job of addressing a lot of the article's major issues), still missed a few basic issues. I've recused myself of the review.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see nothing problematic in these edits. Your next edits also seemed fine except for "after from" (I can't parse that; I suspect that you just didn't get to finish proofreading). I don't know why they were reverted wholesale.

As for adding a summary topic sentence to the Critical reception section, I will leave that to someone else to argue about. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at my subsequent edits to see what else I found. I expect that you would have gotten to most of it. Some of it is just a difference in preferred style. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed your edits, and you found many of the things I had noticed, and were actually even more assertive in your edits. I think your improvements are great. I typically also try to do a little prose improvement, but I certainly see why you didn't want to touch it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Vancouver style

I am participating in improving an article in which one of the editors has requested that I adhere to a consistent citation style (not a problem) and another editor then converted all the citations to the 'Vancouver' style (again not a problem). Though I am unfamiliar with this style, I am trying to do the right thing and go along with this referencing system. I like learning new things, so this new adventure has been interesting. Here is my question: In the citation style I am used to using, I was able to first, add a book to the bibliography at the bottom of the article after the reference section. I then cited the book and the different pages in the book where the content was found. I liked doing this because I listed the book once and used it consistently when I needed to refer to specific pages in the book. How do I do this with the Vancouver referencing system? Here is an example of how I have been referencing content. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A link to the actual article in question would be helpful, because I saw no problem with your link to Latch (breastfeeding). I'm not too familiar with Vancouver referencing, but you may want to read WP:CSVAN (and WP:CITEVAR; WP has no "preferred" citation style). All the best, Miniapolis 22:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that if you are using {{cite book}}, using |name-list-format=vanc and |ref=harv should work pretty well. I fixed the short reference in Latch (breastfeeding). You may want to add User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to your User:Barbara (WVS)/common.js file so that you can see red error messages for Harvard-style references that are not working. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan

Resolved

CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Requests page by me. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested by User:Harut111 on my talk page. Adding this to the GOCE list. Blackmane (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

 Working Accepting this one and tagging requestor Blackmane (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment @Blackmane: FYI, I copy edited this article December 20–22. It may not be on the first page of the article's history because the requester makes lots of small edits. I'll search for other talk page notices and mark it as done. I don't mind if you want to check my work or do additional ce, but it may not be the best use of your time. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to suggest that this be closed. Harut111's request was posted here on December 17 as well as to seven user talk pages on December 19 (see User talk:Corinne#Iveta Mukuchyan)—I think to most every copy editor working on a Request—and has already been completed and archived, as Reidgreg notes. The article has had 20 edits by Harut111 since the GOCE notice was posted there a few hours ago, so it wouldn't appear to be a good, stable candidate for a copyedit in any event. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I am fine with the request being closed. I have struck my acceptance. Blackmane (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Continuation on talk page after copying

Should the original of this section just be deleted from the Requests page without being entered into the Requests archive, since it's effectively a duplicate entry and no (second) copyedit was actually done, or should there be an entry made in the archive regardless? Either way, we will have this talk-page entry as a record of what happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the duplicate request from the Requests page without archiving it, since it was already completed on 2017-12-22 by Reidgreg. Thanks to Blackmane for making sure this request did not slip through the cracks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for the follow up. Blackmane (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)