Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Updating proofreading status?

Does the status template at the top of the proofreading page update automatically? If so, how often? I've done several edits in the last week or so, but it looks like the bar hasn't updated since 2/16? Galena11 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. I'd update it myself (I think I understand the mechanics behind it), but I don't know how the numbers are calculated, as they don't seem to make sense to me. If someone wants to explain it, that'd be cool. Also, if desired, I could probably write a bot to do it automatically -- see User:CbmBOT for an bot I've already got running that does a similar task (updates the statistics table on Category:Cleanup by month). –Dvandersluis 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we could have a bot, I think that would be ideal. One less thing to keep up with manually! Would you be willing to give that a try? Galena11 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If I could get a set of rules to operate on (again, I'm a bit clueless as to how the numbers are being calculated), I can whip something up when I get a chance (probably sometime this week)... :) –Dvandersluis 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wonderful. I'm afraid I can't help you with that, as I have no clue what you need, but it's an excellent idea. Best regards.--Song 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

As a suggestion I was thinking maybe this part of the project should adapt similar rules as Did you know template. This would definetely encourage further improvements of article other than actually writing them and would help to discourage a backlog from forming with poor articles. My primary inspiration for such a suggestion is lack of cited sourced in some of this requested articles. How do you feel about this? Thank you. 74.113.107.4 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we had criteria for an article to be copy-edited. I see some that are not complete, ie. lacking sources, full information, and other problems. Or maybe we could just get a list of alternate templates to replace the copy-edit one. That might clear up at least some of the backlog. Sheesh, I'd be willing to do that myself, if I could get someone to point me in the right direction. Comments desperatly appreciated. Best regards.--Song 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found a template page: See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. It contains a list of templates that can be used instead of the generic copy-edit one. If someone could tell me where this list would be most appreciated, I will include it on that page. Best regards.--Song 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets -> Numbers

Just changed the bullets into numbers, to help give a better picture of where things are backing up. --Sigma 7 17:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sigma 7. That was a good idea, and it's certainly much easier to find out what needs the help most. Best regards.--Song 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made use of the {{las}} template to list articles to show direct links for editing and to the talk page. If there are no objections, I'll do the same for the other sections (current only done it for FAC/FAR section). → AA ^(talk) — 21:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completed the change across all categories. → AA ^(talk) — 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is handy. I like it. Finetooth 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for proofread list

I added "at the bottom of this list" to the instructions of what to do with an article ready for final proofread. Right now, the list is a mess and is in no particular chronological order. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr.Z-man. I was wondering about that, and those instructions helped a lot. Best regards.--Song 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are denied a proofread

As we have had a number of articles today that have been effectively denied copyediting, for whatever reason (generally volatility), I have been bold and created a new section, under "Proofread complete", called "Proofread denied". I don't think that these articles belong in Proofread complete, because, well, they're not complete (and also, it screws up the numbering process for statistic keeping). I also propose that said articles with {{not done}}. Furthermore, we probably should have a set of instructions for that section, like Proofread complete, but I don't have a good list right now – thoughts? —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Thanks! Galena11 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a copy-edit denied section as well? Where we can put FAC/GAC articles that have passed anyway, or where volatility renders copy-editing useless? I was about to be bold and do it myself but thought I should really ask first... Cricketgirl 13:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, for articles that don't need copy-edited because they're good enough as is? Yeah, that would be useful. No idea where you'd put it...and it's much too late for me to even attempt to think of a good place. Best regards.--Song 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I created the new section. I think these articles still deserve our attention (not least because it was requested and we didn't answer the request - or at least didn't take it off the project page), but they are clearly surviving pretty well as they stand, so the "general requests" are more important. Obviously this is a heading that it would be very nice to get rid of, along with the backlog...Cricketgirl 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating this page

This page is in serious need of an update and I'm volunteering myself for it. I will be getting rid of the backlog of old and outdated information over the next week or so. Trusilver 05:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be very brave to undertake something like that. It would scare me off! (lol) You have my support if you need anything. Best regards.--Song 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For example, we need to clarify what is "Backlog status".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgan002 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like a plan.--Song 05:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleaning up of this page but was wondering whether we should have a criteria for how long an article should remain in the "general" section. If we say (for example) entries older than 2 months will be removed, we should be able to contain the backlog as having 90 odd entries does not inspire confidence in editors listing an article here. Any thoughts? → AA ^(talk) — 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding the following new section:

Requests over 3 months old
If a request has not been actioned within 3 months of being listed, they will be moved here. The requestor can remove the entry from here and re-list it in the appropriate section if the copyedit is still required. However, any requests remaining in the section 1 month after being moved here, will be archived without being actioned.

Thoughts? → AA ^(talk) — 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about GACs?

I wanted to check the status of my request to copyedit I Not Stupid Too, which I filed on 13 May 2007. Although the "Copy-edit requests for other articles" backlog is huge, the "Copy-edit requests for FAC and FAR articles" has a relatively small backlog, possibly because few articles undergo FAC or FAR.

The main reason cited for the failure of I Not Stupid's GA nominations is choppy prose. After I rewrite the Plot section, the article will still need a thorough copy-edit before I renominate it two weeks later. If I list my request under "Copy-edit requests for other articles" (since GAC is neither FAC nor FAR), I'll probably have to wait until next year before the article is copy-edited.

Therefore I propose that a new section be created for articles undergoing a GAC (and articles which need a copyedit as preparation for a GAC), or that the existing "Copy-edit requests for FAC and FAR articles" be expanded to include articles undergoing GAC.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a lack of responses, I have decided to be bold and create a section for GACs. Feel free to discuss (or dispute) the addition of this new section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a great idea. Two thumbs-up! Best regards.--Song 16:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the "other" section for GACs/FACs

In the "other" category, there are a number of entries that are listed as being GACs or FACs, which supposedly should be under the relevant sections. I started to move them, but there are some cases where something was a GAC or FAC at the time it was nominated, but isn't necessarily at that status now. Not being an active member of the project, I decided it was better to post here to suggest that others sort out the ones that belong under the other headings so that they can get help faster. I do see from an earlier comment that the GAC section is a fairly new addition, so that probably explains why items from March or April are still under "other." Lawikitejana 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a recent drive to reduce the backlog at GAC, it is very unlikely that any GACs listed in April will still be GACs. All the current GACs would probably have been listed only two weeks ago at the most. Epbr123 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the "old requests as yet unanswered" section a few days ago, I checked ALL of the "other" requests for FAC/FA status, so while it's possible there are a few GACs lingering (although, as Epbr123 says, they will mostly have expired) there are no FACs or FAs in the "other" list. Cricketgirl 23:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's FA

Please can someone look at Holden VE Commodore, today's FA? I'm only a very occasional Wikipedian: I've done a bit, but honestly, I think it needs a complete overhaul, because reading it was a penance (I gave up). --Was Once 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look-see, but I might not be able to copy-edit it, depending on my schedule. I'll move this request to the project page, if you like, so that others with more time can get to it. Sound good? Best regards.--Song 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about GA → FAC?

The recommendations are to have an article copyedited before submitting for FAC. However, there doesn't seem to be a section for listing existing GA articles that are ready for FAC but could do with a copyedit. Theoretically, since the article is already GA, it should be a quicker process. → AA ^(talk) — 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a section for this category. It should ensure articles are copyedited before they go to FAC and therefore won't need to be rushed after being nominated for FAC. If the project members do not agree with this, feel free to remove. → AA ^(talk) — 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary that the article be currently in Peer Review? Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District had a PR last month (where it received no comments), but is on the GA → FAC road. I'm not sure what the best category arrangement would be, but the current ones seem to encourage unprepared FACs: If someone does not copyedit an article before FAC and the issue is raised during FAC, there's almost no backlog. If someone wants to copyedit before FAC, there's about a four month backlog to wait through. It might just be because the FACs that would make up the backlog have already either passed or failed and were moved to the other lists. If the answer is "life's not fair, get back in line"; I won't be offended. :) --Hebisddave 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it falls under the general criteria as potentially every GA article is on the path to FA. However, if there is a current and active drive by editors to get an article ready for FAC, then it needs to be given some priority treatment. However, as you say once the article is on for FAC, it can be moved to the relevant section if appropriate. → AA ^(talk) — 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a mess

Does anyone disagree that the current page is messy and poorly laid out? Is anyone sufficiently wedded to the current system that they would be opposed to me implementing a new one based on an updated set of templates? I can offer a method of automatically sorting requests by type, while retaining the requests in chronological order and being very easy to use. Comments? Happy‑melon 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just food for thought, note that modern HTML signatures very often break the (ancient) {{WP LoCE}} template due to lack of parameter naming, which also follows a non-standard naming convention. Happy‑melon 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? ... any chance of putting that latter thought in plain English? Not everyone who is proficient in English and English copy-editing is proficient in software code and jargon! Regards, (dummy known as) Unimaginative Username 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the {{WP LoCE}} template uses unnamed parameters rather than named parameters. So the syntax is {{WP LoCE|signature}} rather than {{WP LoCE|name=signature}}. That means that if what you put in the signature field has an equals sign (as a lot of modern signatures do) all the text before the first equals sign is interpreted as the parameter name. So when I write

{{WP:LoCE|<font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font>}}

, which is what is produced from {{WP LoCE|~~~}} for me, the part in bold is interpteted by the template as a parameter name, not a parameter value. Of course no parameter with that name exists in the template, so what you get when you use modern signatures with this template (and many others that don't have parameter naming) is either garbled code or nothing at all for that field. Does that make sense? Happy‑melon 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Atlantic University

I just added the above article to the 'other articles needing review section'. It is not currently classified as a GA just because I have chosen to go directly to WP:FAC. It is currently undergoing peer review. One of the comments was that my comma usage needs work. I agree. From looking at the other articles section it looks like the backlog is 3 months or so. I plan on nominating it after the review because I think it is very close to WP:FA status now so I can't wait that long. So I was wondering if there was anyone who could do me a favor and look at the article now?

Thanks, KnightLago 14:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the comments on the main page here (c/e requests) and on FAU Talk. Regards, Unimaginative Username 08:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New system ready for testing

Further to my comments above, I have created and alpha-tested a new system for listing articles, which can be found here. Please have a look at the new system and comment on the proposal. Happy‑melon 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does someone do if they really want someone to take a look at an article they proposed for the copyeditors to look over and try to assist and it's not one of the ones that has been transfered over to the new system? Because I'm really worried now about how this will impact the article I proposed; I feel that it deserves so much more than I can give it, yet I don't know if it will ever even be looked at now. 69.150.213.172 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll be making a real effort to completely clear the backlog of articles which are left under the old system before marking it as {{historical}}. All the requests for FA, FAC, FAR, GA and GAC articles have been transfered to the new system, so if your article is one of those it's already in the new system. If not sit tight and we'll work to clear the backlog as soon as possible. Happy‑melon 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when articles aren't ready for a copyedit and need extensive work?

Hi all! I'm back from wikibreak and I've noticed that several articles in the "ready for proofread" section have notes such as "needs extensive work on references" and "requires work by authors". IMO, I think that this should qualify the articles as "proofread denied" or "copyedit denied" (if we catch this issue early) because, by definition, a copyedit should not endeavour to resolve these issues. (See WP:COPYEDIT) I think that articles which require more than a copyedit for grammar, style, and general readability should be removed from our lists and a note put on the article's discussion page stating the issues and that the authors are welcome to resubmit their articles when they are ready for a true copyedit. Thoughts? Galena11 15:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Inadequate sourcing seems to me to be the biggest problem. It's easy for authors to make claims but harder to find support for the claims. Copyeditors can't be expected to hunt for the missing support in weakly-supported articles. Finetooth 16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm someone who put several of those comments there. Insofar as it was early in my time with the League, I wasn't sure I had the authority to DENY a proofread, but I agree that it's a sensible way to proceed. If they haven't been moved, I'll move them. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 17:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the backlog

I've tried, but I can't quite figure out what to do with the backlog articles. I'd like to chip away at them and get them out of here, but where do I put them once they've been copyedited and need proofing? In the new system or here? And should the proofed articles be moved to "Proofread complete" on this page, like we used to do? Or should they go somewhere else? Help! SlackerMom (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed message

I thought it might be better to continue this discussion here:

Happy-melon, I am drafting a note at Finetooth's suggestion. What do you think about this for a starting point?

On this date, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on This article. Due to a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we aplogize. Since your request, this article has been subject to significant editing, and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. SlackerMom (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. I'll try and help when I can, but I'm going to be very busy for the next week. I recommend that we work through the list one at a time, sending the note and then immediately removing the entry from the list, to make sure this stays organised and we don't send any duplicate messages. That, of course, begs the question of how we handle duplicate requests from the same editor - all at once or separate messages for each request? It might also be useful to add a check link - I linked one of the full stops to WP:LOCE/PM so we can use "whatlinkshere" to keep track of where we've sent them, if we need to. Happy‑melon 13:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, you are so tricky! That's a great idea! (It took me a minute to translate "full stop" into "period" - I had no idea what you were talking about! I'm such a barbarian.) I'll start working on them as I have time and will leave any comments here if I have trouble. I think it's probably better to send a separate notice for each article, unless all the articles were requested at once (like the "oil shale" ones). It will be easier for us (ok, me) to keep it straight. SlackerMom (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm feeling very bold. I hope I don't get yelled at too much, but I've given this a go with the ten oldest requests on the "Requests for other articles" list. I checked the article talk pages first, to make sure there wasn't already a LoCE template showing any previous work. Then I left the above message on ten user talk pages. (Actually I added the LoCE logo to it first, and it looks quite nice. Copy it from my sandbox if you want to help.) After that I removed each entry from the list. Just for the sake of tracking progress, the backlog page contained 105 entries as of this morning. The "Requests for other articles" list contained 63 entries when I began...now it's down to 53. There are currently 21 entries under "Requests for successful FA not acted upon" and 21 entries under "Ready for final proofread". I'm of the opinion that the last bunch could probably archived, since they have been acted upon, but it's really too late to try to proofread them now. SlackerMom (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just had a whack at it. I went to SlackerMom's sandbox, copied the note, checked the article talk page for LoCE tags, found none, sent the note to User:Cholga, signed with my name rather than SlackerMom's, and deleted Point Isabel Regional Shoreline from our backlog list. I didn't understand HappyMelon's note about a check link, so did nothing with that part of it. I am writing down the names of the articles I remove so I can add them to a check list later if necessary. I started working from the top of "Requests for other articles" to avoid bumping into SlackerMom coming the other way. Finetooth (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure - the copyedit request on HEBISD was canceled with this message ("this article has been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate"). I looked at the diff since August 30 and it really doesn't seem like significant editing has taken place. (17 edits since it was submitted here; 6 of these were vandalism/spam and reverts) If there are just too many requests and you're just canceling all the old ones, that's fine. The current message template sort of made me feel like it was my fault the article didn't get copyedited, since I made some minor edits to the article during those 4.5 months. :( --Hebisddave (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! It was certainly not your fault. We just started using this message today, and it probably could be written more precisely, but at the moment it is being used to reduce a very heavy backlog that has just gotten too old. The majority of these articles have been significantly edited since request, but obviously that is not the case with all of them. Please feel free to resubmit your entry in our new system, and I'll see if I can improve the text of the message. SlackerMom (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forging ahead. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence about changes to read: "this article may have been subject to significant editing," and I fixed "apologize," which was missing an "o". I changed singular to plural for the six oil shale articles and sent one note to the main author of all six. Two main authors have disappeared from Wikipedia, the one for Sir Edmund Backhouse, 2nd Baronet and the one for Odex's actions against file sharing. In the interests of tidying up, I deleted these from the list even though I could not send notes to the authors. Finetooth (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the "other articles" group and changed the tag to resemble that of the other finished groups. I'm moving on to the 21 "Requests for successful FA not acted upon". It was not possible to notify the requesters for Say You'll Be There, Scars (band), or Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, but I deleted them anyway. So, of the 63 in the "other article" category, all but five requesters got individual notices posted to their talk pages. The other five either have no functioning talk page or have left Wikipedia. Finetooth (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the 21 in the ready for final proofing list. Twenty of the 21 FA requesters got personal notices about the change. The one requester whose talk page link was gone was the one who submitted Holden VE Commodore. I agree with SlackerMom that the best thing to do with this last 21 is to archive them. At least some, such as Lethbridge, have already made FA, and who knows when we will get to the others, if ever. Finetooth (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Exactly what I was hoping for! (I'm so embarrased for misspelling "apologize" - some proofreader I am!) I won't have much wiki-time today, but I'll help archive if I can later on. SlackerMom (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have a bunch of other things I have to do today, some on wiki and some off. I'll start archiving as soon as I can, but if you get to it first, that would be great. I've heard from several of the requesters, by the way, and generally they seemed grateful to have heard from the LoCE. Your note was a great help, and I was glad to have it. Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have archived all but 7 of the "Ready for proofread" articles. Those I archived have been edited too many times since LoCE copyedit to be effectively proofed. I think the remaining 7 could still benefit from a proofread, so I have left them here to be worked on. SlackerMom (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Wow, that's awesome work!! I was honestly beginning to despair that this page would ever be cleared. Barnstars for the pair of you, I think!! Happy‑melon 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]