This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Connecticut, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject University of ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject University of ConnecticutUniversity of Connecticut
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
The structure of this piece could definitely be condensed; it feels like the different sections don't need their own sections, to put it one way. I just read through the piece for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October 2021 and I removed content that didn't fit the structure (like random names/years/positions throughout the different sections that were outdated and uncited) and left behind likely reputable (but unverified) information that was still structurally sound. The piece doesn't have any inline citations (or any at all) outside of the first line, and needs an overhaul to update it for timeliness. Even though I'm a deletionist, this isn't worth deleting -- it's definitely a reputable paper that has had a lot of edits made to the article over many years, but it just feels like it still needs a lot of work. (I can't commit to the work right now, which is why I'm leaving this note.) ɯɐɔ💬08:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]