This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What's the protocol for an on-hold GOCE req?
Should I strike through the working tag I put on the initial request? Delete it? Having the article on the list in a pending state is useful to prevent re-submitting as well as listing my username as a point of contact if an author had questions re:GOC edit status, I just want to make sure I'm not going to offend anyone by having that open working tag. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jasphetamine; don't worry about upsetting anyone. I'm sorry I didn't pick up the problems earlier, I could have saved you some work. It's not necessary to strike the acceptance, the bot will archive the request as Declined in about 24 hours. The request will be in our 2019 archive and discussions about it should go on the Requests talk page. A re-request will be fine once the article is stable, neutral and properly referenced but in its current state, it's not worthwhile to c/e text that will be quickly rewritten or removed. That shouldn't stop you from working on the article if you wish to continue. Cheers, Baffle☿gab23:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I appreciate anything you can do. I recently took history sections from the article and incorporated into the banjo's history section. I know that much of that can be trimmed , but haven’t been able to think about it more. I want to get down to taking about the museum and little about histoy that takes to so much space at the moment. Anything you can think off to improve or want me to provides detail, please let me know. Jacqke (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I'll probably remove some of the excess details from the article and do a general tidy-up but I usually leave article development to others. Cheers, Baffle☿gab00:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I've left the text and refs I've removed on the article's talk page, mainly in case I break any named references but also so you don't have to dig through my diffs to find it again. Some of it might be useful on Banjo or its affiliated articles. Cheers, Baffle☿gab03:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for wasting your time on that page. While I thought your edits were generally good, and was planning to go over them later, it seems like other editors have taken issue to the errors that were there. Can I formally ask that this copyedit be withdrawn? epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem, it's not your fault. Yes, you can withdraw the c/e request; I'll pop a note on the requests page for you. Cheers, Baffle☿gab03:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
Hello, Baffle gab1978/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Kerfluffle. It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Miniapolis19:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krish, I'm currently busy with another copy-edit and the current Drive but I might take it if no-one else gets it earlier. Cheers, Baffle☿gab05:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone picked the article for copyedit and did minor ce of only half article and apparently it was completed. What to do know? I see no difference in the article.Krish | Talk To Me09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for diving in on this, BG. I raised the same issues Krish raised, but on Puddleglum's talk page. As with Krish, I noticed odd changes to reference titles and at least one refactored quote. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; thanks for the note, I wasn't aware this article was being discussed elsewhere. Coordinators and other GOCE regulars have undone most of the damage. The editor involved has diva-quit the Guild so hopefully things should calm down a little now. Thanks for being on top of it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab03:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your restraint does you credit; thanks for the link, it made me smile. :D This is someone who claims to have worked for five years for the US Army Military Police and been an IT manager for 20 years here, which assuming he left school at 18 (common in the US I believe) would make him at least 43 years old. It takes all sorts to make the world but the mind boggles, as they say! :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab05:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pings
Hello Baffle gab1978. I noticed your attempt to fix your ping in this edit. That method does not work. The notifications system only informs a user when you link their username in the same saved edit as you successfully sign your post. A ping cannot be fixed in a later edit by adding a signature you forgot, by fixing your botched signature, or by fixing the user name link. Instead, you have to link the user name and successfully sign in a manner that the software parses as a new line of text. Help:Fixing failed pings has more information about the issues involved and provides suggested methods to successfully perform the fix. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing the broken ping and for the info, I'm not totally au fait with the ping system, which I don't like using but I think it's expected because some people don't watch discussions any more. I'll bear it in mind for the next time. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, when you get a quick moment, can you check United_States_Postal_Service#Five-Year_Plans I am working on making massive changes and I want to make sure I am doing it right. Please provide me feedback and let me know what errors you see and point to the respective MOS entry please?
I really appreciate it. If you are not willing to do this, please let me know as well. It is very short at the moment, but will be expanded.
Hi @Galendalia:, thanks for your note. I've made a few changes there and have added a little hidden text to show where refs should be. I'm assuming the list in the sub-section is a direct quotation; if not, you can remove <blockquote> and </blockquote>, and add your ref at the end. If you're unsure of the way to format quotations (or anything else), you can always refer to the Maunal of Style.
One minor point; the text in the lists appears to be "management speak", which often comes across as promotional text and doesn't really mean much to those outside the organization, so you might want to paraphrase it into plain English. Otherwise, it's a good start to building the section. Good luck and cheers, Baffle☿gab17:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I took a look and saw ===Deliver world-class services and customer experiences===
<!-- If this is a direct quotation, it should be either surrounded by quotation marks or set aside as a blockquote (use <blockquote>text + ref</blockquote> or the template {{quote|quoted text + ref}}).-->
<blockquote>
* Goal Description - To attempt to create a culture that will focus on services that provide better customer service as to support the trust of the customers.
Key initiatives in this goal are:
**Amending the way new consumers are gained
**Aiding consumers to pick the best goods and services
**Enhancing the way in which customer feedback is compiled
**Enhancing the way in which customer complaints are resolved <!--add ref here--></blockquote>
I changed the wording from what they listed which was:
Improving the way we acquire new customers.
Helping customers select the right products and services.
@Galendalia:, I think I'd convert it into a single sentence, something like: "The plan's stated goals are to improve the way the U.S. Postal Service acquires new customers, to help them select the products and services they need, to improve the way it collects customer feedback, and to improve the way it deals with complaints". Feel free to use that if you wish.
Don't forget when you paraphrase content, you should change it to a third-person perspective; use "he", "she", "it" or "they" rather than "we", otherwise you're stating the U.S. Postal Service's opinions in Wikipedia's "voice", which goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy and also looks as though you're writing on the U.S.P.S.'s behalf. If you are, this is known as a conflict of interest (COI) on Wikipedia and something you should avoid. Cheers, Baffle☿gab06:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can tell you it’s not a COI. I thought I changed most of them. The ones in the main list are direct quotes from their 5 year plan. The other items are in my words except the sub-section titles so they stay to the quotes of the articles they outlined but I like your way better ;). Thanks for the input as always Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up06:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Galendalia:, sorry, I don't always ping when I'm replying; some editors don't appreciate being pinged at every reply. I just assumed you're checking the page at which you're involved in an active conversation, or that it's on your watchlist. I can see why Mean as Custard (who's a very experienced editor) would see that text as peacockery; it does have a promotional and managerial tone and sounds like something you'd find on the company's website. You should discuss the matter with Mean as Custard and other parties on the article's talk page; they might be persuaded the text adds some value to the article. If you re-add the text, you should edit it to be less promotional and more encyclopaedic; remove the management-speak and turn it into plain English. Cheers, Baffle☿gab17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Total Eclipse 2017:, well what can I say? I saw your final edit summary there... it made me smile. :) To be fair though, it was more of a cleanup than a copy-edit; it's a different discipline and you need to ruthlessly remove the useless text like names of principals, exact addresses, and crap like "the best school in INDIA"! Cheers, and happy copy-editing; I'm going to hide in the Requests page now! :D Baffle☿gab03:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyway. Also, about that edit summary... well, that’s not the normal me, don’t worry. Just really stressed out at the time when I made it... next day I came back and was like “Holy crap, I wrote that?” Heh. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017(Stay at home and wear a mask to prevent the spread)21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey BG, re: this, I believe when we do translations of non-English titles, at least in Indian film articles, we typically format it as follows: {{translation}} 'I have found it, I have found it' In the past, people used to write "English:" but we can tell that English is English. The Translation template was added to make it clear we weren't talking about an English title, rather, a translation. And since it's not an official title, we typically don't italicise or use title case. I very well could be wrong about this, but I feel like the last time I asked at WT:FILM, that was the general advice I was given. I don't exactly know why we use the single-quotes, but I know I saw that somewhere in the context of translations, and some people opt to format the translation within the {{Translation}} template, like {{Translation|'I have found it, I have found it'}}, although that's not actually mentioned in the documentation as being preferred. Regards, and if I am incorrect about something, feel free to re-correct me! Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyphoidbomb; thanks for your note. You're probably correct; I'm unaware of an agreed-upon convention in regard to foreign-language film titles but it occurs to me using transl. is a bit redundant; just as we know English is English, readers probably also realise the English is a translation and Kandukondain Kandukondain is the film's official title. I can see how it could be misconstrued as an official English-language title so I'll happily reinstate the template in a few minutes. Cheers, Baffle☿gab04:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, your archiver is very aggressive! Anyway, this is the best I could find about how to format film title translations. I can't say it's as good as a solid guideline, but this WikiProject is notoriously frightened when it comes to actually codifying guidelines that could help people. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, sorry, I've unarchived our earlier discussion – archiving is on a three-day cycle because I like a clean talk page... :) Thank you for checking this and getting back to me; I'll see if I can remember for next time. Cheers, Baffle☿gab04:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Translations
Hey BG, re: this, I believe when we do translations of non-English titles, at least in Indian film articles, we typically format it as follows: {{translation}} 'I have found it, I have found it' In the past, people used to write "English:" but we can tell that English is English. The Translation template was added to make it clear we weren't talking about an English title, rather, a translation. And since it's not an official title, we typically don't italicise or use title case. I very well could be wrong about this, but I feel like the last time I asked at WT:FILM, that was the general advice I was given. I don't exactly know why we use the single-quotes, but I know I saw that somewhere in the context of translations, and some people opt to format the translation within the {{Translation}} template, like {{Translation|'I have found it, I have found it'}}, although that's not actually mentioned in the documentation as being preferred. Regards, and if I am incorrect about something, feel free to re-correct me! Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyphoidbomb; thanks for your note. You're probably correct; I'm unaware of an agreed-upon convention in regard to foreign-language film titles but it occurs to me using transl. is a bit redundant; just as we know English is English, readers probably also realise the English is a translation and Kandukondain Kandukondain is the film's official title. I can see how it could be misconstrued as an official English-language title so I'll happily reinstate the template in a few minutes. Cheers, Baffle☿gab04:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, your archiver is very aggressive! Anyway, this is the best I could find about how to format film title translations. I can't say it's as good as a solid guideline, but this WikiProject is notoriously frightened when it comes to actually codifying guidelines that could help people. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, sorry, I've unarchived our earlier discussion – archiving is on a three-day cycle because I like a clean talk page... :) Thank you for checking this and getting back to me; I'll see if I can remember for next time. Cheers, Baffle☿gab04:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you don't want too much appreciation cluttering up your talk page, but I have to thank you for all the improvements to the Ng On-yee article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for copy editing the United Launch Alliance article. I'm reviewing the changes in more detail and I wanted to ask about the opening sentence.
This edit changes the meaning of the sentence as our launch vehicles can launch spacecraft to every planet and farthest reaches our or solar system--not just spacecraft into Earth orbit. It would make more sense to say: "United Launch Alliance (ULA) is an American launch service provider that manufactures and operates a number of rockets that are capable of launching spacecraft into numerous orbits around Earth and our Solar System."
If you agree, would you be willing to update the text on my behalf? I've been working with editors by proposing updates to the page on ULA's behalf but I don't edit the page myself. Thanks again! ULA Megan (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've reviewed the copy edits in more detail and have a couple additional thoughts. I see "US" and "U.S." are both used throughout the article. I don't know if Wikipedia prefers one over the other, but I am used to writing "U.S." and I think consistency would be helpful. Also, I saw "ULA indicated then they expected the new stage and engine to start flying no earlier than 2019 on a successor to the Atlas V" was changed to "ULA said it expected the new stage and engine to start flying from 2019 on a successor to the Atlas V". I generally agree with your edits but I think this sentence was more accurate before recent changes. Would you possibly be willing to help with these 2 tasks? Thanks again for your help! ULA Megan (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ULA Megan:, of course US / U.S. should be consistent throughout the article – thanks for pointing that out; of course it's possible another editor has added or changed the text in the meantime. I can reinstate "no earlier than" as you wish. I'll sort it out tonight but I'll going (hopefully) comet-spotting later. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab21:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bafflegab. I saw you edited Gyaru. Could you give it another look? The latest revision by A.Julianeditor fixed a few things but unfixed some others. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu:, thanks for checking; looking at the diff here I see what you mean; some odd changes going on there. I think Julianeditor must be using a spelling / grammar checker, which isn't a problem when used with discretion. I only made some formatting changes to that article and added some maintenance templates; it wasn't a full c/e. I'll have a look later, thanks for your note. Cheers, Baffle☿gab19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Baffle gab1978. A complaint was filed at WP:AN3 about this article. I saw the complaint but still don't understand what the dispute is about. For example, you tagged the article for POV. (This might be restoration of an earlier POV tag). At present there is nothing on the talk page about that. Can you explain what the POV consists of? I understand you might be concerned about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VJ-Yugo/Archive but if that person is responsible there ought to be some distinguishing marks we could identify. If you think Kalevipoiss is restoring an old version, can you determine the date of the old version? We could browse the history looking for like-minded editors who might be socks. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EdJohnston:, thanks for your message. I'm sorry for this bother but I have nothing to do with the edit-war. I restored the older version because Kalevipoiss reverted twice, without explanation, to an earlier version, restoring a {{copy edit}} template from February 2020, making it pop back up into the c/e backlog. The article was copy-edited by an experienced GOCE member a few months later (May I think) and the template was removed. There had been no complaints about the copy-edit and I didn't understand why that editor reverted to add his or her text, rather than working from the then-current version, as most new editors would.
My reversion is here, and I left an explanatory note on the article's talk page here (diff), and also alerted Jonesey95here (two edits). I've no particular interest in the article or the dispute, and I can't explain the POV template on the restored version. Neither do I have any comments to make on the SPI other than the user's behaviour seems unusual for a new editor. Cheers, Baffle☿gab21:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't edit stuff on demand
I'm here for advice. We've worked together in the past on two or three articles tha were beyond my skills
I a faced with a challenge, a draft whcih the creating editor has slaved on. He's standing too close to it. And it's a biggy. The advice I'd like is simply your feelings about Draft:Color coding technology for visualization. I know the GOCE doesn't do drafts. Do you feel that this draft has a place im main space as an article? (I do pings, Feel free to pong me) FiddleFaddle19:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Timtrent:, I'm glad to see you're active on WP again. After a brief look at the draft, it seems to contain some useful information that would make a good encyclopaedia article and is well-referenced. The draft as it stands is not suitable for mainspace.
Without getting too involved I'll suggest a few things that might help bring it up to WP standards:
Firstly, the header should provide a summary of the article's content.
The text should be clear and concise so readers can understand it; remove editorialism, metaphor, hyperbole, trivia, waffle, etc.
The final section seems like a textual guide to other sources; this should be removed or incorporated into the appropriate section; perhaps a :'History' section to show how the concept has been used and developed for different purposes.
I see the AFC reviewer suspects close paraphrasing from a technical paper. This should be rewritten or removed.
Although it's a technical subject, the article should be written and organised so non-experts can understand what's being said. That's not easy but Plate tectonics shows it can be done. A few top-of-the-head, non-definitive ideas for article-building;
Introduce the concept with a Background section;
Tell how the concept has been developed over time with a History section;
Explain the practical and theoretical uses of the concept;
Detail ongoing research and development.
Well I hope that's useful to you and the drafter; yes I do think the draft has promise but it's not suitable for WP in its current form. I hope you don't mind but I chose to ping you; I prefer to ping rather than pong! :D Cheers, Baffle☿gab21:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. ping/pong work well for me. The old addiction got to me. It was good to have a break, and it's good to be back.
Thank you for your educated look at the draft. I shall aim the editor here. They are very close to their subject and have worked very hard in the draft to consolidate it. I think they may be at that awful "Sio I ever get this over the line?" point right now, and I think your views will encourage them FiddleFaddle22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, couldn't help noticing that for an editor with a clear request not to post barnstars to her/his talk page you get an aweful lot of barnstars all the time. I wonder what would have happened if you didn't request against those pesky barnstars. Aditya(talk • contribs)16:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hispring:; I don't take direct requests for copy-editing but I can give you some tips:
It is your task to establish the company's notability. Has it received significant coverage in multiple reliable source? Press releases, company websites, personal websites, blogs, journals, etc. cannot generally be used to prove notability.
Rewrite the draft from a neutral viewpoint; that means you should take out any words that sound like advertisements.
You have to say on your talk page If you are being paid to write about the company.
You are not allowed to advertise in Wikipedia. The draft was declined because it currently reads like an advertisement for the company.
You might find some more useful help at WikiProject Iran. If English is not your main or fluent language, perhaps the Persian Wikipedia may be a more suitable place to write about the company.
Thanks for all the tips but the main problem of the the draft is that it needs to be edited. I fixed some problems 1 and 2. I just want that someone else checks the draft. There isn't any allowance to nominate the draft here. Can you guide me?Hispring (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hispring:; no, I will not edit the draft. I cannot read Farsi or Persian so I cannot check most of the sources. The Financial Times source might be the most useful but I cannot read it because it is hidden from me. Here are some things you might do to fix the problem:
select three or more independent, third-party sources that provide good coverage and prove the company's notability;
remove everything after "In order to protect the environment" except the citations and perhaps the first sentence of "History"—everything else is promotional;
remove every instance of "we" because it sounds promotional;
I was wondering what you meant by "removed c/e template; fix references, style and other problems before requesting copy-edit" on Donauinselfest. Isn't the point of a copyedit request to fix the style and other problems? Cheesycow5 (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cheesycow5:; thanks for asking. Copy-editing means editing copy; that is, making text clearer and easier to read by correcting spelling, punctuation, grammar and flow of text. It doesn't mean searching for references, fixing layout or other major stylistic errors, and there's not much point copy-editing unreferenced text because it's subject to challenge and removal. Saying that, I do sometimes fix things up a bit but that article doesn't seem to have problems with readability anyway. This month, I've checked a lot of articles that were templated with {{Copy edit}} or its friends, many or which are unsuitable for c/e, so I use autofill in my browser to make edit summaries easier—"removed c/e template; fix references, style and other problems before requesting copy-edit" is my standard summary for mass template-checking. Cheers, Baffle☿gab20:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Baffle gab1978:
I need to ask you to stop copyediting the ARPES article because the changes that have been introduced lately are not correct and will need to be fixed first. The article may read better to a layman, but the facts are not true, starting with sentence one. I left all the errors in there to prove my point that very few people will ever correct anything and that all those "too technical" templates do absolutely nothing.
I'll let you guys know when the article is ready for grammar ce. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ponor:, thanks for your message. I have only edited the lead (my changes) so far and I don't believe I have introduced any errors. Since you're unhappy I will self-revert and abandon the requested c/e. Please do let the Guild know when a full copy-edit can go ahead unimpeded. Cheers, Baffle☿gab10:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't you. But I'll have to make some substantial changes and I don't want you to waste time on something that'll not be there anymore. Cheers, Ponor (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Baffle gab! I am sure you are busy with the GOCE project, but I was wondering if you can find the time and go over the "Can't Get You Out of My Head" article prose. It's on its second FAC, and although TwoFingeredTypist did a c/e on it, some users still think that has some "awkward prose". I would be really grateful if you can do it! All the best. — Tom(T2ME)15:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tomica:, it's been a while, I'm glad to see you're still active at WP. Unfortunately, I no longer accept direct requests for copy-edit; I know that seems dismissive but If I accept one I'll have to accept more ... you know how it goes! Judging by the comments on the FA review, a full c/e would consist of lots of source-checking to work out exactly what is being said – quite a time-consuming task if there's lots to check. I did just quickly remove unnecessary instances of "that" ("wrote that", "said that", etc.; it's a pet peeve of mine!). The last GOCE c/e was in July so I suggest adding it to the GOCE Requests page with a note about what needs to be done and link to the FA discussion; I may pick it up if nobody else gets it first. Cheers, Baffle☿gab22:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response Baffle. I totally understand. Here is the 2nd GOCE nomination of it. If you have the will and chance to go over it, I would be more grateful! PS. thanks! It's great to see that you are also still here and crushing it. :) — Tom(T2ME)07:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there,
Thank you for stopping by. Is it possible that you post comments on the talk page fo me to apply? That will help me keep track of the changes. Shahid • Talk2me23:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shshshsh:, I don't do FA-style reviews when I copy-edit articles—that would take a long time and a lot more effort than editing the article directly. You can keep track of the changes using the article's history. If you'd rather I stopped the c/e, let me know and I'll revert my edits and abandon the request. Cheers, Baffle☿gab23:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't mean to piss you off. Not at all, please keep going, I just hope you don't take it personally if I revert some of the changes later. I want the prose to be variable in the sense that I really do keep track of the number of times words like "success" or "critical acclaim" are used. Shahid • Talk2me00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I'm not pissed off, so feel free to revert. Copy-editing is a complex process and takes context and other variables into account, so things will change as I progress through the article. I do make mistakes, however, so feel free to point out anything that appears incorrect. Cheers, Baffle☿gab00:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copyedits. I thought I should add another plot element to the film Tum Milo Toh Sahi - "a Parsi woman in charge of an Irani café whose business is under threat from developers and who falls in love with the lawyer who represents her in court" - I know it sounds bad, do you have any idea? Shahid • Talk2me23:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; it's a difficult balance to achieve without drifting off topic. I'm nearly done anyway.. thanks for your patience. Cheers, Baffle☿gab23:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis and Cast: I feel few details are repeated in either sections. But I am not able to decide from where I should remove the repeated ones.
Production and Reception – Cultural impact: Ideally the information related to the filming locations should be under Production. But I have written them under Cultural impact, because majority of them became tourist destinations. But I think that some of the part can be written under Production and some under Cultural impact. If you can segregate and separate them, please do so.
Broadcast: Per MOS:TVRECEPTION, information related to viewership ratings should be under Reception. But I have kind of mixed the broadcast history and viewership ratings. I hope you can separate them.
May be there are few more problems related to MoS.
I also feel that my writing is good enough to understand, but not quite of the high quality. So I think this aspect needs a lot of improvements, especially the prose style.
While improving this article, I went through many Good articles and Featured articles. And I think that even after a thorough copy editing, it will still lack in some aspects to be a good article. So, I am not confident to nominate it at the moment (maybe in the future). If you have any advice or suggestion please feel free to share.
Hi @-ink&fables:, thank you for your message; it's good to know a little background about the article I'm working on. I tend to work through articles section-by-section, so I'll probably pick out repeated text. I'll do my best to separate the broadcast history and ratings. The Manual of Style isn't a strict rule book; there are always exceptions that don't fit it neatly. Your writing does seem fine so far... I've probably come across worse (try reading some Indian village or town articles! :) ) so I'll probably be fine. I see there are some English-language references, which are useful to check if I'm not sure about something. If I find anything I can't work out I'll leave a note on your talk page or ping you here; whichever you'd prefer. Cheers, Baffle☿gab17:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@-ink&fables:; which English spelling convention should this article use? I'd assumed because of its historical ties to the US, South Korea would prefer American English, but I came across some British English "-ise" spellings and subsequently changes to British spelling. I'll be happy to correct the spellings either way. Meanwhile, I've tidied the Cast section; the section as I found it is on the talk page, and I'm aware I've broken one reference, which I'll fix before I'm done. Cheers, Baffle☿gab11:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a [citation needed] tag on the final sentence of 'Broadcast'. I think the 'Cultural impact' section is fine, and I didn't move the table from 'Broadcast' because I think it's fine to state audience figures there. I've fixed the only broken ref; apart from the above comments I'm done. Cheers, Baffle☿gab12:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: I don't have much idea about types of English. Absolutely I am an Indian so our English is closely linked to the British one. I'll say keeping it in the type which will avoid any extra work from your side will be the best option. And yes, I saw the tag for citation needed. I'll try to find one. I'll nominate the article for GA, probably tomorrow. Thank you. -ink&fables«talk»17:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Thanks!
Thanks for the thanks on the copyediting! Hope you have a happy new year.
Krish | Talk To Me 19:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Done: I've made the changes. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
