Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2012

New way to create individual totals sections

I've rewritten the Directions section because many people have trouble with this. It now uses a template. Comments on the new approach and on the wording of the instructions would be welcome, or if you can see ways to improve either, just be bold. --Stfg (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bug found, old system restored for now. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

It works now. There is also a template {{GOCEusertotals}} that old hands can use to help newer users sign up if requested. It's the same as {{GOCEtotals}} except that the ~~~ is replaced by the username of the user you're helping. --Stfg (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undated copyedit tagged articles

Bagacay and perhaps other articles as well are shown on the list as undated, but Bagacay has the tag {{multiple issues|cleanup=July 2012|lead missing=July 2012|unreferenced=July 2012|wikify=July 2012|copy edit=date=July 2012}} which is clearly dated today. Perhaps this is a characteristic of template:multiple issues. I will check the other three articles, but I am writing this talk page mention of the problem. All copyedit requests should be dated.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cansolabao is another multiple issues tagged article, dated July 2012. Bloody Pit of Horror and Bloody Pit of Horror are horror film articles with an undated copyedit tag. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two (in June) were left undated by the same editor. I wouldn't worry about it too much, as a bot will come and date them quite quickly. In the case of Bagacay and Cansolabao, it's not a property of {{multiple issues}}, but a syntax error by the tagger -- it should be just copy edit=July 2012. Quite a surprise, as the tagger is an Admin with over 72,000 edits. I'll fix them now, except the one you're editing at the mo. --Stfg (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt response. I have put some work into both Bagacay and Cansolabao, but both need more work. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June

Kudos to the editor(s) who kept the backlog growth to only 150, despite the arrival of some 500 new pieces during the month. Wish I knew who they were! Lfstevens (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they completely cleared April 2011, the oldest month, which had a lot of tedious ones. Kudos indeed. --Stfg (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I helped by slapping a "Reviewed" tag on MIDI, perhaps one of the most tedious from that month. I'm taking that article under wing, and if anybody has any knowledge on the subject, I could use some help reorganizing the thing. It's overlong, while at the same time missing essential information. It really needs to be expanded, but in a way that's not hostile to the reader, and advice would be greatly appreciated. Dementia13 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points vs. prose?

The List of Army Cadet Force units has a list of units in prose, but it is tagged for copy editing with

This article would benefit from list formatting with bullet points, and therefore may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it.

To me, the existing list in prose is sufficient and easy to read, and does not require a change to bulleted points. What do other GOCE members think?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. That would be a huge amount of work to no useful purpose. The number of things that people say need doing to it, both on its talk page and in the no-consensus AFD, surely merit {{GOCEreviewed}}, imo. --Stfg (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having had several days to consider it, I would suggest removing the copyedit tag on this article, with a comment on the talk page saying just what I said above, the article needs more references, but not a change in format from the existing prose. While I often do improvements on articles while copy editing, including adding references, that is not our objective at GOCE. We want good quality articles, sometimes done by copy editing, but some articles are just to be tagged as reviewed, and left for future attention. This article needs attention other than copy editing. I want to remove the copyedit tag, and remove the GOCEreviewed tag, and leave the other problems for others. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized leaderboard

I swapped the columns and rows for the leaderboard, because with a grand total of thirty elements to keep track of, it can get pretty confusing trying to move all the numbers around. With them switched, each group is in its own list, which makes updating a lot easier. Let me know if anyone has another idea on how to set things up in that table. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big improvement! It was a real pain keeping that up to date before. --Stfg (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Torchiest. A great idea. -- Dianna (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French battleship Richelieu (7093)

I am having trouble getting French battleship Richelieu (7093) into the progress table as Dthomsen8 (7093) for the largest article. I am not sure why, but I suppose someone else will do it for me. The copyedit issues are gone for this article, but the size and level of detail is still an issue. I added links, especially in the lede and history, because the average reader might not know where Dakar was and now is. Suggestions about how to further improve this article would be welcomed--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure why either, but I've done it for you. I checked the article and removed the copyedit tag, as you've completed the copy edit. The issues you identify are content issues, and aren't a surprise in a C-class article. --Stfg (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No word credit, but article count credit

When I find an article like John Hastings (cricketer) that does not require any significant change, yet is tagged for copy editing, I add it to my list as completed, but show the word count as (0). This was the practice back in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2012 drive. Other GOCE members should follow suit. Our objective is not only to improve individual articles, but also to reduce the count of articles awaiting copy editing. Getting articles off the list is a good thing, making it easier to find articles needing real work.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you missed the discussions on the main GOCE talk page. For articles tagged as {{GOCEreviewed}}, there was a discussion in the section WT:GOCE#July Drive: summary. (Sorry, that thread is quite long. The relevant part begins half way down -- you can search for the string "marking as GOCEreviewed" to find where it starts). There was consensus not to count those articles this time round. For articles that simply required no copy editing, there is the section WT:GOCE#Counting articles detagged as not needing C/E. If you'd like to comment on it, please do. --Stfg (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not see the discussion on the main GOCE talk page, I relied on what was done back in the May drive, which I cited above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my list to remove all (0) credit articles (12 of them) except List of schools in Bangladesh, which was

-- Dianna (talk), and has a page size of 8 words, if credit were taken. Also included in my word count is Air changes per hour (290)

(restored a previous version, as material was copyvio from http://www.climatezoneservices.com/air_exchange_18.html) -- Dianna. So two questions arise: Can I take credit for 8 words for the Bangladesh list, and include it in my article count? (I am inclined to do that.) Should I exclude Air changes, since the article I copy edited is no longer there? (I am inclined to do that, too.) I await comments from our senior GOCE members. With Wikimania 2012 approaching, I am not sure how many more copy editing articles I will do until that is over. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing that. You're fine to count the Air changes. Probably most of us miss copyvio from time to time. I have no problem with the 8 words either. --Stfg (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will change my list accordingly. How would I have spotted the copyvio? --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Education Association

Please take a look at Kentucky Education Association, which I have tagged for not having a neutral point of view. This article is tagged for copy editing, but I feel that the primary problem is either tone, or not a neutral point of view. I removed the wikify tag. I would suggest that the copy editing tag (July 2011) can be removed, as being replaced by the NPOV tag. This is a matter of judgement, so I welcome the opinions of other GCOE members. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tag looks sensible. Neutralising tone is something a copy editor can effectively do, so I suggest leaving the tag in place until someone tackles it. --Stfg (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go. Take a look. --Stfg (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for avoiding accidents

When a number of us are working on a smallish number of articles, we may get clashes from time to time (a bit like the old chestnut about how many people do you need before two are likely to have the same birthday). One way to avoid this might be, when taking on a tagged article, to remove the {{copyedit}} tag straight away, before starting the edit. Of course restore it if you abandon the edit for any reason, but doing this could save someone else picking up the same article. It's also a very good idea to put {{GOCEinuse}} on anything you're editing, but bots do remove those quite quickly sometimes. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest articles

Did someone remove names from the leaderboard? --Greenmaven (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any removed. People may not be very quick to add smaller numbers to that line, as they are likely to get pushed off the end. It's not a worry, as Allens's barnstars program rebuilds the leaderboard anyway. --Stfg (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was dropped from the leaderboard for oldest article, but I put myself back. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. At a certain point, the oldest articles leaderboard was 22-7-6-5-4-(3,3) (i.e. two 3s and one of each of the others). Then the 5 became a 6, and it became 22-7-(6,6)-4-(3,3)-x, and the x wasn't filled in. To do so would have required whoever made the change to go through counting each person's oldest articles, which we can't really expect people to do. It's a property of the leaderboard that we can't really overcome simply. Thank heavens for the program. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal in the name of fun.

How does this sound: I've been thinking for some time that it might be fun to include in the project an essay for those drive participants who err more on the competitive side. The essay would provide a standard strategy and tips for copyeditors to follow in order to earn as many awards as they could out of each drive - and of course, it would emphasize the importance of not forfeiting quality copyediting for quantity. After all, many participants are going to treat the backlog drives like a sport, so why not provide a friendly guide? Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Feel like having a go? --Stfg (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At last, even in my harrying schedule, I've gotten the basics taken care of. Before I submit the material, the question now is, do we want this as an essay, or as a full-out guide? Also, do we want it as a subpage for the copyediting drives? Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the former, it's difficult to know without seeing it. What is your preference? On the latter, it may matter less where in the page hierarchy it sits than where we link to it from and in what terms. As a drive subpage would be fine, I think. --Stfg (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more awards

How about a rookie award, and later, a rookie of the year award?

Lfstevens (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could do. How would they be assessed? --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use most words edited as the criteria. One award for each drive, and one for each year. Don't know how to automate it. Lfstevens (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have taken so long to reply to this. (I was wondering if anyone else would like to comment.) I'm a bit uneasy about it, actually. Partly, perhaps, because I'm not sure about "rookie" -- does that include someone with 30K edits to their name but hasn't copy edited before? or a professional copy editor new(ish) to Wikipedia who came here for a busman's holiday? (it happens). And for real beginners, I suspect word count is quite the opposite of the key issue. How about the editor who conscientiously edits 1500 words in the month, with MOS open in an adjacent window to consult twice every paragraph? Possibly it's best simply to improvise: if you spot someone new who contributing well in some sense, just go ahead and tell them you noticed.

--Stfg (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points from Simon. Keep it informal. A little Wikilove from experienced editors goes a long way... --Greenmaven (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to comment on this earlier, but I basically agree with Simon. Anyone can make up their own criteria for excellence, and hand out barnstars accordingly. We (the GOCE) already give out a huge number of barnstars every other month. We just gave out 80 over the last 12 hours. I'd say getting one from an individual editor is nice, because then you know someone specifically noticed your work. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

École Supérieure des Sciences Commerciales d’Angers

Does École Supérieure des Sciences Commerciales d’Angers need copy editing? I added some links, but I don't see it. Perhaps someone else can say. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface there seems very little to do, and I wouldn't have bothered tagging it, but when you get stuck in you do find things to do. here's my diff. --Stfg (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always check the edit history and talk page first, to get a feel for what's been happening with the article, and find out what issues or disputes have been raised. You may find that someone came along and made a lot of corrections or removed an objectionable section, but didn't think of it as a full copy edit, and didn't remove the tag. Dementia13 (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say...

Are the awards going to be handed out? Usually it's been done by no later than the tenth of the month following the event. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the delay. I was waiting for something, but I'll create the barnstars file today. --Stfg (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]