Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2024

Double-check

I request that someone else double-check my work on Depressant. The article is a pretty long one, after all. Mox Eden (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

After a quick look, it looks good. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 22:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting word counting

Yo. New to copyediting. Just wondering how I should count words that I've added because I don't want to lose count and manually writing it down on a notepad is very inefficient. Thanks! Joecompan (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You record the number of words in the article before you started editing. You can look at "View history" to find that version. If these instructions for installing a little script make any sense to you, you can use that script to get a rough word count. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you much appreciated! Joecompan (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Can someone check my work?

Hello! Could someone check my work on Gerald Santos? If there are any outstanding problems, please notify me so that I can improve my copyediting. I am somewhat worried about all of the unsourced material on that page; should I axe it all or is leaving a template up top for someone else to fix it fine? Thank you! PrismAfterRain (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The one-sentence lead is short, but fixing that is above our pay grade; I expand short leads to three sentences if I have the time and energy . Your work is good. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 14:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Er, actually, I tossed out the majority of the lead because it was listing off various shows and other programs he was featuring in (something I don't deem to be of lead-worthy status, but more suited to the "Career" sections down below) but couldn't find something to replace it apart from a generic sentence. I added another sentence to the lead, but it's still a bit anemic as it is. Well, thank you for your help and have a nice day! PrismAfterRain (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Double checking

Is it possible to check the article Đại Việt to see if I missed anything? Thanks! KjjjKjjj (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but please don't let barnstars and what-not distract you from the big picture; you really didn't do enough, IMO, to take credit for a 9K-word article. You didn't remove "be" when you changed "can" to "was", and I saw some WP:PUFFERY that's inappropriate in an encyclopedia article. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 15:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Will halt all copy editing to focus on article Đại Việt. KjjjKjjj (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking

The article Chebaki (Khakassia) was a big doozy, and though it is (and was) very short, there was a huge amount of errors, and some didn't even make enough sense to fix or even understand. Could you please check it and tell me what I missed and maybe how to fix it?

Double question: The very large article Miskito grammar was also hard work, and due to its large size, I'm pretty sure I missed something, though I'm not sure what. I've looked over it a few times, but apparently I didn't do very well because Dhwiki told me I missed something in the tables I haven't found. As I already said, I've checked everywhere but I haven't found it. Also, when word-counting, do I include templates and references? I haven't included either, and I asked Dhwiki, but his response was not helpful to my question. Apollogetticax|^talk 07:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The article on "Chebaki (Khakassia)" reads well, and the changes you've made were good ones. I would suggest not removing   from between distance quantities and their units, as you did. You might want to look at {{convert}}, which makes it easy to spell out units and which may or may not provide non-breaking-spacing (see Help:Convert#Wrapping_and_line_breaking). Also, I question removing as many references as you did from the "Economy" section. Were any of them relevant? The ones I checked seemed to be maps, one of which might have been relevant to the "Geography" section.

Regarding the "Miskito grammar" article, I doubted that you had read through the table prose, because I saw no changes. I saw some stylistic changes to be made, but nothing that really got in the way of clearly conveying what was meant. If you were conscientious in making a careful read-through but saw nothing to be changed, then I can accept that.

In terms of word counting, what tool do you use to count words, and what templates do you mean? Some templates, such as the "convert" template, render prose that I expect to be counted automatically, either by Prosesize, in a word processor, or at wordcounter.net. Other templates, such as citation templates, won't be counted by Prosesize, but you could count them using other tools, especially if you've done considerable work on the references themselves. But usually they are not counted. If that's still unclear, I encourage others to chime in (see here for the original discussion). Dhtwiki (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (edited 22:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC))

Funny thing: I thought Miniapolis was going to reply, so I had you in third person.

I normally copy the main article (excluding the references section) into Microsoft Word. By templates I mean those templates on the upper(ish) right of the article, that can display things like the person's name (if it is a biography), birth date, occupation, and that stuff. (I know that is one of the templates, there are more, but I think you see what I mean.)

Yes, I had read through the tables in Miskito grammar, and I didn't see much to change.

In the Chebaki article, I acknowledge I didn't actually pay too much attention to those sources, which means I was quick to judge.

Thanks for reviewing my edits! It's good to know I've done relatively good copyediting. Apollogetticax|^talk 05:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I myself have never word-counted infobox templates, nor the References section, although I'm apt to give considerable effort to both. It just goes to show how crude a measure word counting can be as an indication of effort. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Double checking

Is it possible to check the article Rewandiz offensive? There was also a WP:POV tag on the article that I resolved. KjjjKjjj (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It still needs work, as it is rather confusing. For one thing, the article has no lead. Might you supply a short, single sentence summary? There are plenty of misspellings (especially that "Rewandiz" is often spelled as "Revandiz" in the body of the article), inconsistent capitalization, run-on sentences, etc. The point-of-view template shouldn't be removed until wording such as The people...applauded and loved Özdemir Bey as the representative of Mustafa Kemal Pasha... is toned down. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: I did a bit more copyediting, is it better now? KjjjKjjj (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You've made some good changes, but there is still a lot to do. Misspellings include one instance of "Revandiz" (although the spelling is inconsistent across Wikipedia, this article's spelling should be consistent with the article title) and "milita" and "poeple" (both obvious). Also, the article should be linked to Anglo-Turkish War (1918–1923) which will give context. Full names, with honorifics, such as that of Şefik Özdemir Bey, should be given at first instance, not second or third. Even then, the article would still need work to read well. I realize that this is a hard article to copy edit, as it is probably written by someone for whom English is a second language, probably having sources in a foreign language (i.e. Turkish), and for being so short and thus providing little context. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: I copyedited the article for the 3rd time. It's a shame that the most of the sources are from books since most people including me who aren't from Turkey are unable to access these books. Even if I'm able to access these books, they are all in Turkish which I don't have a understanding of. KjjjKjjj (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You have now given Şefik Özdemir Bey's full name and honorific each time he's mentioned. You just need to establish the full name at first instance and use the shortened form, Özdemir, each subsequent time. You still haven't normalized the spelling of "Rewandiz" or respelled "mitita" (should read "militia"). Yes, it's a hard article to copy edit, but such details as I've mentioned can be addressed without access to sources. I tried looking up this particular campaign in my Britannica, but, as is so often the case, the detail that Wikipedia provides is completely absent in my print encyclopedia. So, that is of no help, other than to give context to the larger picture (the provocative overreach of the allies after the Ottoman Empire's defeat in WWI). Dhtwiki (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: I think the article is now completed per the instructions of what you said. KjjjKjjj (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any other gross errors. Given what you had to work with, I think that it's been improved considerably, especially with the "See also" link to an overview article that supplies much-needed context. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to add *O

As the title suggests, I forgot to add the *O-tag to my "Totals" section of the drive page when recording The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (which was tagged April 2023). Is it alright to add it now, or should I omit it since I didn't include it when initially adding the article to my Totals? Kindly, Pinecone23 (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You can add it now. All the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Apollogetticax

Apollogetticax (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user; see [their talk page (permalink). Apollogetticax has claimed 12 copy-edits for this drive so coordinators may like to consider whether or not to award barnstars; I take no position there. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That is too bad. Having checked some of their articles, their work seems correct, but is now vulnerable to being reverted as being illegitimate. I've seen other good work by blocked editors perfunctorily undone. However, where the original edits were helpful, they can be restored by legitimate editors; and I've done a bit of that myself. Awarding barnstars is probably out of the question, though. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC) (edited 06:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC))

I agree it's a shame; that editor seems to have some skill at and enthusiasm for copy-editing, which we need around here. I hope they'll stop socking and get themself unblocked so they can be productive again. This has happened before with both requesters and skilled copy-editors. Ho hum. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Side note

As a coordinator, am I allowed to alter other editors' totals to make sure that the math checks out and everything is consistent? Mox Eden (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 19:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As Miniapolis said. Spot checking the math, especially the leaderboard, is on the list of things to do when closing a drive. I've been known to add up all the individual word counts to make sure each editor's total word count is in accordance, as well as, when a drive is involved, making sure that, especially for newer editors, that oldest articles are correctly flagged.

We should decide what to do with the entry for our blocked editor's work (see above). I suggest that the edit list remain but that barnstars be withheld for now. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that I have already removed Apollogetticax's totals from the leaderboard. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)