Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests

Military History of Canada – too long?

@Leventio: As you noted on your request, Military History of Canada is rather lengthy, perhaps too long for a copyedit, GAN or FAC. It's 20k words, and Wikipedia:Article size states that articles of 9k words should probably be shortened and articles of 15k words should almost certainly be shortened. The equivalent US article is about 9k words, which is achieved as almost all sections have main articles, allowing the sections to be kept to summaries of 1–3 paragraphs in most cases. Can something like that be done here? – Reidgreg (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

There has been a paring down/trimming down effort on most of the sections already. That said, I've actually been debating splitting the article into two for a while now in my head (was sort of just trying to figure at where). I can withdraw the request if that is what the people here would like. Leventio (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Leventio. It would make more sense (and be easier on us) to copyedit both articles after the split. As it is, it probably wouldn't be promoted to GA because of its length and it took a long time to load in my browser. All the best, Miniapolis 15:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't take the summary route (like the US article) I suppose the natural place for a split would be at Confederation (1867), since Canada didn't exist as a country before then. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

V. Nagaraj

CC-BY-SA declaration; I copied text in this section from the Requests page here. See that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

V. Nagaraj

Some parts of the Career section make no sense. DareshMohan (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan:, copy-editing isn't WP:CLEANUP and copy-editors we shouldn't have to fix up messes made by past incompetent editors. This article has serious BLP violations, which I've noted with a template – BLPs must be properly referenced. That section is on notice; I suggest either properly referencing the article or removing the uncited text and stubifying the rest. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I removed the unsourced content. Can the request be removed too? DareshMohan (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan: thank you for that, yes, just put {{Withdrawn}} below my post and the bot will remove it in 24 hours or so, and I'll archive this section a bit later. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 16:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn DareshMohan (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Alpine ibex

CC-BY-SA declaration; I copied text in this section from the Requests page here. See that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 06:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Alpine ibex

For a future FAC. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The future is apparently here; I'm reviewing the FAC now. I'm struggling with

Both male and female Alpine ibexes have large, backwards-curving horns with numerous transverse ridges along their length. At 69–98 cm (27–39 in), those of the males are substantially longer than those of females, which reach only 18–35 cm (7.1–13.8 in) in length.[3]

In my mind, it's not clear what "which reach only 18-35 cm" refers to. .It looks like it refers to "females", but obviously that's silly and it must refer to "those (i.e. the horns) of females". Am I just being overly pedantic, or does this need to be rephrased? RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @RoySmith:, this content matter should really be discussed with the requester, at the FAC review or at the article's talk page. FWIW, I agree that passage should be rephrased to clarify what the measurements refer to; suggest replacing "those of females" with "horns of females" (or whatever "those" refers to) or similar construction. If you want to discuss the request or the copy-edit, you can use REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. My bad for posting in the wrong place. RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(←)  Working Baffle☿gab 23:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Baffle☿gab 06:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

wizards of the coast

Wizards of the Coast

this article isnt necessarily *hard* its moreso i've struggled with knowing what to chop (history section). ive asked in the talk page 4 a bit and i havent gotten anything, dk if anyone here has any ideas. >:3 -Astral~(he/him/his) 12:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm, AstralAlley. Since you seem to be a new copyeditor, however, this article (a good article) may not be the right fit for you at this time. Copyediting is a specialized skill, and IMO going off into the weeds of content is a HTH. Please see WP:CE, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to has a bunch of useful links. All the best, Miniapolis 14:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

ive worked a slight bit on it, but yeah it might not be the best fit. all it really is a weeding fest. tysm for the links, ill see what i can try to with what you've provided, but i might need some other help. tysm >:3 -Astral~(he/him/his) 15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Re 2022 Optus data breach

Hi, I listed 2022 Optus data breach in January this year for copyediting, as I wish to submit it for WP:FAC. Mox Eden accepted the article, but marked it as done three hours later, with no edits being made to the article. I still wish for the article to be copyedited ASAP for FAC, would I be allowed to reinsert it in the January 2024 section, or in May? It would be annoying to have to wait a while longer for it to be copyedited. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the edit where it was marked as done. Upon scanning the article, I saw no obvious mistakes. It's possible that an article, especially one that already has good article status, doesn't need further copy editing, although notice to that effect would be helpful, if none was given. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

non-coordinator comment I would expect at least some copy-edits to have taken place during a c/e... perhaps @Mox Eden: could comment here; judging by this recent edit summary, they may be under some real-life stress right now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Mox Eden made some copy-edits there, which are here. Since I noticed several errors (post-quotation punctuation, unnecessary "that"s, etc.), I'll support this being relisted in the Jan section with a Partly done. Baffle☿gab 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and relisted the article as suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Thanks for relisting it. As to how I missed the edits Mox Eden made, I don't know, but they were very much tinkering around the edges anyway. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles at REQ lacking citations

I've boldly merged these two sections because the articles have the same issues, the comments come from the same copy-editor and the requests come from the same requester, @SKAG123: (courtesy ping). Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I have withdrawn both nominations. I agree the articles need cleanup before copy editing can be done. SKAG123 (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Tamil literature

This has extensive citation issues so I wonder if it should be passed until these are fixed. Jim Killock (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

non-coord comment; looking through the article, I see huge chunks of uncited text that should be either cited or removed. i suggest a decline; GOCE is not Cleanup. I'll put the request on hold for now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Tamil literature (original request)

CC-BY-SA: text in this subsection copied from the Requests page here; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 22:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

List of NOPV and grammar issues. SKAG123 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to make the same observation as regarding Deccan wars; this lacks citations. IDK what the Guild of Editors policy is, but it seems to me that editing something lacking citations is likely to be quickly undone, once they are checked. I'll see if the GoCE have a policy on this. Jim Killock (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The main page says "Articles that are undergoing rapid development, are the venue for edit-wars, or have other major problems that may result in a copy edit being replaced or reverted"; I would think that lack of citations falls into this category, so unfortunately this request should probably be declined. That isn't for me to decide however. Jim Killock (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 On hold per JimKillock above; discuss at REQ talk. Baffle☿gab 20:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn SKAG123 (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Deccan wars

I copy edited about half of this, but note there are a lot of CN notices and wondered if these should be fixed first. Jim Killock (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

non-coord comment; looking through the article, I see huge chunks of uncited text that should be either cited or removed. i suggest a decline; GOCE is not Cleanup. I'll put the request on hold for now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Deccan wars (original request)

CC-BY-SA: text in this subsection copied from the Requests page here; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 22:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling SKAG123 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done I've had a go at the first half of this, but with so many "citation needed" tags I wonder if this is a good idea. Surely it would be better to know the content is accurate before making a copy edit @SKAG123? Jim Killock (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 On hold per JimKillock above; discuss at REQ talk. Baffle☿gab 20:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn SKAG123 (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Credit card debt

The tags here suggest research is needed rather than copy editing, so I'd suggest this is taken out of the queue. I've suggested peer review to @GolsaGolsa on the project page. Jim Killock (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

GolsaGolsa is a fairly new editor who hasn't edited since 13 March this year. It's a short article so I'll take the request. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fair! Maybe he can take the article to peer review after for wider feedback. Jim Killock (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

PR would be one route to improving the article but this seems to have been a drive-by request; GolsaGolsa has made only one edit to the article. Anyway, the c/e is done and I've no intention of dealing with the multitude of woes in the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Jai Bhim (film)

The plot section lacks citations, so I've suggested the requester adds them before a copy edit. Altho perhaps plot summaries don't require this. Jim Killock (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JimKillock:, pure plot summaries of what we see and hear in the film, like "Dave goes into the woods and is followed by an axe murderer; thirty second later, Dave screams.", usually don't need citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE; the film itself is regarded as a primary source. If the plot section contains any analysis, opinions or commentary, such as "Dave doesn't hear the axe murderer because he foolishly has chewing gum in his ears", that would need a citation. I usually either mark any commentary with {{cn}}, move it to another section or remove it per WP:OR. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Two requests removed

I've just removed two excess requests from one editor here (diff). The requester already has two extant requests on the page. I've notified them on their talk page here (permalink). Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yugoslav Committee

CC-BY-SA declaration; I copied text in this section from the Requests page here. See that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 00:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yugoslav Committee

Could someone please copyedit the Yugoslav Committee article? After the copyedit, I plan to nominate that article as a FAC. Thanks. Tomobe03 (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made a few basic tidy ups to the first two sections. This seems in general very well written, I'm mostly picking up errors with definite / indefinite articles and the odd slightly non idiomatic usage of English. It is quite long tho, so I'll only edit if I see nobody picking it up. And note, I am a guest, not a member of the guild, just helping to speed up the queue in the interest of getting some help myself! Jim Killock (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tomobe03 Please check what I have done so far for accuracy in case I've misunderstood anything. So far I've made copy edits up to but not including Supilo's resignation. Jim Killock (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jim Killock, I just reviewed the changes Everything appears just fine--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tomobe03 OK I've finished my first pass, please check the sections Supilo's resignation to Aftermath. Fascinating bit of history. Good luck with your next steps. Once Tomobe03 has made his checks, it's over to the Guild to give this a further copy edit, but I hope I will have reduced the workload. Jim Killock (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jim Killock, I had a look at the second batch of changes and found no problems with them. (I spotted and removed a duplicate word though.) Thank you very much for taking time and effort to improve prose of this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done Jim Killock (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(←)  Working Baffle☿gab 21:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done 00:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

First pass copy edits

Hi there, I was asked why I wasn't "completing" copy edits and it was suggested I should "finish" these, so I thought it would be helpful to leave a note about this. I have worked as an editor and done editing plenty of times but I don't feel that I am familiar enough with WP's style and requirements to do a full copy edit without a check. Moreover, a double pass probably makes for a better copyedit. If it isn't helpful for me to work this way though please do say. Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Some background, and the requests page is getting longer. All the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My hope is to be as helpful as I feel able. I'm in the queue for requests myself, so I understand the desire to clear the queue, but I don't feel it's a good idea for me to mark what I've done as "complete" as it may be doing requesters a disservice. Jim Killock (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your copy-editing work Jim, it is appreciated. A well-done first-pass c/e does make the job easier for the second editor, and I'd rather see a partly done template on an incomplete c/e than have to unarchive and relist requests that need more work after complaints from unhappy requesters, which has happened in the past. That said, working on short articles may help increase your confidence and knowledge of Wikipedia editing; also, while we allow some commentary at the Requests page that may help other editors, extensive discussions should be brought here (I know I'm guilty of that too!). Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

For a while, I made a first pass at many of the requests, tidying up MOS-related errors and fixing citation problems so that the eventual copy editor would have an easier time focusing on the prose. I never bothered with a "partly done" template, though, since it creates traffic on the requests page without clearing any requests. I satisfied myself with knowing that I had made small improvements to Wikipedia. I second the recommendation to work on articles from the backlog in order to gain familiarity with Wikipedia's house style(s). Also, JimKillock, if you are interested in seeing what changes are made during a "second pass", you can add pages to your watchlist. All good copy edits are valuable! – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I've been doing :) Seeing what I am missing is definitely very helpful. I've used the "partly done" template because I've usually made pretty large changes to the articles and wanted to signal that the job should be lighter for someone picking it up, eg Charlemagne is a pretty hefty article but should now be a bit easier to finish. There is some self interest in helping in this queue, I plan to put a few articles forward to GA and FA, so I felt it would help to keep the queue moving (even tho it of course distracts from my other tasks regarding those articles). A bit of give back, if you like. Jim Killock (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Existence

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Existence

I want to prepare this article for a feature article candidacy (FAC). I have done the first round of copyediting myself but there is probably still a lot of room for improvement. Thanks in advance. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at some of the copy here, and tbh the copy itself is pretty tightly written. The issues such as they are seem more to do with (a) concepts that are unfamiliar that need some introduction, or (b) concepts that further explanation. However these are not really copy edit issues. I went through some on the talk page and can try to do some more, but this is more a "peer review" style of feedback than a copy edit. I note there is a peer review taking place, since 23 January 2024. I would personally ask @Phlsph7: if this should be paused until the Peer Review is complete, so that the text is stable. As it is pretty tight anyway I think the copyedit will be quite light, except if there are outstanding comprehensibility issues. Jim Killock (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(←)  Working Baffle☿gab 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Baffle☿gab 02:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Stadio Olimpico

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Stadio Olimpico

I am a Wikipedian from Italy, I rewrote the article, but almost surely it needs to be checked by someone who speaks English as native, thanks! -- Blackcat 19:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Working JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blackcat:  Partly done I've copyedited up to the end of the '1960 Olympics' section, but I am expecting to be busy next week and be without access to the Internet the next, so I find it unlikely that I will finish this within a reasonable timeframe. I'm leaving this to another copyeditor who can finish this ASAP. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Did a little bit more copy editing early on. The Stadio dei Centomila section in particular seems to give two different explanations of where the ownership went to: first it says it went to the Italian National Olympics Committee, then it says to Commissariato della Gioventù Italiana (Commission for the Italian Youth) Mrfoogles (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Working Miniapolis 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Miniapolis 17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

History of the National Football League

Large sections of this are uncited, I'm not sure this is ready for a copy edit (ht @Lindsey40186) Jim Killock (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I'll try to get further on some of the other cleanup it needs before revisiting. Thanks! Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I've marked the uncited and poorly cited sections with templates. Some of those cn tags are over a decade old so that material can be removed per WP:VERIFY. The GOCE is not CLEANUP and is not for cleanup. I'm going to put this request on hold for cleanup for a fortnight or so, after which I'll suggest we decline it if improvements aren't forthcoming. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 16:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Only one edit since the 16th, and that was to correct a typo, according to the edit summary. I suggest that this article be declined if it's sourcing is truly problematic (I myself would have tried to address any prose concerns, even if flying blind; but I may be too lenient in that respect). It's a fairly long article (~6700 words), and would take some time to do. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with you and Baffle that we should decline, since we have more than enough to do as it is. All the best, Miniapolis 13:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both; I've declined because I don't see any signs of cleanup work going on there. @Lindsey40186:, feel free to re-request a full copy-edit once your cleanup work is completed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

History of the National Football League

CC-BY-SA declaration; I copied text in this section from the Requests page here. See that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 19:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a long overdue citation overhaul, but this thing could use a good deep cleaning too. Eventually I'd like to get it to GA (GAN), but we're a long way from that. Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A lot of this does seem to be very lightly cited with sections probably uncited, which may make it a bit unstable for a copy edit @Lindsey40186. Just a thought, would it be better to finish the citation work first and come back with this request? Or if that can be done soon, to put this request on hold for a bit while you do that (given you have waited a long time for a reply etc)? Jim Killock (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(←)  On hold per JimKillock above; the GOCE is not CLEANUP and is not for cleanup. Discuss at REQ talk. Baffle☿gab 17:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Declined per discussion at REQ talk. I said I'd wait a fortnight but no improvements have been forthcoming and it's starting to snow here. Discuss at REQ talk (linked above). Baffle☿gab 19:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Italy

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Italy

It would be great to get an experience copy editor on this request I received from an it.wiki pal User:LukeWiller. I don’t think there is a MOS:OVERLINK policy on it.wiki and this article definitely suffers from that in addition to tightening the prose to reduce its size and increase its readability. Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Working Dhtwiki (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Ok, thanks... :-) Could you also reduce the size in such a way as to remove the {{Very long}} tag that is present at the top of the article? --LukeWiller (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC).

I'm not one who thinks that trimming article size is a job for the guild, excepting getting rid of obvious irrelevancies, uncited and duplicate text, etc. The subject-matter editors are better able to judge what should go in the article, as they should have a better sense of the amount of detail appropriate for its subject (e.g. what level of detail belongs to the country article versus subordinate, Italy-related articles). Dhtwiki (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Didn't Learnerktm work on this before? Mox Eden (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find that name in the article history, on its talk page, or here, in the Requests archive. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? They started copyediting it on 5 March and ended on 7 March, and there is a talk page section (Talk:Italy#Copy editing with good intentions) that they were involved in. Mox Eden (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Learnerktm did do some copy-edits on 4 to 7 March; their first attempts were reverted, their second attempt was a bit stickier but it seems they gave up quite early. See the article's history for details. I'm not sure whether their edits warrant a co-credit in our archive. I'm not sure the "too long" template is warranted here; articles on countries are expected to be large. Baffle☿gab 20:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't thorough enough. However, your Didn't Learnerktm work on this before? implied to me that a previous major copy edit had been achieved. I then expected to see their name in page statistics (I often wind up on the top ten list of even a much-read article that I copy edit), or a {{GOCE}} template on the talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki, do not forget to mark this as done after completing the article. Mox Eden (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have some comments to formulate before I close this out. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Done I might not have done all that was requested, but I put a fair amount of work into making this long article clear and coherent. I probably added more links than were there at the start, but I thought that was necessary. One flaw that I did not address was the extensive listing of important Italians (all of whom had articles to link to). I could have reduced the article by eliminating such lists but at the risk of losing information that was not at supporting articles. That sort of reduction I leave to subject-matter editors, who should be more informed as to what is at the articles where such detail is appropriate. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)