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

What counts, and what doesn’t?

I’ve been working on a large article made up primarily of tables for the last week or so. How should I count it, or does it not count since I started before the drive? Thanks! ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 06:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything begun before the drive starts (tonight at midnight UTC) doesn't count towards your drive totals; virtue is its own reward . Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 13:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have on rare occasion counted the number of edits performed within a drive or blitz, divided by the total number of edits, including those outside the time frame, and multiplied by the word count. That's not official policy, though. Regarding List of United States tornadoes in 1946, which I think is the article you're referring to, the "page size" script gives a word count of only 76 for that article, where I get approximately 9000 8000 from my LibrOffice word processor's word count function. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC))

I think I’m going to count the text of the tables I haven’t touched yet, which gives a word count of 1757.

Edit: I hit publish too soon! I’ve been treating each table as a mini article, so it seems sensible to count them that way.~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I copy-paste tables and lists (anything the word-counting script doesn't pick up) into a word processor for their word count and add it to the article's word count for the total. All the best, Miniapolis 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for an online word counter, WordCounter.net is a nice free alternative. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Requests award

I propose adding an award for most backlog requests completed in future drives to put it on parity with the old requests backlog. In my view, emptying the requests backlog seems to be more important than the old articles backlog because the articles listed at the requests page have a higher chance of being improved further, since most requests precede GAN or FAC reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I am skeptical of anything that might push new and less-experienced editors toward copy-editing Requests, especially if the incentive is to copy-edit them quickly. Requests require time and care and should not be motivated by awards or barnstars. Requests already receive a 50% bonus in word count; that is probably enough. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jonesey. All the best, Miniapolis 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting it as an additional incentive, but as recognition for those who choose to use their time during the drives to review requests. In any event, doesn't the 50% bonus already create the problem of incentivizing new and less-experienced editors to try their hand at requests during a drive? On that point, the current instructions on the requests page don't make it clear that a less-experienced editor shouldn't try to copy edit an article where the requestor has, for example, stated that they want a copy edit to prepare for FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The instructions for copy editors at WP:GOCER do say Articles that are potential Featured Article candidates should only be handled by experienced editors. We could, perhaps, provide more extensive guidance, but I suspect that experienced copy editors don't need the advice and newbies are unlikely to find it. So it goes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that newbies are unlikely to find it; maybe some sort of caution should be put higher up on the page in an area that isn't collapsed by default? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

They're already on parity, at least in terms of calculating barnstars, as both oldest requests and backlog articles get a 50% bonus (during drives only, not blitzes, which are relatively unrewarding barnstar-wise). Both are important, and both are difficult. The requests are already likely to have a high polish but also come under the gaze of a more demanding clientele (whose scathing verdict on those found wanting can be quite disincentivizing), and there are other venues to improve them, such as peer reviews, or the subject-matter editors just stepping back for awhile and later rereading them critically. Backlog articles (calling them "requests" too, as you've done, can be confusing) are more likely to be unintelligible and extraordinarily difficult to untangle, where improvement might reach fewer readers but make more of a difference to an article's usefulness. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Work on multiple at once?

As the subject line suggests, can I work on multiple at once? I just finished a 16,000 word behemoth and kept thinking it would be nice to have a "palate cleanser" between sections. Would it be okay to tackle a short article that would take around an hour while working on a week long project? ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 00:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Argenti Aertheri. I understand your fatigue (having felt it myself), but copyediting long articles is a matter of choice. We discourage working on more than one article at once because quality tends to suffer. All the best, Miniapolis 12:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the speedy answer ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Words

Exactly how do words work? I read it over and I don't really know how to get them. Is it for every word you fix or rearange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatOneWolf (talk • contribs)

@ThatOneWolf: It's for how many words the article had before you started editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: So basically if I edit a bigger article that would mean more points? Wolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@ThatOneWolf: In essence yes, but that doesn't mean go through large articles as fast as one can; it's expected that more attention and time are going to be given to those, and in cases of poor copyediting a penalty may be imposed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

ThatOneWolf: remember that the goal is to apply high-quality copy-editing to articles. The drive leaderboard is just for fun; some people find it motivational. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now. Thanks! Wolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for my work to be checked

Can any experienced GOCE member check my work on Pyaar Ka Dard Hai Meetha Meetha Pyaara Pyaara for the July 2024 Backlog Drive? Any help will be greatly appreciated!

• Note: Tagging the article for neutrality.

Thanks, TheNuggeteer (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good at a glance, and thanks for your help. All the best, Miniapolis 14:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for check

Can someone please check my copyedits for the pages Flextime and Sam Nunn for the July 2024 drive?

Thanks, TheNuggeteer (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but I question some of the changes you've made.

Flextime:

• "flexible hours" -> "flexible hour" – which should be plural, as it's the number of hours that is flexible;
• "hours must be worked" -> "...worked on" – questionable addition of "on";
• quoting "change the nature of the way we work" – which I don't see supported by a source;
• "organisations" -> "organizations" – the former spelling being British English, which may be appropriate to the article as a whole;
• "flexitime" -> "flextime" – the former being a variant given in the lead and which seems appropriate to British Commonwealth countries.

Sam Nunn:

• "for which he is a co-chair" -> "for which he is the co-chairman" – the former being better for the implied plurality as well as "chair" now being a likely title for its gender neutrality;
• "Nunn was born in Macon, Georgia, the son of Mary Elizabeth" -> "...he is the son of Mary Elizabeth" – the former is better, I think; if you're going to have the latter, there should be a semicolon, not a comma, before "he";
• "captaining the school's basketball team to a state championship" -> "captaining the school's basketball team to the state championship" – which reads well either way, but I would not have seen the need to change it;
• "supposedly a top choice" -> "supposedly the "top choice" " – is quoting "top choice" supported by sources, which I see as the only legitimate reason for doing so?

Dhtwiki (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed some of the issues, except:

• Organisations to Organizations = Seems better;
• Flexitime to Flextime = The main wording, Flexitime is just another nickname.
• quoting "change the nature of the way we work", quoting "top choice" = You're correct with the "source" reason, but there is another reason you can see at WP:QUOTE, to quote "claimed", "alleged", and other often "loaded" terms.
• "captaining the school's basketball team to a state championship" TO "captaining the school's basketball team to the state championship" = Does not need changing-back.

You can say to me your reason countering my reasons considering you are the more experienced editor.

Thanks, TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The spelling of "organi{s|z}ations" should be decided by article style. Here, I think that you may be on firm footing in using the American spelling, as that seems the likely style at the start (per MOS:RETAIN, "...use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety."). But if "flexitime" is used in sources as pertaining to a particular nationality, I would consider using that variant in the text. I don't see how your section of WP:QUOTE justifies using quotation marks outside of direct quotation. If you feel the need to emphasize text, you can use the {{em}} template, but that is undue editorializing if it doesn't reflect a source. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Review my work

Hi! Could someone kindly review my work on the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research article? Much appreciated, thanks! Pinecone23 (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks good to me, after a quick read. I'm assuming that what you've taken out is unnecessary verbosity, that you've made the article more succinct without losing nuance. One hiccup I noticed involves hatnotes. The "Short description" template goes at the very top, before all the others, per WP:LAYOUT. Then, the "Maintenance, cleanup, and dispute tags" do belong after the "Hatnotes" proper (I tend to label all top-listed templates by that name), although for readability in raw editing mode, I would start each on its own line. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate it! I completely missed the layout issues regarding the tags, so thank you for pointing that out :) I believe I have reordered them correctly now. Pinecone23 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for work check

Hi there! Could someone possibly review my work on Surrealist Manifesto? I was able to remove a lot of fluff, but there were a few sentences I wasn't sure how to put in an encyclopedic tone. A fresh set of eyes to look over it would be much appreciated. Thanks, LeMeilleurMiel (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Both versions looked encyclopedic in tone to me. You took out a fair amount of text, which seems to be carefully done. Again, I'm just doing a quick read. However:

• "prior leaders of rival surrealist groups" – why "prior"? I would have left that word out;
• "Goll and Breton's conflicting beliefs led to a fight at the Comédie des Champs-Élysées" – it's "skirmish" in the source and it seemed as much street theater as violent fisticuffs, as "fight" would suggest;
• "Later sources describe Breton and having won." – "as" having won.

Dhtwiki (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)