Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2020

Rollover for current article?

So I started copyediting an article before the drive officially began. Can I have it count as my first article of the drive? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 00:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Word counts are for edits performed during the drive. Thanks for your copy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to signups section

Hi all, I've just changed the code in the signups section from three tildes to {{Subst:User0|{{Subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}: I've done this to prevent custom signatures, which can range from non-standard form (like mine) to confusing and misleading, appearing in section titles that one of us almost inevitably ends up 'fixing'. This change should prevent that and avoid annoying copy-editors. Please feel free to boldly revert the change if necessary – I don't want to break anything – and please explain the problem so I can see what went wrong. Having tested it, I think it should be fine, but I'll monitor further sign-ups. If all is well, I'll change the Drive and Blitz templates accordingly. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Baffle; I didn't know how to do that

All the best, Miniapolis 13:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I've tested the code on the page-creation templates and found I needed to remove 'subst', otherwise my own user name gets added to the template. On the second attempt I signed up to the Feb 2015 Blitz, which was very helpful! I'm made a test case in my user space; everyone please feel free to "sign up" at User:Baffle gab1978 (you'll need to bypass the redirect) and see how the subst'ed page behaves.

Well after an hour or so of playing about, I can't get the code to either not subst *my* username directly into the created page or add an extra colon. So I'm giving up. Ah well, it was a nice idea. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REVISIONUSER returns the username of the last editor who saved an edit of the page (i.e.: in the edit history) and doesn't count the edit being made. I don't think there's a way to get the name of the user who is viewing the page or who opens the edit window. There ought to be a way of stripping a custom signature, but I didn't find anything at Template:Userspace linking templates or a search of template space. There might be some Lua code that could be used to break down the string of the signature which could then be put into {{User0}}. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, weird, I was going to change it back to the broken three tildes, but tested it first and it worked, creating a new section with my username (although Twofingered Typist had the last edit in the page history). I don't understand it, but it seems to work! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that you were right the first time, Reidgreg. Substing the username of the editor making the current edit is a perennial template feature request, and there is still no way to do it, as far as I know. AFAIK, REVISIONUSER looks like it works when you are testing, because you are making all of the edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought when I played around with this a couple years ago. But if you look at this diff (which I subsequently reverted) it added a section with my username using Baffle gab's REVISIONUSER code (which is present in the name of the new section in the edit summary), although TwoFingered Typist had the previous edit to the page. It looks as though the order-of-operations (in processing/publishing the edit) saves the edit history before substituting templates in the section header, or otherwise the edit summary would show the end result of the substitution instead of the subst:REVISIONUSER code. Hence, it works. I'd like to see some more testing, if some others would like to give it a try. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's worked for six other copy editors (Baffle, Lfstevens through Csgir, and myself) in the edit history, so it seems to function alright. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your comments; I'm glad to see the code change works in the drive page, and I saw the first two signups after the change worked fine. Yesterday (actually this morning here), I was trying to add it to the template {{GOCE-new-blitz-page}} and using it to create a test blitz page in my userspace. The result of that was, even when logged out and in a private browser window, my own username (being the last editor of the page) was added to the signup code by substitution. The best I could achieve using "{{subst:<noinclude/>:User0|{{subst:<noinclude/>:REVISIONUSER}}}} was having it almost correct but with an extra colon. I'm now thinking I might get around the substitution problem using HTML equivalent code for the curly brackets... I'm so glad I'm not paid to do this stuff! :D Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you can add a <noinclude /> in the middle to stop it from substituting in the template code. There's a big list of character codes at List of XML and HTML character entity references. The curly brackets are lcub or lbrace and rcub or rbrace (with ampersands and semicolons). – Reidgreg (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reidgreg; I tried it with the codes &#123 ; and &#125 ; (no spaces) but no joy; it's still not behaving the way I want it to when the template is subst'ed. But i can leave it as hidden text in the template along with the extant three tildes, which at least behaves itself properly. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chart variables are unclear at first read

I was really confused by the two charts in the page's "Progress Chart" section before realising that "Target articles" referred to "Old articles Sep/Oct/Nov 2019" and "Total articles" referred to "Outstanding tags" below. Can we stick with one term each for both types? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the "Old Articles" quantity is included in the "Outstanding Tags" number we are actually tracking two different things so we do need different descriptors and graphs. If it is confusing, perhaps we could add to the Progress Chart under the column heading "Outstanding Tags" (Incl. Old Articles) in parentheses in small text. I tried it and it fits without distorting the graph. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: I should probably clarify: I am okay with there being two graphs used to track two different variables. I am suggesting that "Target articles" on the left graph be renamed to "Old articles" or vice versa, and "Total articles" on the right graph renamed to "Outstanding tags" or vice versa as I had to connect the data points to the graphs before being able to figure out what they were for. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Tenryuu. I think pretty much everyone uses the term "old" articles rather than "target" articles, so I boldly made the change. If we ever change our focus from old articles to something else (I think that was debated in the very early days, which may be where the term came from), we could change back to target articles. Thanks for noticing this! Tdslk (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tdslk:

Great! I also boldly made a change so that "Outstanding tags" in the table was changed to "Total articles that have copyedit tags" for clarity. You're welcome! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tdslk: Thanks! I remember once or twice I tried to enter data for the actual targets/goals (old + requests), which was a bit confusing as additional requests were made. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List Articles

Hi all. I just finished a ce of List of unlawfully killed transgender people, which was tagged as needing a ce in October 2019. It's a really long list (roughly 20,000 words), and I was wondering what our policy was concerning lists in drives. Most of the entries had some prose after names, but there were a lot of just names without any actual elaboration. I haven't added it to the leaderboard or my progress list yet, I would first like the opinions of others. Thanks, Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 20:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Puddleglum2.0! I would give you full credit for all of the words in the list. There may have been a few bits that didn't need copy editing, but that's true of most articles, and it looks like the names are a small fraction of the overall word count. Also, if you haven't noticed, the "page size" tool doesn't work well with lists; a better estimate can be obtained by copying and pasting the text into a word processor. Tdslk (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the help Tdslk! I'll go ahead and add it. Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get about 13,850 words when I copy the whole article and remove the references and reference numbers. YMMV, and thanks for taking on that long article! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC),[reply]

@Jonesey95: No problem, thank you! Not quite sure what YMMV stands for, but still thanks! (Super out of touch with what's "cool" 😃) Thanks, Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 00:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(YMMV=Your Mileage May Vary, that is, the result you get might be different.) Tdslk (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks! :D Yeah, I plugged it into a word generator after snipping refs and I got a similar result. Thanks all for the help, and have fun copyediting! :) Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 04:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puddleglum2.0: I'm getting about 13,000 words from the pre-copy edit version, discounting a bit for the list terms and headers (ball park with Jonesey's, I'll owe it to the metric system and daylight savings). FYI, a couple notes: the first few list separators are inconsistent with the rest of the article (spaced en dashes compared to commas), and there are a mix of dm and md dates as well as time formats (am, a.m., A.M. – the last is a discouraged style). There was also some underlining of dates near the end that looked a bit weird. You may want to address these. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Am I wrong or did we just break the old backlog record of 321? Go team! Lfstevens (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? These drives really drive people to power through the backlog. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I suspect that I'm not the only one this month whose editing rate has increased thanks to practicing social distancing. Stay healthy, everyone!

Tdslk (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socially, I'm more connected than ever. Physical distancing is another thing entirely. I've got that nailed. Gotta love English! Lfstevens (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October copyedit tags

Just finished the last entry in the October section! Now to move on to November! --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user

I just finished reviewing a copy edit for King of Scorpions (talk) and found out that they've been blocked as a sock puppet, with the main account indefinitely blocked. Yeesh. Why do these people bother? – Reidgreg (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are supposed to assume good faith. There is a possibly true, possibly untrue story at the bottom of User talk:SithJarJar666. I don't have enough fancy checkuser access to see for myself. Moving on.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! I left my review on King of Scorpions's talk page, if the matter should get sorted. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding December articles to oldest articles

Unless there are any objections, once the last two articles from November are finished, I propose that we do what we've done in the past and add the next month to the "oldest articles" category, with the corresponding 50% bonus for completion. At the pace we're going, I think we could quite reasonably finish every 2019 article by the end of the drive! Keep on social distancing, Tdslk (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding December to old/target articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the final article from November to copy edit and added December to the "oldest articles" category. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Go team! – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twofingered Typist, the work never ends. :P Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the main GOCE page from November to December being the oldest articles, and added the usual Note to the table when we add a month after we've run out (a bit wordier than usual, admittedly). After looking at the result, and noticing the individual chart dates starting to run together and the second chart almost at the bottom, I adjusted the charts as per usual around this time of month. Hope it works for everyone. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for also catching the fact the numbers had to be updated! Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I restored the March 20 Old articles total to 6, since the December articles hadn't been added in yet; I added the fact that December started with 46 on March 21 to the note at the bottom of the table. I don't think we should be rewriting history by adding December to March 20, when they weren't part of the total. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Who's going to be adjusting the article lists for editors who've completed copyediting some December 2019 articles prior to their reclassification? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've ruled in the past that articles already edited from a month before it got added to the "oldest months" don't count for the 50% bonus, partly because they weren't among the oldest remaining articles when they were edited, and partly just for the sanity of the coordinators. Tdslk (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Tdslk; there's a limit to what we can do, and it shouldn't only be about the numbers anyway

. All the best, Miniapolis 00:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's always how it's been before: the added month doesn't count except for articles begun after the moment it has been added. And with December already down by a quarter in a matter of hours, 46 to 34, we may be doing this all over again with January in a few days. (Speaking of coordinator sanity.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rapid drop is me checking each article and removing tags where they aren't really needed (*cough* TV stations *cough*). The remaining articles will go more slowly, I'm sure. But yes, we could be looking at oldest articles being only two months old before the drive is over. Which is just crazy. Tdslk (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Since I'm starting the 22K-word Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, I'll be out of your hair for the rest of the month . All the best, Miniapolis 15:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty impressive that that will make you one of three editors to complete a >20K article this month. Well done, ultramarathon editors! Tdslk (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's if I finish it by the 31st; it's a bit of a mess

. Miniapolis 22:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the more thanks for taking one for the team, then! Tdslk (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis, I believe you'll be able to do it. I spent 2 or 3 days on Melodisc Records tabulating everything and that was before social distancing happened. We'll be rooting for you! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be real beasts. It's nice to see the 5k row on the leaderboard doesn't have any vacant boxes this month! – Reidgreg (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Just to confirm, if I'm starting to copy edit a December article today, can I mark it with the O tag on the March drive page? --BluePenguin18 ( 💬 ) 16:24, 22 March 2020 (EST)

Yes, that is correct. Happy editing! Tdslk (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only 10 left in December

It's taken two days to burn through 36 of the 46 articles in December. We should probably be prepared for the remaining 10 to be taken in the next day or two, and to add January 2020 (currently 42) once December is empty, since we still have eight days left in the current drive. Make sense? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Tdslk (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, understood, and I'll take another December one to get us closer to that. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010s are over!

Thanks to Reidgreg for taking the last one from December! Any objections to adding the remaining January articles to the "old" articles that receive bonus points? Happy social distancing, Tdslk (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tdslk, go for it. :) Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean it's too late to put it back? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Reidgreg (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you seriously don't want it, I can tackle it, but I'm sure it's in good hands with you.

Tdslk (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Or were you referring to the 2010s?) Tdslk (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a really ugly one, though probably not the worst of the decade. Done now, or as much as I'm willing to do. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so let's add January to the "old months" for which one gets the 50% word count bonus. The same as when we added December, this does not apply retroactively. Only articles edited going forward will count. Stay healthy, everyone! Tdslk (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This drive is turning out to be a limbo contest, having twice adjusted the bar. How low can you[r backlog] go? (Okay, not a great metaphor.) – Reidgreg (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's a lot more requests to get our metaphorical teeth into now! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC),[reply]

👏 --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 23:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who enjoys arbitrary quantitative goals, I'd just like to point out that if we can get the backlog down to 119 by the end of the day, we will have reduced its size by over 3/4ths this month! Tdslk (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful drive! Final cleanup query

Congratulations to everyone on a wildly successful drive!

I did get a screen capture of the final "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" box when it was still at 118 (it's gone down since then). If no one else got it and is uploading it, I'll upload the one I got and substitute it for the still-live box on the page. Just let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please upload it. If you need to figure out where it goes exactly, look at January's drive page. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a month! Thanks for grabbing the image. Tdslk (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

double (edit conflict): Jonesey95, I was doing it while you were typing the above; I figured if no one had inserted one in an hour's time, it was probably safe to upload and update the page accordingly. It's my fourth one, and every time I need to check the exact syntax by going back to the previous drive and copying the div tag sequence. I think it's okay, but please make any necessary adjustments. I also put some of the introductory text into past tense now that the drive is over. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing

We seem to be getting more enthusiastic newcomers this drive. I've tried to do some reviewing and have come across a couple that are problematic. We may have to discount some of the submitted articles to be fair to those who are doing the work in earnest. Here are the ones I've noted:

King of Scorpions (talk · contribs · count · logs). As mentioned earlier, this account was identified as a sock puppet and put on indefinite block. Five copy edits were submitted over 90 minutes. The one I reviewed was incomplete. Since they won't be able to complete the copy edits, and since they are not an editor in good standing, I'm thinking we should forgo any awards for them at this time.
TheBirdsShedTears (talk · contribs · count · logs). I left this editor some notes on March 13 and asked them to check their first few copy edits. They acknowledged this but, instead of making any edits to complete the copy edits they'd already submitted, they submitted twenty new copy edits. I looked at a couple of these and found them to be incomplete. They seem to be rubber-stamping copy edits and not demonstrating a willingness to learn.
BluePenguin18 (talk · contribs · count · logs). New account (<70 edits) which submitted 15 copy edits within 24 hours.

We've still got a week to go, but I felt I should apprise you guys. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reidgreg (talk · contribs), I apologize for the mistakes you picked up in my first two copy edits and hope that I have progressively improved over my later ones. As for the high density of edits on a new account, unfortunately there's no exciting explanation. I'm just very bored cooped up in my home due to COVID-19 and wanted to have fun in this month's competitions. I definitely understand that more veteran users are likely performing their copy editing with a higher competency of the Wikipedia MOS, but I hope that, in time, I can lower my rate of mistakes. As per your suggestion, I will spend some time going over my other 13 submitted copy edits to check for errors before moving on anymore. However, when you pinged me about some errors, I was part way through an article, so I'll be submitting my edits so far, and then going back to old ones. Just wanted to clarify that and not look like I'm ignoring you to rush through the competition. Thanks for all the advice! --BluePenguin18 ( 💬 ) 17:52, 23 March 2020 (EST)

Reidgreg I am very new to copy edit and still learning how things work here. Secondly, i am copy editing on my j7 old phone which is not working properly and sometimes, it create confusion. To avoid any further mistakes, i have temporarily stop working on c/e. I know my c/e work lacks accuracy. thank you! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BluePenguin18 and TheBirdsShedTears: Even small improvements are still improvements, so I thank you for those. Copy editing is correcting the work of other editors, however, so a certain level of competency is required. We consider a general copy edit (B-class or lower) to be complete when it is free of spelling, punctuation and grammar errors, and compliant with the [basic] MOS. As with most endeavours, it's best to work on competency/quality first; then speed/quantity will follow.

My advice would be to review the MOS and our how-to page and try to complete the copy edits already submitted. Incomplete copy edits will not be counted, and may lead to a penalty being assessed against any barnstar(s) earned for the drive. We do give out a lot of barnstars, but we don't mean to award them cheaply; you have to do the work, and hopefully have fun doing it. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I have concerns about another editor's copy-edits too but I gave him/her a pass because the article is poorly referenced. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-drive continuation

I'm all for these drives and blitzes being a training ground for new copy editors (that's how I started), and I try to leave constructive notes on the editor's talk page when I check copy edits. I give a lot of leeway on an editor's first few copy edits, and expect gradual improvement. Which brings me to the rule about not rubber-stamping copy edits. While I think every participating editor (with the possible exception of one blocked user) deserves a barnstar, I feel that we should consider scaling-down what some of the copy editors have claimed for the drive, due to incomplete copy edits. I hope that this will be fair to everyone, and that it won't incentivize editors into being less than thorough and leaving more half-finished work for coordinators to clean up.

Pinging coordinators @Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, and Twofingered Typist: for consensus-forming discussion. I'll list the editors who were noted to have incomplete work and we can discuss discounts or penalties.

King of Scorpions (talk · contribs · count · logs). Per above, we might withhold barnstars at this time.
TheBirdsShedTears (talk · contribs · count · logs). New copy editor. 25 articles submitted; 8 of these were checked with 4 found to be incomplete.
BluePenguin18 (talk · contribs · count · logs). New copy editor. 15 articles submitted; 5 were checked with 2 found to be incomplete.
EggOfReason (talk · contribs · count · logs). 2 copy edits submitted and checked, 1 found to be incomplete. They've submitted copy edits to three other blitzes/drives over the past 16 months, so an occasional contributor.
Csgir (talk · contribs · count · logs). 10 submissions, 2 checked with 1 found to be incomplete. A semi-regular contributor, completing copy edits on about half of the blitzes/drives over the past 16 months. Has been noted for incomplete work in March, May and July 2019.

Should we discount only the articles found to be lacking or, in the cases of editors who submitted more than we can readily review, the proportion of checked articles found to be lacking? Or somewhere inbetween? (I should perhaps mention that I reviewed articles for the first three editors bulleted above, and would move for some form of discount; Bafflegab made reviews for the last three.) – Reidgreg (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)With problem editors we don't have the wherewithal to fully review, a percentage reduction would be appropriate. I've been concerned about rubber-stamp copyedits for some time; the backlog was going down too quickly for the copyediting to be good. If editors looking for a barnstar realize that they actually have to put in the work, they'll either improve or realize that the game isn't worth the candle. I think we need to stop crowing about how low the backlog is, and go back to emphasizing quality; the GOCE has a checkered-enough reputation as it is

. Thanks, stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 22:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard work reviewing copy edits, and I feel like we should expect participants to meet reasonable standards, so I would support whatever remedy you and Bafflegab feel is appropriate to ensure quality goes up and reviewing is not as burdensome next time. I will also try to work on tidying up articles those identified as in need of more editing. Tdslk (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was surprised to see my Username here. I have never submitted any partly edited work in the mentioned March, May, and July 2019 drives, and the current one highlighted in the March 2020 drive isn't partly done as well. I have striven to do thorough copy-edits always and have acknowledged feedback whenever received. However, feel free to remove all of my copy-edits record ever since I started here, including the current one. Thanks Csgir (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Csgir: Sorry for any offence. This discussion is really about how to raise the quality of the project's work, and that's especially important with a prolific copy editor like yourself. The copy edit in question is that of Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland. Baffle gab made a lot of additional improvements (seen here) though it seems to me like you were pretty close to a B-class copy edit. We do tend to give more attention to reviewing newer copy editors. I'll try to give you a thorough review next time, to point out areas for improvement. We do value your contributions. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) We've been here a few times before. When I check a c/e, I look at the state of the article before the c/e started and the actual edits made by the copy-editor, and consider whether the article has been improved. I think a nuanced approach is needed when reviewing and to consider {{copyedit}} templates are often left on articles where {{Cleanup}} is the appropriate one to add. Triage is good but it's not possible to triage every article in a large pool of articles like the backlog. More experienced reviewers, meaning those editors with a good c/e track record, would be most welcome to review c/es and triage articles next time; I'm aware we're not exactly awash with these kind of editors.

In one or two cases in this drive, I've been a bit more generous with my remarks because the articles lacked references and/or weren't well-organised; one case being Reliant Motors. We don't expect copy-editors to chase after references and/or bring the articles to a certain standard. We do, however, expect the copy-editor to improve articles using more than a word processor or online tool; those are very useful tools but they don't pick up nuances of meaning and they're oblivious to Wikipedia conventions and policies.

With regard to withholding barnstars, again I think a nuanced approach is needed. I'd hate to penalise a good faith copy-editor of an article that was unsuitable for c/e when the c/e template was incorrectly added; but I think a penalty is appropriate where many obvious problems like spelling and grammar, ENGVAR, etc. are missed in cases where the article is suitable for copy-edit. It's a difficult area and I don't have any other solutions other than more reviewers and more triage, sorry. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that copy editors should do the work that they claim. For example, if they don't feel it's worth the effort to convert a long unsourced list into prose or to copy edit an unsourced section, then note a partial copy edit and don't claim those words for the drive. (My exception is for the first half-dozen copy edits by new copy editors, which usually need some additional work.)

For those I reviewed, my inclination would be a 50% discount for TheBirdsShedTears and a 40% discount for BluePenguin18. They'll still get nice barnstars for their debut efforts. @Baffle gab1978: what are your feelings for those you reviewed? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your thoughts above, @Reidgreg:; BluePenguin18 did some good work here but missed quite a few errors; the same with EggOfReason here; I think a 40% penalty would be fair in these cases. I also think a 40% reduction for Csgir because more work could have been done here, however, the text in that article was not in terrible shape to begin with. Csgir introduced an ENGVAR error here and made minimal other changes, but I'm inclined to ignore this because the article was mostly unreferenced and had been incorrectly tagged with {{Copy edit}} anyway. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll try to run the drive script tomorrow, and if it works, I will then calculate these reductions. Stay healthy, Tdslk (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]