Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2015

Ladislaus I of Hungary

Biblioworm, thank you for your thorough and bold copyedit. I highly appreciate your work for improving several articles in wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Bolokhoveni

Biblioworm, thank you for your bold copyedit of this article of a mysterious people who only played role in the history of Eastern Europe for 30 years. I have just made a GAN for the article. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Pokémon:_Symphonic_Evolutions

Jonesey has declined this 47-word draft-space article; I concur, have pinged the requester and will archive it (no need for discussion on this one). Miniapolis 18:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Iranian commanders in the Iran–Iraq War

Although this article was almost impossible to copyedit, I gave it my best shot; however, it's unstable (I'm running into edit conflicts) so I'm archiving it. Copyediting will not solve POV problems. Miniapolis 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Greek personal names: done

I finished Ancient Greek personal names on Feb.22, after the end of the blitz. (diff) Is there anything else I should do with or about it? To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Just saw some links I need to add... --Thnidu (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thnidu: Nice edits. You could place the {{GOCE}} template on the Talk page. For best results, copy and paste the example from the "Usage" section of the template's documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonesey95. :-) Done... And now the mobile beta version shows "Page issues" at the top of the page. I understand the logic behind not showing full template banners on mobile devices, but I question whether this message is the best solution. --Thnidu (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The template goes on the article's Talk page, not on the article itself. I moved it for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline Greco-Italian War?

Recently added to the requests; request notes "This article is in the middle of a partisan war between Italians and Greeks". Didn't realise this refers to an edit war. Put on hold until stable? Thanks, C679 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could just wait until the edit war ends, as it usually takes a while for requests to be answered. --Biblioworm 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes; the current backlog is back up to, alas, about two months. Whoever ultimately accepts it should check the history (to avoid wasting time) and decline it if it's still unstable. All the best, Miniapolis 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that editors may take this if they find it interesting, regardless of the order of requests. Not everyone starts from the top as Miniapolis does. My fear would be that a newbie might take an interest in this and get burned. Putting on hold isn't the same as declining, and I suggest it would be wise to put on hold. Currently, one editor involved has been blocked, but only for 31 hours (and I've no idea if that was even the right course). It would be wiser to wait until that expires and it becomes clear what will happen next. At the very least, put a warning on the request itself (on the requests page) similar to the one I put one the "Lips are Movin" request. I've spent some time in the last few months at WP:3O and some of the things that come up there have bought me almost to the point of completely retiring. If we allow GOCE to become an ersatz WP:3O, I fear the good collegiate atmosphere here will be compromised. --Stfg (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I happen to be one of those who only takes requests that I'm interested in. For example, I rarely take articles on film, music, or popular culture in general. I tend to copy edit articles on historical events and places. --Biblioworm 01:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Stfg here, on all points. Except that for the sake of my mental health, I try to stay away from parts of WP where people argue. There's enough of that on the internet (and in real life).

I have placed a note in this article's section on the Requests page on behalf of the GOCE coordinators. If I have misrepresented the consensus view of my fellow coordinators, feel free to change or revert my words and propose new wording. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine, Jonesey, and thanks as always to Stfg for his wise counsel. Dispute resolution around here is life-sucking, but I think the requester is looking more for a restoration of NPOV than a 3O (above our pay grade here, especially in an edit war). Thanks all; hopefully, the article will settle. Miniapolis 14:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miniapolis, Jonesey95, and Stfg: It looks like there's another edit war in progress, so it seems that the article is too unstable to be fit for copy editing in the near future. Should we decline it now? --Biblioworm 00:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I'd rather let my sage advice on the Requests page stand. A copy editor who takes on this article may encounter some resistance on the Talk page, in which case we can decline, but I think it's worth a good faith try. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No objection to leaving it there with Jonesey's advice in place, but I'd have gone for declining. "Restoration of NPOV" in the context of a POV war is even stronger than 3O (in that 3O doesn't edit the article, it just opines and stands back) and I think it's also well above our pay grade. I could see someone spending a lot of time editing that article for neutrality and their work being wasted within a week. That article is more like a case for WP:DR, imo. (It's unsuitable for 3O since more than two editors are involved.) --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

After checking the article's recent history, I agree that it should be declined; copyediting during an edit war, I've learned the hard way, is an exercise in futility and frustration. Thoughts? Miniapolis 00:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK with me. Pinging Uspzor to let the requester know that we are talking about this. Uspzor: the GOCE feels that we should decline this request because of the ongoing edit war. If the article reaches a stable state, you are welcome to post it on the Requests page again. Let us know if you have any feedback at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I started to leave a note on their talk page in case their notification threshold is set as high as mine :-), but I checked their contribs and they've been around only sporadically. Under the circumstances, we should probably decline and archive (and I'll let them know, in case they want a copyedit if and when the dust settles). Miniapolis 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. It's been fully protected now, so copy editing is going to be quite a challenge for most of us ;) --Stfg (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless you post an edit request detailing every change that should be made... --Biblioworm 02:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(←) Decline; we can't c/e a fully-protected article, and the requester can ask again when its protection expires on 1st May and it's stable. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Discussion moved from Requests page here by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, hi there! Miniapolis 13:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This article was recently promoted to Good Article and I'd like to bring it to A-class. The page has been viewed over 700,000 times in the last 90 days, including about 220,000 in 4 days when a plane crashed in Indonesia in December. The one year anniversary of the plane's disappearance is 8 March and given the mystery surrounding the flight, it will certainly receive a lot of page views. It will also receive a significant amount of page views if any debris or possible debris from the plane is found; since the priority search area will be completely searched by June, that will likely occur in the next few months. I hope that this doesn't seem rude to come here and ask for a copyedit to be done quickly, but it would be nice to have it done in time for the anniversary.

The article routinely receives copyedits that fix formatting and make small changes to the text; edits with tools like AutoEd have also been made frequently. What I am requesting is for someone to go through the entire article to fix any issues related to grammar or the MOS (units and use of italics, in particular) and, especially, to make the prose clear and concise. I have written or edited most of the prose, but I am not the most articulate writer and this is something that past copy edits (especially using tools/scripts) have not addressed. The Good Article review was not thorough and a discussion about the review was started (find "Another doubtful GA review" started 18 February after it gets archived); other editors did not feel it needed to be reassessed, but suggested "use a thorough copy edit" and to ask for that here.

A few notes that a copy editor should be aware of:

• One section in particular that I think is confusing and needs to be better worded is "Response by air traffic control". I need help to make the prose more understandable. There was a lot of discussions between several area control centers and I think the main issue here is finding a better way to handle the names of the centers. That said, this section is important to highlight the confusion between the air traffic control centers in the area, which explains the four-hour delay between loss of communication and the start of the search. So the best way of describing this is: explain/highlight the confusion without confusing the reader.
• The article should be written in British English, because that is the English variety most strongly associated with Malaysia. A user just fixed many spellings using AutoEd, so there are probably no issues with that.
• In aviation, altitude is expressed in feet and distance is expressed in nautical miles. These units are used where appropriate (primarily in the "Disappearance" section), while the rest of the article should use appropriate SI units (kg, km, km²). This seems to be compliant with WP:UNITS.
• I hope the writing is balanced between being understandable to a general knowledge and being encyclopedic and precise when presenting information (per WP:TECHNICAL). This is most relevant to the "Disappearance" and "Analysis of satellite communication" sections. Although more appropriate for a Peer Review and because a copy editor will be reading the article while likely unfamiliar with either field, I would really appreciate feedback if you think some content should be better explained for a general audience (but again, I don't want to oversimplify and lose important/relevant detail).
• The inclusion of the year in dates is something that needs to be looked at closely. There are a lot of dates in the article, but not all include the year. Where is it appropriate to exclude the year?

This comment is long, but so is the article. Hopefully I've provided enough information to help a copy editor with issues that need to be looked at. If you want clarification about any content, don't hesitate to ask me a question, I would be very glad to help. AHeneen (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen: Sorry, tried to help but Mongo wanted to remove my edit template and jump in. So I removed my  Working flag and will find other articles to edit...not going to get into an edit war with rude people. An article of this size takes time and I don't "save page" after each edit, rather I do batches at a time. Maxwellwarner (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever @Maxwellwarner:. It was rude to slap a do not edit boilerplate atop the article and do virtually no editing to it...that boilerplate was asking everyone else to not edit the page. You and this guild do not own the page! If you want to slap your ownership boilerplate atop the page go ahead but it is not necessary and certainly not if your style of editing takes days to hit he save button. MONGO is all caps btw. Let me know when this article goes to FAC.--MONGO 02:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:MONGO; if that wasn't an anomaly, this article may not be sufficiently stable for a copyedit. Miniapolis 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the editing. I have a few things to do, so I'll post a better response later when I have time to figure out what's been going on. As mentioned above, I think most of the minor formatting issues have been taken care of and the prose is what needs some attention. However, as noted above, this isn't a very good time to fix the article because it is receiving a lot of attention for the first anniversary of its disappearance (including a few edits, although I am actually surprised by the small number of edits as I was expecting more). I responded to the section MONGO started on the article's talk page. AHeneen (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the earlier issues. Trying to edit the page a couple days before the first anniversary was not the best time for a copyedit (I tried to make that clear in the request). The page received a lot of views (about 58,000 views over 6-10 March, although less than I was expecting) and many minor edits. A preliminary report was also issued and I updated a few sections. I think the page has quieted down enough for a copyedit. Please note that if you plan on doing a copyedit, it would be best to do so quickly and not prevent edits for an extended period (probably a few hours at most)...consider editing a section or two at a time. The article has been viewed almost 203,000 times in the last 30 days (as of 16 March), and averages 1-2 edits a day (there's rarely more than 24 hours without an edit), although most are insignificant/minor/copyedits. Again, most formatting and spelling issues are fixed by the frequent copyedits (like with AWB). I'm requesting an edit of the prose, which was requested after the GA review. I would like to get this to A-class or FA quality (I think that this article is not stable enough long-term for an FAC, because of the ongoing search). Again, sorry about the previous troubles, please consider editing just 1-2 sections at a time. AHeneen (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Withdraw In the original request, I said this could be promoted to A-class. However, I now think that this could be edited to reach FA status. I now plan to make some adjustments to a few sections, so I would like to withdraw the copyedit request and make a request later before it's nominated for FA. AHeneen (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Berkhamsted

This article has been partly copyedited. Biblioworm kindly copy editted as far as the second paragraph in the Medieval market town section. Another editor P.S.Button recently swooped by and did several copy edits throughout the article. I am not sure if the citations need improving throughout. -- BOD -- 09:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

:) Miniapolis I meant the quality of the inline cititation rather than finding better ones, which is also probably above your pay grade (hang on do you get paid for this ...lol). Biblioworm is kindly going to finish off the Medieval town section. I fear that the worst section ahead is the demographic section, though I wrote it, I am sure it is breaking several wikipedia rules (too much info, links to outside sources) but I am not sure how to fix it. My main interest in the town is early history to medieval, after that I am less interested and less driven to correct the occassional tiny factual errors immediately.-- BOD -- 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was that I think what you expect us to do goes beyond copyediting; you may want to take a look at this to see what a copyedit actually entails. While many of us go beyond copyediting—time permitting—to improve an article (for example, I add alt text to images if it's not already there), for the most part we don't have the expertise in a given area for what you seem to want. We copyedit an article, and move on to the next one. All the best, Miniapolis 13:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood, I appreciate that I was asking too much regards the possible tidy up of the town's demographic section. My number one hope remains the improvement of the article by an experienced editor applying their wikipedian copy writing skills to what already exists. (I personally failed my English Language 5 times, so I am fairly critical of my own writing skills). This article has been improved by many good editors volunteering their time like Biblioworm who know nothing of the town and I honestly dont expect any specialist knowledge of the subject. I am very grateful for any contribution that any editor to improve the quality of the article that might help eventually raise it to a B or Good Article and honestly I am aware that all editors make their contributions voluntary in their own spare time.-- BOD -- 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW (and for the benefit of any copyeditor who works on this article), I generally don't watchlist articles I'm copyediting. Saves a lot of aggravation. That being said, though, on the infrequent occasions when my improvements to an article are reverted willy-nilly, I'm outta there; no one likes to waste their time. Miniapolis 22:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I truely have no knowledge of reverting any edit you have made, nor can I see any such edits or reversions in the edit history. Today in the break between copy editors I was trying to apply the Alts to the images you mentioned that you personally added to articles...then I stopped because I remembered Biblioworm said he might be able to finish the section he was doing sometime this weekend. I am truely sorry if any misunderstanding has arisen. -- BOD -- 23:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(←) I was speaking generally. Miniapolis 01:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean generally? - you said I had reverted your improvements to the Berkhamsted article, but I am honestly unable to see where I reverted any edits wily-nily by you or anyone. Biblioworm made it clear to me it was okay to correct any factual errors that occured during the copy edit. Currently no specific person is copy editing the article. Are you refering to the edit that a seperate editor made yesterday, they kindly cleaned up a duplicate arguement on a historical time line table within the Berkhamsted page. When I looked at the table - I realised that when writing the table - I had repeated the actual text content of that line's entry - two lines down in more accurate detail and in a more logical place. As no one had adopted the page to copyedit, I corrected my bigger mistake. I am sorry if I have personally upset you, life is far too short for editorial disputes, again I unquestioningly apologise for any error I have made. -- BOD -- 02:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So now the page is probably too hot for the Guild to handle. Unless any editor is still willing to improve the page by copy editing ... I will respectfully agree to the removal of the page, so that it does not waste any more of your time. -- BOD -- 03:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bodney, I offer some unsolicited advice: Please take a deep breath. Or a walk around the block. Go smell some spring flowers, if you're in the northern hemisphere. A break from WP will do you good. If you leave your article on the Requests page, a friendly copy editor will get to it at some point. While that person is editing, try to watch politely (or take some more walks) and avoid editing the article until the copy editor is done. When you are notified that the editor is done with copy editing, resume your edits to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You :) I am very appreciative. Peace and goodwill.-- BOD -- 10:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(←) Thanks very much, Jonesey, for saying so well what I was thinking but couldn't find a tactful way to express :-). Bodney, you misunderstood me; distilled, I generally don't watchlist an article I'm copyediting (so I don't notice every little tweak by other editors while I'm working) and if I notice wholesale reversion (as happened long ago on Uttar Pradesh; as you can see from the article history, I haven't done anything on Berkhamsted), I move on to another article. That's all. Miniapolis 14:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

:) Peace, Goodwill and better articles by co-operation.-- BOD -- 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am so grateful for all the copyeditors who have kindly made many improvements (in so many ways) to this page. It is greatly appreciated.-- BOD -- 00:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Crisis on Infinite Earths - procedural decline?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The requester for this article asks for a cleanup, which is outside our remit. I took a look at the article yesterday; it has extensive passages of unreferenced text, and what looks like fancruft throughout. I don't think it's in a suitable shape for a full c/e, and GOCE is not cleanup. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The requester is one of our regulars, and seems to know what we do (and leave for others to do). That being said, though ... hoo boy, it's never good to see a laundry list of tags like that and the article really needs an overhaul. Excising fancruft is one of the things that gets me through the day, and we're not the article police. I'm not comfortable refusing to copyedit bad articles; it can be almost as satisfying making something like this somewhat encyclopedic as it is polishing FACs. Dollars to doughnuts I end up with it :-). All the best, Miniapolis 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already reformatted some of the embedded lists into multi-column formats, and it's likely I'll try and get it into some kind of better shape. But i don't think that will involve a copy-edit as we know it; I find c/e-ing that sort of text is like wading through treacle, especially where I can't check refs etc. But I appreciate that everyone's different and I hope you can make something better out of it than I can. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I go beyond mere copyediting also. But we may have driven away some potential copyeditors with an overemphasis on pass-or-fail standards; while I wish the requests page was a bit shorter, I don't want to unduly discourage requesters also. Edit-warring is one thing; although this article needs work in addition to copyediting (as many do), I consider it a good-faith, fulfillable request. Regardless of its wording, a copyedit is all that's required. All the best, Miniapolis 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done a clean-up; I hope it makes life easier for whoever does the c/e. I've removed a lot of the unreferenced OR text and have tried to reorganise the remainder in some sort of logical fashion. Anyone wanting to restore old content should see the article's history; my edit summaries should help locate stuff I removed. Anyway i'm signing off on this one. I think this discussion can be closed now; though feel free to re-open it if necessary. Have fun. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hungarian prehistory

Baffle gab1978, thank you for your thorough and bold copyedit. The article is now ready for GAN. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

Casliber seems to have abandoned the copyedit, possibly because several other editors are also working on it. I've advised the requester that we may have to decline it due to instability. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 02:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The activity there is sudden and very recent; perhaps put this one on hold for a week and see if activity subsides enough to allow a c/e to occur. Decline if a c/e sets off activity that interferes with the c/e. Maybe inform the copy-editor of the situation. The requester does mention on the Requests page that other editors are working there. Just my 2d worth. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity

Request placed On Hold. CC-BY-SA declaration: Text below copied across from the Requests page [1] by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Undergoing construction now. Please check sources if you can. There is a comment on the Talk Page that the article seems overly detailed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Above the Guild of Copy Editors asks requestors to please familiarize themselves with the Guild's listed scope of services provided. Checking references is a verification issue WP:VER and deleting content considered "overly detailed" by some editors is a content issue WP:DUE. I don't think it's fair to the Guild or to your collaborators that you call in the Guild on a page that you yourself hatted with "overly detailed" and "under construction" and frankly I don't know how to understand this request except as WP:CANVAS. Involved editors are participating in a discussion on the Talk Page about the level of detail. I think the fairest thing you can do to our Guild members and to your fellow editors is to please return to the talk page and identify specific content you feel is undue and make your case to your fellow editors by reference to WP:DUE. I think the fine energies of our Guild will be best spent once the involved editors achieve some consensus on sources and content and I would strongly support a Guild request at that time. These folks are the Guild of Copy Editors, not the Guild of Editors or the Guild of Exclusionist Editors. Please return to the talk page and engage in the heavy lifting of collaboration or at least remove your article tags if you feel the article is ready for Guild attention. If you feel the need for third or additional opinions on verification, sourcing, or due weight issues other more appropriate avenues are available to you. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully request the Guild to please decline this request at this time. Please postpone until ongoing verification and due weight issues are resolved. Respectfully, please consider waiting for the "overly detailed" and "under construction" article hats to come down through consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Declined and archived as currently unstable; feel free to relist when the article settles down. All the best, Miniapolis 13:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities

Thank you very much for the copyedits which you did to the article! – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 21:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Situation

Hi, just a quick heads-up; i looked at the Req page tonight and found an editor had removed two requests s/he completed (example [2] ). I reverted to an earlier version s/he had marked one of these  Done here. I informed the editor of the Guild's procedures here. A brief look at the editor's [3] contribs and I'm not sure s/he did a full c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just re-edited Death of Sigrid Schjetne, which showed multiple errors, especially some very eccentric misuse of commas. I think we have a CIR problem here. Leaving it to you to progress. --Stfg (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather strict use doesn't equal "very eccentric misuse". I followed the links, expecting to see someone making a hash of editing, and found, for the most part, edits that were competently done, that I'd have been glad to have made. Besides, commas are so eighteenth-century, when they knew what encyclopedic writing was all about. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather puzzled by that comment, since your own writing uses 21st century conventions very competently, and I'm wondering what was the intent behind your last sentence. Anyway, the current conventions hadn't evolved in the 18th century, when writers did indeed still splatter commas all over the place in weird and wonderful ways. There are now many, many grammar books and style guides documenting present conventions and their variants. One of the many kinds of rather basic error in the Schjetne copy edit was a failure to observe the rule described in Comma#Between adjectives, which you'll find in all books and style guides that address punctuation. There are many others, as well as errors other than in punctuation. --Stfg (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity (again)

I don't know what the requester (who's currently blocked for edit-warring on this article) was thinking, relisting this only six days after it was declined for instability. If it's too unstable for a copyedit, it fails GA criterion #5. The history and talk page indicate that it's at least as unstable as it was a month ago, and I suggest we decline again. All the best, Miniapolis 02:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-coordinator comment) The article's edit history shows it isn't stable; there has been major editing in the past 24 hours, and several editors are working on the article. A Guild c/e would be wasted. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle; there's some sub rosa editing going on there (no edit summaries, major edits marked as minor). I'll decline, and suggest requesting temporary full protection. All the best, Miniapolis 13:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity c/e request

CC-BY-SA declaration: copied from Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination planned. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

HughD: This request is declined. The article is not stable enough (over 100 edits in the last two days) for a copy edit to be useful. Once the article is stable, you are welcome to re-list it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Trapito

I see nothing to change in the Trapito article. What happens now?--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I made one small tweak, but it's pretty well written already. Not sure what happens now. --Stfg (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Bfpage/sandbox/complicated table work

CC-BY-SA declaration; moved from the Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've working on this table for days. I don't want the basic formatting and wikicode changed because it is in a format that is easier for me to work with and understand. My request is that I would like for someone to make this table sortable. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: @Bfpage: One of the coordinators may correct me, but I don't think this is the right place for this request, since this isn't a copy edit, but rather a technical issue. For what it's worth, I tried getting the table to sort to no avail. Perhaps someone who is more experienced with tables will be able to better help you. You may want to take a look at WP:SORT or perhaps the Teahouse. -Pax Verbum 20:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Request Declined per WP:SNOW; not an article copy-edit request. I'll archive in 24 hours unless someone beats me to it. I've left a note on the requester's talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

..."The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start." For goodness sakes! I withdraw my request. But I would like to know exactly what 'foregone conclusions from the start' might mean as it applies to this request with table sorting. Thank you Pax85 at least you were nice about it.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage, it was a foregone conclusion that your request was not a copy-editing request. I recommend that you request help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

[note added after discussion moved to Talk page] FYI in case anyone is following this discussion, I fixed the table in question to make it sortable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How did you get it to sort, Jonesey95? I tried a couple of different things to no avail... -Pax Verbum 00:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

See my edit. The clear tag fixed the overlapping of the image and the table. Adding "sortable" to the table definition made the table sortable. The key fix was removing the extra row divider and replacing a pipe with an exclamation point; that stuff was preventing the first set of cells from being the actual table headers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh OK. I of course knew about the "sortable" part, but when I initially looked at the diff, I didn't notice the exclamation. Thank you for teaching me something new today! -Pax Verbum 01:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(←) That's why Jonesey's moving back into the executive suite :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kalidas

I request that Kalidas (film) be edited by Miniapolis. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kailash. Unfortunately, Miniapolis doesn't take direct copy edit requests (which is why her userpage requests you post on the guild page), however it's a possibility she might edit it at some point in future, though another guild member may cover it. Thanks for your request, however. Enjoy your day! KieranTribe 12:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the vote of confidence, I work from the top of the requests page down; it's only fair to those who have been waiting, and I often end up copyediting something really interesting that I might not have cherry-picked :-). Miniapolis 02:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Baffle Gab re- your edit summary comment [4] — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Murder of Lynette White

Since George Ho and Keri are arguing on the requests page, I suggest we decline this one for article instability. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 20:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether I was arguing or not, the tension between us died down. I initially was worried that important points in the lede are not brought up yet. However, after much thought, I guess most of (if not all) important points are well summarized in the lede. As for the overall article, Keri may have good points. I struck out requesting copy editing on body article. More time is needed for events to develop before copy editing is done. I still wanted intro to be copy edited if Keri allows it. --George Ho (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but after what I've read I'm not touching it :-). All the best, Miniapolis 21:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to withdraw the request. Keri already re-edited the intro to make it well summarized (or brief but complete, id est concise). I must have missed that one. --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(←) Archived and removed; thanks all. I'll copy/paste the relevant discussion below. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Lynette White

* CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Requests page by me; Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The introduction was five paragraphs. It was reduced to four per WP:LEAD. However, I wonder if the introduction is adequately summarized. Also, the overall article looks... I don't know, a lot to be desired. Nevertheless, one editor says that the article is fine as is. I think about nominating the article as Good Article; in fact, I would like someone to make the quality resemble nearly of a Featured Article. (I wish someone never resents me.) --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (See below. --George Ho (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC))

The article was adequately summarised in 5 paragraphs. George Ho tipped up out of the blue yonder and complained it was too long. After trimming it to 4 he then complains it is too short. As for the article leaving "a lot to be desired..." /sighs This article is still *far* from complete and does not need to be tinkered with at this time. When it is close to completion, knock yourself out. Keri (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In response to Keri's comments (I don't know to how to neutrally describe his reaction toward me), here are versions to compare, but they are just for the article's introduction: previous version, current version as of this date. --George Ho (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Tipping up out of the blue and seeking GA or even FA without doing a blind bit of work to the article yourself is risible, and not good practice. Let the people who have built the article finish it. Keri (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confident that four paragraphs is enough (id est five is too much) for the article... for now. I still have trouble summarizing one journalist's re-opening the case, so I tagged it for needing copy editing. I hope that the important points are well summarized in the intro, so a reader reads either further or just an intro per WP:LEAD. George Ho (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

See this thread and the instructions for requesters above; judging by this exchange, I don't think a copyedit would be productive now. Miniapolis 20:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Keri recently re-edited the intro to shorten the intro without missing out important points. Therefore, I'm going to withdraw the request. Maybe I should have never requested it in the first place. --George Ho (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Persian embroidery

* CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Request page by me, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC). Article needs a lot of work. It has almost no sources and is the writing is very sloppy. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is also tagged for copyediting. It seems to me it should not be both a request here and tagged. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Working ~ Marcus1093 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(←) This also appears to have been copied from a single source; note the use of the pronoun "we" throughout. The given source is "Brief guide to Persian embroideries. Victoria and Albert Museum, His Majesty's Stationery Office, London 1950". I'm unable to confirm this as a source of the text, but it seems the article requires a complete rewrite to avoid a copyright violation; assuming HMSO's 1950 material isn't in the public domain. I've removed the c/e tag from the article anyway. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Acceptance usurped

I usurped Marcus1093's request acceptance for the reasons explained on his talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Kill the Irishman

This article has again been added to the Requests page despite being copy-edited twice this year; once by me in April and once by Jjjjjjdddddd this month (17th July). See archives. Is the requester @Metal121: unsatisfied with our efforts? I might remind him/her the GOCE doesn't guarantee perfection. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, another request 12 days after the second copyedit is an imposition IMO; that's why I work from the top of the page. All the best, Miniapolis 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you Baffle gab1978 that I never asked for "perfection". But as previously said, I have done major edits since its last copy-edit (and would therefore like (if possible) someone just to have a quick read-through and to make any edits needed). And in regards to the second copy-edit done, only one word was changed!. Also, I would like to remind you that I asked kindly for the copy-edit. I didn't demand the copy-edit, and I haven't been disrespectful to any other Wikipedia user in any way, shape or form. If you don't want to copy-edit the article, then don't do it! I didn't think that there was a limit on the amount of copy-edits that someone could request, but either way, I would still like to be shown the same respect that I show others! -- Metal121 (talk) 23:20, July 29, 2015 (GMT).

There's not a limit, but when the same article gets three requests within three months one naturally wonders why. I've since checked the last c/e (yes we take done on trust!) and I agree it was brief diff. You're still developing the article (last edit as of my timestamp 22:41, 29 July 2015); we like articles to be stable because a constantly-changing text can quickly wipe out a c/e, so if no-one else minds I'll put this request on hold until development is done; Metal121, feel free to advise us when you're done. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminator Genisys

NeoBatfreak, with this article as unstable as it continues to be IMO we have no choice but to decline it until it settles down. Thoughts, anyone? All the best, Miniapolis 21:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree; article is under constant development, with 17 edits by various editors in the last 24 hours (as of my timestamp), any c/e is likely to be wiped out quickly. This state of affairs seems unlikely to change in the next few days, so putting in on hold would be pointless. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

When I requested the copy edit, I have no idea that there would be problem. Back then, the article was full of grammatical errors that looks terrible. I agree and you guys should do whatever you think is necessary.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, Neo, and I know from the history that this one is beyond your control. There's nothing more frustrating, though (and I speak from experience), to spend hours on a copyedit and then see it mindlessly reverted with a single keystroke; that's why I generally don't watchlist articles I've recently copyedited—ignorance is bliss :-). It'll settle down eventually. All the best, Miniapolis 13:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

For now, I will leave the fans to edit the article. Once things starting to be stable, like maybe six month after, mabe you guys can resume it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

North American Man/Boy Love Association on hold

The request for this article here states that some POV editing to the article has occurred; the requester and another editor are trying to make the article more balanced. I've placed the request 'on hold because the article is currently under development; see history link. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw that, and leaned toward declining; seems like they need dispute resolution, not copyediting. All the best, Miniapolis 14:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That article is always going to be a battle ground. Anyone want to have a bet that it will get to ARBCOM within a year? --Stfg (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the article and its talk page, and it looks like there are two constructive editors working on it. I do not see any edit warring or problematic editing in the last few months. I think it looks like a good candidate for copy-editing when the requesting editor is ready. Pinging olowe2011 to notify the requester about this conversation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note; the requester was informed here, but was blocked at the time and couldn't respond immediately. S/he is unblocked as of my timestamp. Thanks to all above; I'm happy to leave this on hold whilst the editing there continues; hopefully it won't linger for months. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Red Army

I am new to copy editing so apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. Similarly for any procedural or other errors I may make. Correction would be welcomed. I have started working through the Red Army article. Introduction and Origins done so far. I will work through the rest as I get the time.

This notification is mostly so that other editors know that someone is working on it and partly in case anyone wants to keep an eye on my klutzy first efforts. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and your edits look good so far; just make sure that any substantive changes you make (changes that alter the meaning of the text) are reliably sourced. All the best, Miniapolis 23:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have completed the Chinese–Soviet War section. You might care to look it over and remove the copy edit request if you feel it appropriate. I left the meaning of the first sentence as I found it, despite it being clearly inaccurate: White Russian forces were only involved in two of the conflicts; and one of them wasn't an invasion. (Interestingly, this was before I read your advice on not changing meanings. Thanks for the reassurance.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You can change the meaning of a sentence, but any changes have to be reliably sourced with appropriate weight. I'll take a look at it today. The essay on advocacy also has useful advice. All the best, Miniapolis 13:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at it before I start my work for today :-). The copy reads fine, but you may want to change the header to "Chinese-Soviet conflicts". The section mentions three: the 1929 war, the 1934 invasion and the 1937 Islamic uprising (which may not be relevant to the Red Army article). Feel free to remove the tag. All the best, Miniapolis 13:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the header, thank you for pointing that out. I have done some more work on this section and removed the C/E marker. I am used to copy edit type activity, but not in a Wikipedia type situation, so it was helpful to have someone offering reassurance and constructive criticism. I shall get on with the rest of the article and report back once I have finished.

I may then revisit it wearing my WikiProject Military History membership hat. (I have a couple of sources and can access others.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Although I have yet to thoroughly proof read it all. Constructive criticism welcomed. I will be making some further edits, as a non-copy editing editor with some relevant references. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit completion question

To all concerned, perhaps I have overlooked this elsewhere in the rules or in this discussion page, but I was curious as to the policy on the "two nomination cap" when two previously nominated reviews have been completed, but remain posted on the review list. Are we permitted to nominate two more articles once those two previous reviews have been completed, or must those two completed nominations first be archived before we nominate two more? If someone could clarify this for me, that would be immensely helpful as I don't want to break any rules. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If a request is marked as "Done", it does not count toward the two-request limit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jonesey95, thank you for your timely response! I just wanted to make sure I was remaining in line with policy, so I appreciate your guidance. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Statistics about requests for 2014

I analyzed GOCE Requests for calendar year 2013 last year, and I've repeated that work for our 2014 requests. I analyzed the request-to-completion time for all requests made in 2014 that appear on the 2014 and 2015 Archive pages.

• We completed 489 requests in 2014 and 2015 that were requested between January 1 and December 31, 2014 (compared to 527 for 2013). This includes Declined requests.
• The average completion time was 30 days, down from 41 days for 2013 requests. (The median time was 32 days, down from 42.)
• The longest wait was 83 days; only 21 articles waited more than 60 days and only 3 waited more than 70 days. This is down from 51 articles waiting more than 70 days last year.

Request wait times for Requests posted 2014-01-01 to 2014-12-31

Days	Number of articles
0	12
1 to 10	92
11 to 20	61
21 to 30	65
31 to 40	111
41 to 50	81
51 to 60	46
61 to 70	18
71 to 80	2
81 to 90	1

Let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey, for the useful information. All the best, Miniapolis 22:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Vasily Anisimoff

Coordinators: I do not think Vasily Anisimoff, listed on the requests page, is ready for copy-editing. It appears to be a very rough translation from Russian and needs attention from someone with a reasonable grasp of Russian and English who can translate the Russian article into readable English. If we try to copy-edit it as is, we are bound to make mistakes and introduce factual errors into the article. Other opinions? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

One option, which I used quite often back in the day, is to tag the article with {{Rough translation}} and list it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (the rough translation template states how to do that). --Stfg (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I was going to take a look at that one too, after I did something for the nice lady with the unintelligible psychoanalytical theories (I haven't gotten to anything this month, yet). Vasily Anisimoff has a short article (819 words), with an encyclopedia entry at the Chuvash State Institute for the Humanities (ЧУВАШСКАЯ ЭНЦИКЛОПЕДИЯ) that is amenable to machine translation. I did something similar for Yekaterina Petrovna Rostopchina earlier this year. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggest decline; I've placed this request on hold and one editor has already abandoned it for being unintelligable. Much of the content - including the whole of the sole section - is unreferenced and subject to removal, making a c/e pointless. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree; rough translations are no fun under the best of circumstances, and this one is pretty unintelligible. We can't do justice to it. All the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Declined. I marked it as declined, notified the requesting editor on their talk page, marked the page as a rough translation, and posted it on the translation request page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Vasily Anisimoff

CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from the Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Needs saving, presumably by someone who understands Russian. --TIAYN (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 Working Working on it, although I don't understand Russian ~ Marcus1093 (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinged Marcus, who hasn't begun the copyedit yet. Miniapolis 16:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry for the delay, but I'm dropping this because the article is unintelligible. I think this article really needs someone who understands Russian. ~ Marcus1093 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 On hold; see talk page conversation here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Declined. Trust Is All You Need: This copy-edit has been declined, because the article is not ready for copy-editing. See the discussion link immediately above. Feel free to post the request here again when the article is ready. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Page redesign

Tom (LT) has made a request in this page saying that it has "Exceedingly large amount of instructions and banners for what is a relatively simple process. Could do with a once-over.". I removed it from the requests, as it is not an article, but leave his concern here, in case it merits some discussion on how to actually improve the requests page. Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's a bit crufty now. I'm used to scrolling down to what I need (an old request to accept), but understand that it looks daunting to someone arriving for the first time. Some of the logo stuff can probably go, and the instructions can be collapsed. I'll link to this thread on the coordinators' talk page. Thanks for the suggestion and all the best, Miniapolis 13:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback; it's always useful to hear what other editors think of our pages. We did a big cleanup last year, but Tom does have a point; there's a lot of 'furniture' on the page. I think perhaps the 'quick links' box is a bit redundant and logos could go. Maybe a more comprehensive navbox could replace the tabbed links at the top. Instructions could be collapsed but newcomers might miss their presence if they aren't immediately visible. Otoh, at the moment, few requesters and copy-editors do out-of-process things. I suppose there's only one way to find out though... Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps collapsing the "Instructions for copy editors" section but leaving the request instructions? #Trial+Error! Everything else I agree with. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed the heck out of it just now. Opinions? I may have done too much. Other coordinators are welcome to add back things that they deem essential; I will not be offended in any way. If you have questions about my rationale for a specific rearrangement, edit, or deletion, post here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Applauds* Looking good Jonesey, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree; it looks neater with Javascript on (I commonly edit without Javascript, which changes the formatting). I might tweak the layout a little; nothing major though. Nicely done, Jonesey. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just saw it; looks great! Thanks, Jonesey, and everyone else for your input. All the best, Miniapolis 02:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, you guys. Pinging Tom (LT): is that more like what you wanted? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention! Can I just start by saying that I really appreciate the work you guys and gals do, every time I have made a request I've been really impressed by the authorship and edits of your members, and I think it's really improved the quality of articles here. I made this comment because I find the page pretty intimidating. I have a fairly large screen but two full screens are taken up before I reach any text - one of banners and one of the table of contents. If I may be so bold:

1. Make it easier to add a new request -- add a "new request" button
2. Decrease the amount of banners displayed -- currently there are 8 different boxes at the top of the article - overall GOCE banner (2 levels), September drive, backlog banner, sidebar, shortcuts box, archive box, collapse box and table of contents.
3. Decreasing the overall banner size from two levels to one - I suggest move some contents to the sidebar.
4. Move most instructions to another page (especially any notes, the "for reviewers" and "for coordinators") like WP:GA and WP:PR
5. Decreasing the amount of unique formatting on this page (eg use of unique templates or formatting of headings and text) to make the general appearance more consistent in general, more consistent with wikipedia's appearance, and easier for less technically skilled users to edit

I have boldly copyedited the instructions. I offer these as suggestions only and look forward to your comments -- I really appreciate the work that has been done by this guild and hope by these suggestions to make it a little more readable and useable! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the further edits; they simplified things a bit more, which is probably good. I would like to live with the new setup for a while to see if it seems to work for editors.

I tweaked the sidebar archives box so that, at least on my screen, it is the same width as the "short panel" above it. For me, the instructions box and the sidebar boxes are the same height, which is pleasing to my eye.

In my opinion, moving instructions to a different page would not work as well as having these revised, more concise instructions clearly visible. We have surprisingly high compliance with the instructions now, so I'm hesitant to make a more radical move.

The TOC helps us keep a rough count of open requests.

I'll have to think about an "add request" button. That's an interesting idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree we should leave the instructions easily visible and accessible; taking users to another page to read them might be a disincentive and might be unhelpful to them and us. The archive box is looking fine now in my regular, non-Javascript-enabled browser (SeaMonkey 1.1.19 (there's a reason I use it!)). It was slightly overlapping the side of the instructions panel yesterday.

I tweaked 'Instructions for requesters' a little.

Could the TOC be placed at the side under the archive box? I find it useful to browse requests using the TOC and I echo your comments about a rough count.

Could a simple wikilink to the foot of the page be added with an anchor? A fourth- or fifth-level subsection for the footer box might work. I tried this and couldn't make it work; maybe someone else could have a go.

With regards to the unique elements, the transclusion of elements reduces the quantity of code on the page; using these directly would clutter the page with more code, making it more difficult for users to find requests if they're not section-editing.

Just a few points to be going along with; its looking more user-friendly now anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I moved the TOC to the right side of the page so that you can get to the content sooner. I think it looks unpleasant and that my edit should be reverted, but what do other people think? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

More compact, less whitespace, but looks inelegant, IMO. Others might see it differently; over to them. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not where you expect a table of contents to be. I think it should go back. Is there a way of making the TOC multi-column? Dhtwiki (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, terrible.

Here are versions of the Requests page with the TOC floated to the right, TOC floated to the left, and TOC hidden. All pretty awful, if you ask me.

I looked for a multi-column option for the TOC, and I didn't come up with anything. I had a good time looking through Category:Wikipedia table of contents templates, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Beta test a new "Submit a Request" button

I have made a mockup of the Requests page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/sandbox that has a "Submit a Request" button, as requested above.

The inputbox that the button uses is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Guidelines/sandbox. Instructions on how to create an inputbox are at mw:Extension:InputBox.

Comments are welcome. Please try to break it by inserting garbage into the submission window and doing other unreasonable things. Remove your signature, etc.

It would be good if submission of the request provided a reasonable edit summary. I haven't played with that yet. I'm taking a wikibreak for a few hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Just trialed it ... seems to be working well. Go sleep, rest, live your life for "a few hours". Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks fantastic, and works too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You're a genius, Jonesey; we should have co-opted the drive script ages ago ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have applied this button to the main Requests page (well, really to the /Guidelines subpage). It required removing the dunning footer box that yelled at people about where to put their requests. The button should put everything at the bottom, where it belongs. Let me know if you notice any problems with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice work Jonesey; I tried it and it worked well. I'm sorry the box yelled at people but sometimes it has to be done! :-) Feel free to nominate the footer box page for speedy deletion if it's no longer needed. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the yelling was necessary, for sure; I wasn't judging. I always prefer, if it is possible, to modify a system to make it so that people do the right thing by default instead of having to make a choice or read instructions. Humans are not great at either of those things. The button should make it so that people do the right thing unless they are being really obtuse. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, Jonesey, and thank you; it couldn't be simpler. All the best, Miniapolis 00:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Crusades

Although Biblioworm has done a partial copyedit (and should get credit for what they've done in the drive), the article is in limbo due to instability and I think we should decline it for now. I've notified Norfolkbigfish. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 18:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks as though an edit-war occured on the 23rd September, and only six edits have occurred since then, incuding one today (28th) so far. Miniapolis, I noticed you've placed the request on hold, which I agree with. I think a c/e is worthwhile as long as it remains stable; I also interpret from the back-and-forth on the article's talk page that the edit-war was about a few minor points. So I think a few more days on hold will allow us the judge the stability more accurately; if another edit-war kicks off it'll be as well to decline for now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Can you keep an eye it for a couple of days and if it goes quiet pick it up again. If it doesn't I'll understand the decline. It had a rogue editor with a point to prove (it is the type of article that attracts them) but he/she seems to have lost interest Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and thanks for the wise counsel, Baffle; hope we get to finish the copyedit. All the best, Miniapolis 23:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Click (2006 film)

Copied from requests page. Miniapolis 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting copy on Adam Sandler's 2006 fantasy comedy Click. Thanks. NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)  Working Corinne (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)  Done Corinne (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I just read the article. I'm just puzzled that, apart from a very short lead, the article is mainly plot. I've seen other articles on movies that have more varied information and additional sections. The plot is not too bad; it needs a little work, but it gives every last detail of the story. Should a plot description in a movie article do that? Corinne (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I don't mind doing a copy-edit of the article, but I'd like a little guidance, i.e., answers to my questions, before I start. Corinne (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, I found WP:FILMPLOT to be helpful in editing film plots. The word count, in particular, is a good rule of thumb that it is OK to miss by a little, but not by a lot; a word count of 850 words for a complex plot is OK, but not 1,600 words. (Also, in the future, the Requests Talk page is a great place for questions like this.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey95. On taking another look at the article, I see there are other sections besides plot, but I'm wondering whether we shouldn't ask the writer of the article (I assume it is User:NeoBatfreak) to work on paring down the plot before asking for a copy-edit. I've never seen the movie, and I should think that someone who has seen the movie would be in a better position to trim the plot by 50%; he or she would know which details should be retained and which could be omitted. Baffle gab1978, what do you think? Corinne (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corinne; by all means feel free to ask NeoBatFreak to reduce the plot, but he's not the primary editor there (six of the last fifty edits), which seems to be mainly the work of IP editors with named editors reverting vandalism, doing gnomish edits, etc.

To reduce the plot section, first remove any details you consider trivial (adjectives, adverbials, etc) and remove the waffle—make every word count. Then remove minor plot points (what the characters had for lunch, etc). Breaking the long paragraphs into shorter ones in the edit window helps enormously; work through the text steadily, asking yourself whether we really need to know (say) the colour of the victim's shirt. It looks daunting bit it does get easier with practice! Finally, you don't need to have seen the film to c/e the article—I've done plenty of articles of non-English films I've no interest in watching. I find it's usually better if you haven't because you can more easily mentally place yourself in the hypothetical reader's position. Happy editing, and many thanks for your work. :-)

Note to archiving editor; please move this conversation to Requests talk before archiving the request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978 I cut quite a bit from the plot. Does it need more trimming? I added a little to the lead in response to the tag that is there, but I didn't know what else to add. Corinne (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne; you've made a good job of improving the section, but it's still 1,070 words and quite long-winded. Minor plot details like "We learn that, during a family vacation in New Hampshire, the other kids had declined his invitation in favor of another family who had more compared to his family, giving the audience an insight into Michael's adult nature." from the second paragraph should be removed. The paragraphs could be broken into smaller chunks of five or six lines each, and any informal phrases, and I noticed some unnecessary uses of "that" (pet hate!). Also, run-on sentences should be fixed; for example:

"However, he also suffers from being obese due to overeating while on auto-pilot, his daughter and son are now teenagers, his daughter dresses inappropriately, his son suffers from being overweight, he and Donna are now divorced, Michael lives in a separate residence, and they all resent his presence."

can be condensed to:

"He is obese and is divorced from Donna, and lives apart from his family—all of whom resent his presence. His children are now teenagers; his daughter dresses inappropriately and his son is overweight."

The relevent MOS page is Manual of Style for films, and contains some guidelines and links for copy-editing. Don't worry if you're done with the article though; you've done a good copy-edit and improved the article, which isn't heading for a GA or FA nomination. Thanks for your work here, as always. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978 Just saw this today. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Two declined request discussions

CC-BY-SA declaration; moved from the Requests talk page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Aql bi-l-fi'l

this page needed copy editing.--m,sharaf (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 Declined. This article is not yet ready for copy editing. It needs to be written in comprehensible prose before we can edit it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:. thanks on your attention. this page is on medieval philosophical concepts. editing it in terms of content need some priority knowledge. i could explain more simple every where the fact is vague.--m,sharaf (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Article has been moved to user space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Mehdi ghaed/Tajalli

need copy edidting--m,sharaf (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 Declined. See the instructions above. You may resubmit this article when it has moved to article space and is relatively stable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:I transfer it to article space.here

Tajalli--m,sharaf (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I've done a minor cleanup here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Still  Declined. An article with sections like this is simply not ready for copy editing:

Consequently by manifestation Mystic could achieves to truth. Farer on the way discovers the truth by purifying the heart and in breeding.in other word epistemological meaning of manifestation is in result of two enterprise: first trying of ascetic or Sufi conduct and journey to God. second is divine attraction by God or divine Charisma rapture.some mystics known the attraction of God as sufficient reason of manifestation.

Another coordinator is welcome to overrule me here, but my opinion is that this article needs to be made comprehensible by someone who can refer to the sources before it can be copy-edited. Once that is done, please resubmit the article here and we will be happy to edit it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread (from the requester's talk page) is relevant; at least one other editor is having problems with him or her. All the best, Miniapolis 14:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) ... and my bottom line with copyediting is that if I can't understand it, how in blazes can I copyedit it? :-) All the best, Miniapolis 20:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Insomniac Games

CC-BY-SA declaration; moved bre from the Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Article in need of some copyediting before I nominating this for GA, especially with the use of tense. Help would be greatly appreciated. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

 Working - subject matter interests me & I have reasonable knowledge, will nab this before anyone else notices. Drop me a talk page message if needed :-) KieranTribe 11:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinged Kieran, who hasn't begun the copyedit yet. Miniapolis 18:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As of September 14, it's half done. Miniapolis 21:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This c/e seems to be going nowhere, so if @KieranTribe: is ok with it, I'll usurp his acceptance and do this one after a few days' wait. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Working -- Kieran never started so I might as well take this. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Cadet Nurse Corps

CC-BY-SA declaration; moved bre from the Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Standard copy-editing for future GA nomination. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 Working Hampton11235 (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Update requested; Hampton's last edit was 23:52, 22 September 2015‎. He has explained the absence and plans to continue the c/e, per his talk. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this if there's no activity in 24hrs from my timestamp, unless someone else wants it. Archiving editor, please credit Hampton11235 as co-copy-editor. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(←)  Working  Done --- Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

October blitz

The GOCE's October copy editing blitz focuses on Requests. If you complete a request, head on over to the blitz page to get credit for it. Barnstars will be awarded to all participants. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Spain in the American Revolutionary War

Hi co-ordinators. I've just taken this article on, but I realise there's some dispute over its naming. It was moved to a new title shortly before being nominated and there was some significant rewriting; the move has been reverted but the editing has not. My impression is that this situation needs resolving before the article can be properly copy-edited. What do you think? (Ping the nominator, SuffrenXXI.) Relentlessly (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it yesterday, and it seemed like it was ready for copyediting to me. The article was at the current title for many years, as far as I can tell, and one editor moved it without discussion. Another editor moved it back. I don't see any warring about it or even discussion about it on the article's talk page or either editor's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, but the content doesn't currently match the title (see the structure of the lead, infobox, etc.). This seems like more than a copy-editing problem to me. Relentlessly (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the lead and infobox to match the current title; we do it all the time :-). Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 13:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

On it. Thanks for the advice. Relentlessly (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've looked through it again and I've decided to put it back into the pile. To my reading the content of the article doesn't match the title and I'm not knowledgeable enough to sort it out. I'll let someone else have a go. Relentlessly (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders on hold

I've placed the request for the above article on hold; there's been some major revisions today (history) and there seems to be an ongoing content dispute between two editors. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that Sanders is running for President of the United States, this article is going to change frequently, but except for the infobox and one new section based on recent events, it hasn't changed much in the past two days. As far as I can see, the content dispute is about a single parameter in the infobox. The rest of the article looks ready to edit, as long as we know that many of our edits will be trampled. Such is life. Other opinions are welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

User Baffle gab has edited it before, and it got promoted to GA. Now that I have re-listed it for a potential FAC I would very much prefer that any veteran editor other than him edit it. I want to experience different editing styles. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well @Kailash29792: I do my best, but nobody's perfect. :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, Baffle :-) and Kailash, I don't think you realize how shorthanded (and busy) we are around here; be grateful you get a timely copyedit from anyone. Miniapolis 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries Miniapolis; I'll just remember to ignore his request if it reaches the top on my watch. There's plenty more requests to deal with. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Adventure Time

CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation moved from the Requests talk page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for the past three years, and I'd really love to get it promoted up to FA one day. As for right now, I'd love for someone to go through and copy-edit it. I've tried to clear up as much awkward phrasing as possible, but I realize I need another set of eyes to make the job complete! Thanks so much.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Working - Mainly minor, but will comb through it a few times. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - First round of minor C/E, would love some follow-up advice/criticism. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC); changed to template 10:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently busy so I may be unable to revisit article. Feel free to nab it, and/or give me feedback. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Guess that makes this  Partly done. Miniapolis 17:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(←)  Working; archiving editor please credit Drcrazy102 as co-copy-editor. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise

CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation moved from the Requests talk page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I've recently performed a significant expansion and Quality improvement project on this article. Would appreciate a copy edit, particularly of the Plot synopsis section. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

 On hold, pending deletion discussion outcome. Miniapolis 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the attention, Miniapolis, much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it'll be staying here :-). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 15:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Miniapolis:The result was Keep. Early close per snowball clause. Full discussion may be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise -- now closed. — Cirt (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just saw. Congratulations; whoever copyedits it will have fun. Miniapolis 23:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Miniapolis, much appreciated! It's currently a GA nominee, any idea on a time-frame for copy-edit? — Cirt (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see the top of this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay, Jonesey95, no worries, sounds good, and thanks for all you do for copy-editing help on Wikipedia! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 DoneTwofingered Typist (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles

CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation moved from the Requests talk page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a list which is going to be nominated for featured status. It has been nominated four times and faced failure each time. Please cooperate to have it promoted. Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I don't think that this article needs a copy-edit. I copy-edited it last April, after the most recent review to promote to Featured List status in March, the decline of which even then seemed to question the use and format of references, more than textual ambiguities and inconsistencies. My own most salient suggestion, that a replacement be found for the phrase "...mother of the Twelve Imams", which is certainly erroneous biologically and about which we had considerable discussion on the article talk page, has not been acted on, although we seemed to agree that it needed changing. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dhtwiki: Refer to the talk page please. Btw, are there still problems with the references? Mhhossein (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

 Working; @Mhhossein: I'll take this request and will sort out the English prose to the best of my ability, though I'm not touching the references or Arabic text, which are not within GOCE's remit (try Cleanup for those). Referencing errors (I spotted two) make a failure at FL review certain. I see these are fixed now; anyway I'm 'Done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising

CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation moved from the Requests talk page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote and expanded this article last year and made it a featured article candidate. It was not promoted for two reasons: 1) Because it has little information about the production of the series; 2) Because some reviewers felt that it needed copy editing.

Regarding the former reason, articles about television series that have achieved FA status derive their information from audio commentaries and bonus features on DVD and blu-ray releases; or from the official website for the series. At present time, there is no DVD or blu-ray releases for Temperatures Rising, no video streaming, no digital download, nor any web site devoted to the series. Hence, information about it is limited to the vintage newspaper articles that I used.

I did submit the article for copy editing (even though several friends of mine, who are published authors, approved of what I wrote) but withdrew the submission after the FAC was closed and the article not promoted. Nearly a year has passed since I did this and now I believe it is time to submit a new request. Can anyone help? Jimknut (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I thought of using the page on Tempratures Rising on a website called The Classic TV Archive as a possible source of information. However, I'm not sure if it considered a reliable source. Any opinions about it? Jimknut (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the sources used by that website I'd say no, but you could ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. All the best, Miniapolis 20:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Tamil films of 2009

CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation moved from the Requests talk page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Does this group just tackle prose or would you be the ones who would take on all of the non-compliant Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Tables tables in the film lists to something that would be parse-able like List of Bollywood films of 2016? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not copyediting per se, and would depend on an individual copyeditor's familiarity with MOS:DTAB. For what it's worth, I would find it an interesting challenge :-). Miniapolis 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Working - TRPOD, I've copied this into my userspace at List of Tamil films of 2009 where I'll work on it. If you want to adjust things feel free; I'll concentrate on removing the month column and replacing the dates with stadard format ones -- I'm assuming that's what you want. Note to archiving editor; I don't want credit for this as it's not a c/e request, so please archive it as WP:SNOW Declined. Having said that if I should pass this along please ignore me. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and interest! If you find an automated or semiautomated way to do it, the problem runs through multiple years of the Tamil films lists, the Telugu films for multiple years List of Telugu films of 2012 and multiple years of the Bollywood films List of Bollywood films of 2012 as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries; we can continue this conversation on the talk page if you wish; I'll copy this over there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuation

I've removed the errant column and have made the table sortable; I'm now fixing the sortation of dates; I don't know how you want to handle actors' names so I won't touch that column, but I don't know how to prevent a single column from sorting. Since the column removal involves just removing single lines of code, it can be done in a word processor using the find/replace function. I don't know about you but I don't fancy trawling through the entire history of Indian film! If you wish I can instruct you on the column removal. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

TRPOD, I've pretty much finishd apart from the issues noted above. I'll copy/paste the table into the article tomorrow, though feel free to do that if you wish. I'm giving up for now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Two-article limit

Hi all; in view of the rapidly-decreasing pool of requests (a historic low of six as per my timestamp, which is a welcome sight), might the Guild return to the previous three-article-per-editor limit for c/e requests, at least temporarily? This could be returned to two if the list reaches a certain level. Running out of requests is a situation I thought I'd never see! :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had that thought as well. It's a strange situation we find ourselves in. I'm OK with either limit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, since editors aren't requesting many copyedits for some reason; I wonder if there's a corresponding slowdown at GAN and FLC. No way, though, do I miss the bad old days when we had 60+ articles on the list and requesters were (understandably) dismayed at the two-to-three-month wait. All the best, Miniapolis 16:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

... and I've changed the guideline back to three. All the best, Miniapolis 16:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I expect there'll be a pickup of activity in the Yuletide/Christmas/New Year break. What do you think about having a maximum level that triggers a reduction to two? Something around 50 to 60 requests seems about right to me; that's about the level it was in March 2014 here, when we changed to two. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that seems about a good interchange limit, i.e;
# of requests ≥ 50/60, then limit = 2
OR
# of requests ≤ 50/60, then limit = 3.
Though should we set-up an automatic bot to pick up on this and change for us, or do this manually? Just asking since we may need to put up a page notice of some sort about this. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) Sounds good, although I don't know if it can be done automatically. I don't mind having fewer requests; there's always the backlog if we're at loose ends :-). All the best, Miniapolis 00:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In view of the paucity of articles, the waiting time for completion of a copyedit should now be less. I'm wondering if the statement at the beginning of the manual that says "the average waiting time is a month" should be changed. Is there any way to make that word automatically change to reflect the actual average waiting time? Corinne (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, Corinne, and I don't think it would be good to automate that process; some things are best decided by humans. If it were to be automated, the system might cause problems as the trigger point was crossed and re-crossed. Say it's 60 and someone adds 61, triggering the automatic change. The bot does its thing, three articles get removed and the bot reverses the change. Next day, four more requests get added, taking it back to 61... we'd be flipping back-and-forth—copy-editors and requesters woudn't know what was going on. I think changing the limit could be a Guild guideline to be implemented at the discression and agreement of coordinators, rather than being a hard-and-fast rule. Hopefully it will be a while before another change is needed. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That could be circumvented by having the fictional bot's coding go (for human understanding, I don't know actual coding, so this may/may not be plausible), where "x" is the number of current requests:
"change in number from x≤60 → x>60, therefore change request limit to 2"
"change in number from x≥50 → x<50, therefore change request limit to 3"
So there would be a "padding" of 10 requests so as to avoid the "automated flip-flop" as I will henceforth refer to the problem. However, I agree with Baffle that it should be human-based in changing - maybe this can get added to the housework of the co-ordinators, hmmm? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Need some help with a paragraph from Evolve

From Evolve#Origin, second paragraph:

Turtle Rock Studios merged into Valve in early 2008 but split away later the same year. When the company reestablished, it had only 13 staff members. As a new company, Turtle Rock Studios hoped to make use of the popularity of the Left 4 Dead franchise to create something ambitious and massive before people forgot about the company. They saw the arrival of the eighth generation of video game consoles, and thought that since they had absolute freedom to create things they wanted, without limitations. As a result, they looked back at some of their previous projects to find the project that they liked the most. The team eventually chose Evolve, as they thought that the title was the most "straightforward" one. The team also considered the new project as their "proving ground", a project that could prove their ability to build a proper game beyond providing assistance to Valve. The development of the game officially began in early 2011.

References

I can't figure out the third and fourth sentences, and how to edit them and the second sentence together. They seem relevant but at this stage, I may just delete the sentences and merge the second and fifth/sixth sentences together, possibly removing the seventh sentence. Thoughts, comments and suggestions are appreciated; I will be a few more days at this at my current rate, so you have time to respond. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the first job is to check the sources if you're unsure of what the article is saying. This writing appears to be (possibly) interpreted from quotaions; the source I checked has quotations so waffly they could be served for breakfast. The trick with this kind of writing is to correctly interpret the waffle so the reader doesn't have to. Let me check out the sources and I'll get back to you. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'm back. There seem to be some odd mistakes in the article, so be careful how you read the text and take your time over it. The odd "since" tripped me up there—it doesn't mean anything and shouldn't be there. Here's how I'd de-waffle those two sentences:

• "When eighth-generation video game consoles were released, the team realised they could create anything they wanted. They reviewed some of their previous projects and eventually chose Evolve, which seemed to be their most "straightforward" idea."

Feel free to use this; I can't think of a way to merge it with the second sentence, which deals with another concept so I don't think it should be merged. HTH, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I would (a) check the sources to get the real story and then (b) cut that paragraph by 40–50%. Stick to the basic facts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the suggestion Baffle gab1978; I've tried to do that with a slight modification on Baffle's sentence, but I will try to remember that for the future Jonesey95. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Marie-Cessette Dumas

CC-BY-SA declaration: copied from Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The mother of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas and grandmother of Alexandre Dumas, this article is a total mess and needs to be either completely re-worked and re-written or just deleted. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@SpiritedMichelle:, I think you've posted this in the wrong place; GOCE is for copy-editing requests (improving prose, etc). For cleanup see WP:CLEANUP; if you want to nominate this article for deletion, go to WP:AFD. I'll give it a spring-clean anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor fixes  Done, and the prose seems fine to me. I'll suggest we decline this request, per above (wrong venue, not a c/e request). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Miniapolis 21:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC) After looking at the article, I think its subject meets WP:GNG (taking deletion off the table) and it just needs a fair amount of work (which is what we do :-)). Suggest we leave it here for now; I'll get to it in due time if no one beats me to it. All the best, Miniapolis 18:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks Miniapolis; I was just about to archive it. I was sceptical at first but having read the text I don't think deletion is the right option. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Anne, Baffle. FWIW I took a look too because of the mention of AFD. I agree with you: not a suitable candidate for deletion. Simon --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Corinne (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation cleanup?

Is citation cleanup (standardisation, templates, etc.) within the scope of this project? Or is there another way to request this that isn't just a maintenance template? FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Basic copyediting and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to explain what we do. Reasonable amounts of citation cleanup (for example, expanding bare URLs and reviving dead links) are sometimes done by individual copyeditors, although per WP:CITEVAR citation templates (while convenient) are not required. Beyond that, there's {{Citation style}}; it's drudge work that's not fun :-). Happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis 14:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition to copy-editing, I do a ton of citation cleanup, mostly fixing citation errors that lead to red error messages. I do not know of a forum where editors can ask for help with citation cleanup on specific articles. You might post your query at Help talk:Citation Style 1, which is where a lot of the active discussion about citation styles happens. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline Bangladesh?

@Corinne: has said she doesn't wish to continue to copy-edit this article; I fully understand her decision diff. Since her last edit on 17 December at 03:17 UTC, the article history has seen over 100 edits, including reversions and a possible edit-war. I wonder whether we can reasonably expect a copy-edit to stick on an article undergoing rapid development. I've placed the request on hold pending the results of this discussion. I also invite the requester @Akbar the Great: to comment. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Wise move. That page almost certainly comes under the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan discretionary sanctions. We don't want copy editors getting tripped up by things like that. --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely decline on grounds of lack of article stability. The requester is welcome to post the request again if the article settles down. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all;  Done and I'll archive later. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)