Archives
no archives yet (create) July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009

Contents 1 Criteria for removing copy-edit tag 2 Suggestions for more efficient work, with less disruption to non-GOCE editors 3 Proposed change to banner 4 Page on Lurch 5 Request archives

[edit] Criteria for removing copy-edit tag

Hi, I am new to this wikiproject (actually my first wikiproject) and I have gone over the guidelines on the project page. What isn't clear to me is when it is appropriate to remove the copyedit tag on an article. Should another editor go over the article or should it be up to the initial editor to make that decision? Tgv8925 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think the article is all right, you can remove it. The copy edit tag is only added to articles that are in desperate need of it, so taking it to an acceptable level is more than enough. You don't have to copy edit until it's FA quality (you can if you want of course :)). Articles that need improvement on that level (that is, improving an article to GA or FA status) are not tagged with the copy edit template, but you can make a request here or at an individual copy-editor's talk page. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at articles tagged in 2007, I find that some of them have been improved and expanded so much that the copyedit template or tag can be removed with very little copyediting at all. Looking at the history tells the story. Also, sometimes the problem is not copyediting at all. There are many reasons that an article needs improvement when the spelling, grammar, and the formatting are just fine, but the content needs expansion, or correction. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for more efficient work, with less disruption to non-GOCE editors

I witnessed the work of one GOCE member on one article. This editor edited the article multiple days. His/her participation was disruptive, in spite of being well meaning. I think it didn't have to be nearly so disruptive. I have three complaints. (1) In one editing session lasting just a few hours, the GOCEer made close to 100 saves, most of them involving just handfuls of characters or handfuls of words. Having a tidal wave of saves makes it prohibitively difficult to track the evolution of an article's content. The GOCEer claimed that this was done because he was having computer network problems. (2) The editor messed up the content numerous times in his striving to rephrase parts of sentences. Beyond question, part of why this happened was that the subject was obscure and technical. But in other instances, this couldn't have made the difference; rather, the editor seemed to be academically unsophisticated in general. This number of content distortions went beyond the normal number of misunderstandings between multiple editors on the same article. In two years I haven't seen another case like it. (3) The editor made numerous failures of noun-verb number agreement involving the phrases with the same construction: NOUN1 OF NOUN2 VERB. He would make the verb agree in number with NOUN2 when 95 percent of the time the verb should be controlled by noun1. For example: "fans of Britney Spears are [not "is" for singular "Britney Spears"] eagerly awaiting the start of ticket sales tomorrow for her upcoming concert". The editor excused himself claiming word processing error, which happens to all of us. However, I don't believe this explanation because (a) there were several errors of this type; (b) he didn't fix them, even though he was making a huge number of edits. We would expect him to check the results of his saves, especially when he was so concerned with poor network connection. (Grammar aside: the verb only agrees with NOUN2 when NOUN1 is a mass noun quantity word like "half".)

Suggestions. (1) When network connections are a problem, you can edit offline. You can copy the whole HTML markup into a regular word processing document or into a Gmail draft message. Gmail's word processor is fairly powerful, powerful enough for this work. (2) If you're just a copy editing enthusiast, please don't choose highly academic articles to work on. (3) If other editors tell you your mastery of basic English grammar is severely faulty, please take time off to catch up on your knowledge. Dale Chock (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to banner

Can the {{GOCE}} banner be modified to avoid talk page clutter like at Talk:Ralph Bakshi? It's only the most recent copyedit that is truly relevant, so I was thinking that previous copyedits could be listed in a collapsible section. I'll sandbox some changes to show you what I mean. PC78 (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this:

	WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors	Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:GOCEGuild of Copy Editors articles
v • d • e A version of this article was copyedited by MacMed, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on June 28, 2009. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page. Previous copyedits:   A version of this article was copyedited by Baffle_gab1978 on May 25, 2009. A version of this article was copyedited by Drilnoth on November 30, 2008.

? -- PC78 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a much better idea.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this banner is to advertise the guild, so who and when it was copyedited is irrelevant. How about reducing it to one a one liner: A version of this article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copyeditors. Personally, I think the entire banner is just talk page spam. Bladeofgrass (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented the above proposal as it seemed to have support. With regard to the comment made by Bladeofgrass, that's something that you guys as members of the project should decide. I've left you a stripped down version of the banner at {{GOCE/sandbox}}, which is basically the same as your current banner but without any of the user/date parameters. Regards. PC78 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Page on Lurch

I've reviewed one of the earliest pages in the backlog, the page for Lurch (The Addams Family) and fail to see what about it requires copy editing. Maybe someone could clarify for me so I can get to work. DQweny (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been many useful edits since the tag was placed on the article. The main issue I have with it is its length compared to other Addams Family articles. I notice you are no longer in the Guild, but I thought I would give an opinion anyway--Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request archives

Since we have 90+ requests for collaboration or help, how about we make sure the list stays clean and current. To keep from bogging down the main page too much, how about we set up archive page(s). For example, any requests that are (arbitrary number) five months or older, we move to an uncompleted archive. Meanwhile, any completed requests we move to a different archive or just delete it. Or, instead of having archive pages, just delete the requests once they've been open for five months and people can resubmit as desired. We would then have specific requests that need some polishing while keeping it from getting out of control (just thinking of LOCE). Of course, if everyone likes it as is, I can deal. TheTito ^Discuss 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)