Current FAC. Article has been through copyedit, but still getting a few prose/style comments in the response (although a lot fewer than there would have been a week ago). I guess this is the right place to put this? Thanks. Carre 07:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done proofread completed with minor changes.Gprince007 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007. Nice work! Galena11 03:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all other concerns in the FAC, the only remaining issue is the quality of prose. I would greatly appreciate any help with regards to copy-editing. Dave101→talk 08:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
copy-edited, ready for proof. Cricketgirl 14:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Minor changes, nothing big. Finetooth 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section has recently been spun out into its own page and I'd like some help summarising what's in the main Great Barrier Reef article. -Malkinann 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Environmental threats section has been summarised, but a copyedit on the Ecology section would be appreciated. -Malkinann 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit done on Ecology section only. It's short and to the point, though choppy. Finetooth 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is up for FA, this is the last issue, I think. It mainly needs work on repetition of words and sentence flow. I've been looking at it so long that I'm not picking up on errors anymore, so a fresh pair of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jude. 18:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a copyedit on this, and when I added the tag to the discussion page found that this article was already c/e'd in April. Its in pretty good shape, so the proof should be quick. Galena11 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done The proof was quick. Finetooth 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently under FAR. Please take a look at the page and see if you can work on it a bit. (Ibaranoff24 16:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment — Current featured article removal candidate. Please help get this article up to standards as soon as possible. (Ibaranoff24 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Copyedit done. Concerns on the talk page. Cricketgirl 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just failed initial FAC review. One of the major objections was some of the language in the article; too "flowery". One reviewer also suggested a copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the article. I think the article's getting close, and I'd like to try again for FAC by the end of august or so, so if someone that hasn't really been working on the article can copyedit it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Dr. Cash 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a crack at this article, which seems comprehensive if a little long. Happy‑melon 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently FAC, and the only outside comment (after one week) was that "it's not yet sufficiently well-written to be promoted" and to "find one or more copy-editors to run through the whole text". Unfortunately, I (as "only" a near-native speaker) lack some of the required professional writing skills, and I also don't know anyone close to this subject who may be interested in copyeditting this article, so I'm putting a request here. (It's really just professional grammar tweaking; all "technical" issues such as article structure and order of the sentences were addressed before the FA nomination.) Thank you; any help is appreciated. – sgeurekat•c 10:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article received many copyedits by me and others in the past few weeks. FAC will likely close very soon, so if someone can give this article an extra pair of eyes, with a focus on slight tweaking or maybe just "proofreading", it would be much appreciated. – sgeurekat•c 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was promoted to FA, although another proofread would be fine. – sgeurekat•c 09:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I bypassed the proofread on this one, because it was in nearly perfect shape already (I only added a serial comma or two.) Galena11 21:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate entry: Katie Hopkins - as requested in a recent peer review. Some problems with grammar/prose. Hoping to get it to GA status soon. Dalejenkins 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited. Informal tone is the biggest problem. Cricketgirl 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done proofread completed with minor changes.Gprince007 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one isn't marked for copy-editing explicitly, just cleanup. However, I think it could benefit from it anyways. The original article was just a mish-mash of random facts, and I've started to reorganize it into a proper, sorted list, but could use some help if anyone's interested. The items that I have not yet sorted are under the "Other references" heading, and the last one I did was the matchbox twenty item. –Dvandersluis 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been heavily edited and reworked, it is unrecognisable as the article I had a look at a few months ago. In any case, it doesn't need a copyedit.Cricketgirl 12:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(former good article) - I have been referred here by a peer reviewer who said "the tone [of the article] sometimes reads a bit unencyclopaedic." Any help would be great.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay for review. --Sigma 7 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that a lot of structural changes have been made between July and now, because I got about 2/3 of the way through and had to stop. The structure needs some serious work. – Scartol · Talk 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this to the denied section because, based on Scartol's comments and my review of the article, it needs much more work from the authors before it is ready for a copyedit. Galena11 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the mentioned sections of the article no longer exist or have been renamed. Can you clarify your request? Galena11 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here because sections no longer exist and we received no clarification from the authors. Galena11 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-copyedit completed ....but maybe ppl might help with citing some references....ready for proofreading Gprince007 08:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs more sources. I'm willing to do an extensive proofread later, but my main comment at this time is to reference more of the many assertions it makes. – Scartol · Talk 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denied due to lack of activity. – Scartol · Talk 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to fail FAC soon, so I decided to put it here. It appears now that the main objection is the prose. I would like the help of someone who can write better English, enough to make it FA when it goes through another FAC round.Kmarinas86 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what state it was in when it failed FAC, but the article currently has some serious flaws that go way beyond prose. (I noted these on the talk page.) Galena11 15:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the authors have addressed the concerns I raised and have relisted the article for c/e as Raëlism(see Other Requests section). Galena11 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is an article which seems to be in constant development that I had been trying to keep cleaned up but my personal circumstances make it difficult for me to stay on top of this. If someone else would like to pitch in, that would be great. --JAXHERE | Talk 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved article here)It appears as though the development flurry has stopped on this, and it definitely needs a copyedit. However, it is a very long article and probably should be tackled in chunks, so I moved it here. Galena11 14:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on the first half, but its in pretty rough shape. Will have to tackle the rest later. I finished the initial edit just because it has been here so long. However, it is un-sourced, has lots of extra material that shouldn't be there, and is generally not ready for a proof. I'll keep an eye on it and will re-list it if it gets better. Galena11 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is to nominate this article for GAC and afterward for FAC. However, before doing this, some copy-editing should be done. Particulaerly the following things need attention:
Length and summary style of the lead
It may consists some redundancies
American/British English use. Beagel 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting done...ready for final proof...Gprince007 14:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proofer needs to be careful as the article has undergone significant changes since i copyedited it.Gprince007 08:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here because there have been a lot of changes since the initial c/e (which I verified). Galena11 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has numerous spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammatical errors. I am doing all I can to copy-edit it, but I need all the help I can get. Thanks! --Stallions2010 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a large number of changes to punctuation, added some wiki links and deleted some redundant wiki links, and boldly fiddled with the prose. The truly big problem, which I could not fix, is lack of external support. The reference section needs to be re-worked in a consistent style, but before this can be done, many more citations need to be added. The proofreader who follows me will find plenty to do, but Lahore is an interesting place, and this article has good potential. Finetooth 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked this article and it still has a very large number of "cite" tags. I'm moving this to "proof denied" for now. Galena11 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is any real crisis here. I'm just trying to help improve this article. It's a GA and I want to help make it the best it can possibly be, so if someone can come along and improve it any way that would be great. Quadzilla99 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very good work. I couldn't read it all, but the prose is very good. --Rocketrye12 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is OK, but it and the punctuation could use a little polishing. I got up to "Houston Rockets" Galena11 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done up to Championship Years. Galena11 22:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that I'm just not really qualified to edit this article...anyone with more interest in sports/athletes is free to have a go. Galena11 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here because there have been many changes to the article in the 6 months since my c/e. Galena11 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
up to Climate (done intro). Rintrah 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up to History. Rintrah 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up to "Birth of modern Bathinda". After that is going to need some serious editing - the "for tourists" section needs tactful but comprehensive editing. Cricketgirl 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denied due to issues with references and NPOV in the article that make a c/e difficult to complete. Galena11 17:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done proofread completed with minor changes.Gprince007 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)