Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

Need crosscheck on request article

Just finished a quick CE on Matooskie. Could anyone look over my edits and see if I should consider the CE finished? Zorblin (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, and the article survived the GAR. You should add {{GOCE}} to the talk page (under the WikiProject banners), so other editors will know it's been copyedited. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 14:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also courteous to add {{GOCEtb}} to the requester's talk page, in case they're not watching WP:GOCE/REQ. Miniapolis 14:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks! Zorblin (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you for the check-in, coming back from a irl break. Zorblin (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for crosscheck on Joyce Mojonnier

I signed up to CE an article from the backlog, Joyce Mojonnier, and would appreciate feedback. After reviewing some of the comments above, I think I may have done more than is required. I'm a novice, so I did do a bit more than just CE, like verifying links/citations. I spent the time trying to learn and practice using some of the wiki-concepts. So here are some specific questions I have (about the process and the edits I made):

• I added a thread to the Talk page, which I think I know isn't required; but I wanted to try out that process. There, I outlined my changes, and added a {done} tag to keep track. Question: Any feedback on those issues? (Besides the fact they are probably beyond what is meant by a basic CE.)

In fact, if it's easier to give feedback by leaving it on the article's talk page, I can check there.

• As instructed, I added the {GOCEinuse} tag before starting work; and I removed the tag for {Copy edit|for=tone} that had already been left. So some of my edits were for 'tone', which seemed to be a bit of peacocking (is that the word?) or advertising (like for the Foundation and Museum). If this is part of CE, do I just leave an appropriate comment (and take out or rephrase for NPOV)?
• I removed some material that seemed off-topic (better suited for another article); so I added a thread (actually two) on the Talk page to keep track. Q: That is required, right?
• Some of the material removed was simply not relevant (as outlined on my talkpage thread). In that case, it's just ok to leave a comment with the CE? (As I did, I think.)
• One of the comments above mentions: as a note, while copy editors may have to check sources (e.g., to discern meaning), full source reviews are usually out of our purview. But I went ahead, anyway, and checked the citations. Some had old xlinks, so I found/replaced with new. I also added some citations to material that seemed unsupported. This may be outside CE, but isn't that suggested as an alt to just tagging with {citation needed}?
• Even after editing, I think some of the material could still use better citations: so I tagged two specific spots (and added a thread to the talk page). I don't think this is a highly trafficked or controversial article; so is adding a few inline tags better than the big warning citation tag?
• Last question (I promise!): CE does include looking at the wikitext (like in hatnotes), yes? (I think that may be answered above.)

Anyway, advice and feedback would be appreciated; and let me know what to do next on this task. I'll try to look for another simple, short article in the backlog (or recent requests for GOCE attn) for my next one; but some of them seem like they need more project level revision, than just CE or TLC. (I think the advice given above was: If it's too complicated, skip it.) Thanks for your time, in advance. (And apologies for my verbosity.) — Yogabear2020 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You've done a thorough job and turned a wall of text into something that's more manageable to read. Thank you for your help.

The detailed threads such as you added to the talk page are more likely to be seen on articles where copy edits have been requested and there are likely to be interested editors to respond. They are less likely for articles that have been tagged for copy editing, where active subject-matter editors are less likely to be paying attention. Explaining yourself to others (and to yourself, which is always helpful) can be done with edit summaries alone, where you have a 500 (or is it 1,000?) character limit, and where people can more directly examine the changes via diffs. The reasons you gave for removing extraneous material seem sound to me.

Full source reviews are not required for copy editing, but any copy editing is made better by consulting sources and in doing so finding citations that could stand improvement, as well as making other improvements, such as more specific hatnotes, wiki-links, and anything else that make the article more intelligible.

As far as further improvements: I would provide some ending punctuation to the items in your bulleted list, and improve the complicated next-to-last sentence, possibly to This museum collects and displays—both online and at the physical space—video-recorded oral histories, as well as other historical memorabilia, collected from former female members of the California legislature.

Dhtwiki (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Your explanations of "source review" and using "detailed threads" was helpful. Should I just remove that whole detailed thread I first added to the talk page? But leave the others (just in case) explaining why material was removed?

For the article, I changed the next-to-last sentence as you suggested. But before adding punctuation to the list, I wonder about MOS:LISTFORMAT. Here it suggests using sentence case for list items that are "complete sentences", but not to use sentence case for "fragments" (such as the items on the JM article-list). The MOS then adds:

A list item should not end with a full stop unless it consists of a complete sentence or is the end of a list that forms one.

Can you clarify for me? Then I'll fix the list, and take the next steps to finish the CE review. Thanks again! — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 13:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Leave the talk page threads. They're fine. That article's talk page doesn't have but one other thread, and no archives.

Most lists consist of simple names, such as of people or places. Your list is more complicated, and I thought it looked barren without more punctuation, such as ending most items with semi-colons and the last with a period, as though it is a complete sentence, as follows.

These include:

• the Hazardous Medical Waste Management Act, which served as a national model for medical waste clean-up;
• legislation to provide closed circuit television testimony for use with child witnesses involved in cases involving sexual offenses, and similar legislation for use with violent offenders to eliminate the need to transport them;
• legislation to require children's waiting rooms at courthouses, in the interest of protecting young children from unfriendly or threatening circumstances;
• and legislation requiring reflector license plates.

Dhtwiki (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that all makes sense! I followed your model, and made the changes (incl. "and" in last bullet). Per the Backlog Drive instructions, I removed {{GOCEinuse}} from article, and added {{GOCE}} to talk page. Is that right? Hope so. I'll later add completed on drive page.

Thanks very much for your help and encouragement. (And your patience.) — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 00:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's usual to fill the "user" and "date" fields when placing the GOCE template on the article talk page, which I've done for you, as well as including your hidden comment, as that might be mystifying, especially if it becomes separated from the template. Also, it's usual to have the GOCE template within the WikiProject banner shell template, if one is present, which is where I've moved yours. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. I had looked at how the editor on the previous thread had placed the tag on the Matooskie talk page; but I guess I should have looked at the GOCE page for instructions. Still learning! Thanks, again. — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 12:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Big blue button?

I am requesting the {{Big Blue Button}} template be added somewhere on the page. The template looks like a big blue button with text saying, "Click this button. Copy edit an article." I feel like this button would be useful for those who want to help with copyediting. - Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hate that hedgehog!)} 13:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, and thanks for the suggestion! It's a painless way to get started with copyediting. All the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good on the project page, and I love the randomness Thanks again, The Master of Hedgehogs! All the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar question/Commas with Nonessential Elements

Hello,

We have a grammar question about using commas in a sentence. We are currently editing the Israel page and have questions about comma use in regards to the below proposed sentence:

"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

I think the two commas in the above sentence are structurally offsetting a “nonessential clause” [1][2][3]. I think that this means a nonessential clause is something that can be removed without changing the core meaning of a sentence. Since two commas are placed around the British Mandate portion, and since that portion is grammatically removable, I think that portion is grammatically a nonessential clause. Removing the non-restrictive portion, the sentence becomes

“Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948 and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.”

I think this is problematic because I think it gives the impression that Israel declared establishment, and the war immediately broke out. The war actually broke out the next day from an attack.

So I recommended changing to list format to avoid using nonessential elements:

“On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, and Israel declared its establishment.”

@Makeandtoss thinks that I may be overthinking the grammar and interpretation, so this is why I am seeking clarification about the grammar and whether or not the British terminating the Mandate is being used as a nonessential element in the sentence: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

If it is being used non essentially, are there any suggestions on how we can improve the sentence grammar or how to rewrite the sentence?

Thank you! Wafflefrites (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The easiest path to sensibility would be to remove the second comma: Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. Otherwise, the sentence seems muddied and perhaps run-on. Could the British "terminate" the (League of Nations?, UN?) mandate (usually mandate is granted by some other entity)? Did the war erupt on account of the end of the mandate or the establishment of Israel (I'm guessing the latter)? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Another editor/editors jumped in a proposed to use “intervened” for the Arab side so I think we will use that. The war didn’t really erupt because of the Declaration of Independence, it was an extension of a previous war, but more of a second phase that became international Wafflefrites (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If events unfolded as described in the messages above, I think the sentence is flawed. It implies that one thing caused another and that they happened on the same day. I would break it into two sentences, something like: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. The First Arab–Israeli War erupted the next day." – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! There are several editors working on this, and I think we are still determining consensus on the correct wording for additional details. Tagging Makeandtoss so that he is aware of the grammar/clarity best practices on the sentence @Makeandtoss (see above suggestion about breaking up the sentence) Wafflefrites (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Progress chart

Hello all, just FYI I created an updated version of the chart, with only the data since 2020. On the topic, I was wondering if anyone has an explanation for the macro trends in the data (steady decline 2013–2020, near-zero in 2020, steep rise 2021–2022, slower rise 2023). Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I think that once the goal of reducing the backlog and requests as much as was attained in 2020, maintaining that reduction doesn't have the same excitement. We could also take steps to lessen the speed to which our workload is added to, such as limiting requests to one, not two, open articles per requester, or, after a quick perusal, peremptorily removing {{copy edit}} templates from articles that need such care less than others. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You know that Margaret Mead quote about a few people making a big difference? I think it's true here, except it might be just two people in our case. We had one editor who was intensely focused on clearing short articles from the backlog in the late 2010s, and while they are still quietly one of our most active copy editors, they are no longer copy-editing many hundreds of articles per drive. In 2021, we also lost a prolific copy editor who worked on Requests and backlog articles at a high rate. I don't know if there is a way to do a robust analysis, but my gut sense is that the decrease in copy-editing activity from those two editors is the primary reason for the change in the direction of the backlog.

It has been my experience as a wikignome in many maintenance areas of Wikipedia that often just one or two people are keeping a particular backlog from getting out of control. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

May drive

As some of you may know, I generally clear out the 150-200 shortest articles on every drive. I don't list them on the drive page, because it becomes too bloated. That number approximately matches the backlog reduction for each drive. I will not be doing that for the May drive. I encourage any/all of you to take on that task. (I hate it when a drive doesn't provide a net backlog reduction.) Thanks and good editing! Lfstevens (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and for your hard work. Do you have a way of finding the shorter articles, eg a petscan query? Wracking ^talk! 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of some of your efforts being only nominally recorded on the drive pages. When you say "bloated", would it be discouraging for others to be aware of your productivity, or could it be an example for the rest of us to do more? I'd be sorry to see your efforts diminished due to discouragement. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Lfstevens, I didn't mention your name directly above, because I don't like to put people on blast, but I just want to say that I have appreciated your copy-editing work for many years now. Thank you for (tens of?) thousands of copy-edited articles. I will try to pick up some of the slack for the May drive.

Wracking and others: Here's a petscan link to all articles under 8,000 bytes, sorted by size (currently 195 articles). Picking off sentences and paragraphs tagged with Template:copy edit inline is also a quick way to shrink the backlog. Have fun! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I"m not leaving, just need a change of pace (so many villages!) You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for all your efforts. If we hang together, we can make a huge impact on the pedia. Go for it! Lfstevens (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)