Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2018
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Statistics about requests for 2016
This is a long overdue summary of Requests for 2016. I will try to prepare one for 2017 in a month or so, when we are done with December's requests.
I have previously analyzed GOCE Requests for calendar year 2013, for 2014, and for 2015. I've done it again for our 2016 requests. I analyzed the request-to-completion time for all requests submitted in calendar year 2016 that appear on the 2016 Archive page.
- We handled 690 requests that were requested between January 1 and December 31, 2016 (compared to 527, 489, and 543 for 2013, 2104, and 2015, respectively). This includes Declined and Withdrawn requests.
- The average completion time was 17 days, down from 41 days for 2013 requests, 30 days for 2014 requests, and 22 days for 2015 requests. (The median completion time was 18 days.)
- The longest wait was 55 days (the second-longest was 46 days); only 66 articles, less than 10% of requests, waited more than 30 days. This is an improvement over the previous year.
- We handled 78% of articles within 20 days of receiving the request, up from 64% in the previous year.
| Days | Number of articles |
|---|---|
| 0 | 9
|
| 1 to 10 | 141
|
| 11 to 20 | 308
|
| 21 to 30 | 166
|
| 31 to 40 | 56
|
| 41 to 50 | 9
|
| 51 to 60 | 1
|
Let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jonesey. I found an error in the 2013 figure I had which was 10% off from yours. The rest is pretty consistent (averages are within 1 or 2). I didn't include requests which were declined or withdrawn as being completed (or counting toward average completion times) which might account for the slight differences. Or maybe I was using completion times for articles completed in 2016 and you were using completion times for articles submitted in 2016. Anyways, quite close and they show the same trends. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
(←) I noticed the 2016 archive contains requests made that year but completed in 2017; should these be moved to the 2017 archive, to be consistent with previous archives? Are you now using different criteria? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- User:Baffle_gab1978, 2016 appears to have been a transition year. In 2015, the date completed was used to order things, and the page contains all those requests completed in 2015. In 2017, the order is explicitly by date requested, and it contains all of those requests made during calendar 2017 (and any December 2017 requests still to be finished will eventually be archived to the 2017 page). By necessity, 2016 becomes a transition year: it needs to include all of the requests made in 2016, but also all of those 2015 requests completed in 2016. So none of the entries currently in 2016 should be moved into 2017. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- All years prior to 2016 were ordered by completion date and listed requests completed in the respective year. I'm curious to know the reason for the change in 2016. I'd tend to favour the keep-it-simple approach: completion date would be the easier way of maintaining the archive list, as the editor doing the archiving could add to the bottom of the list instead of having to manually locate the correct position(s) in the table by submission date. (So one less thing to worry about, less chance of error, and it'd be quicker with less chance of edit conflicts.) There seem to be some similar opinions expressed in April 2017 so I'm not really sure why it was changed. (BTW, sortable wikitables allow it to be displayed either way but use Javascript which I suspect [with long lists] was the reason for some reported browser crashes – here, here and here.) – Reidgreg (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks both for your comments; I think whichever system is used should be maintained and clarified so coords (now and future) can be consistent when analysing the data, which is the reason for archive requests. I hadn't read the discussion from April, there's some bedtime reading for me! :) Happy New Year all; thanks for your work this year, and in the future. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm happy with either way (year requested or year edited), but I don't think we should go back and adjust the archives (I could be persuaded otherwise). I don't think it's necessary to manually insert articles into the list, since we can use sortable tables. Once we get to the end of a year, we should consolidate the list into a single table for sorting, since the reason it is broken up is related to editing speed and the inability to edit large tables for some editors. Once the year is over, sortability is more important (to me) than accommodating the occasional editor with a slow browser or connection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Um, this editor (with an old, slow computer she can't afford to replace at the moment, especially just for WP) does a fair amount of archiving (mine and others'). I didn't see the need to change the archiving from date-completed to date-requested, but since it was a fait accompli I wasn't going to make an issue of it; however, some accommodation of the least of us is good for the GOCE as a whole. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 23:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know and love you, of course, and accommodating the least of us (especially you) is the reason why we have broken up the active archiving page. What's your view on consolidating the page once the year is over, so that readers can sort the whole list all at once? I'm happy to make edits to the old pages (e.g. the 2016 page) by request if any are needed? (For reference, the 2016 page has had only three edits since April 2017.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Same here :-), and that's a great idea; I only have problems when I'm archiving. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 15:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a dial-up editor so I'm very much in the slow boat, with technical-accessibility issues. But I probably only archived a dozen requests last year. As for end-of-year stuff, I put everything from 2013 onwards onto a spreadsheet so it's just as easy to figure things by submission date or completion date (and I tried to do both in the report). A complete list is unattainable for now as some data around 2011 didn't get archived; I haven't been motivated enough to pull it from the page histories (not easy when the page gets a thousand edits per year). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Same here :-), and that's a great idea; I only have problems when I'm archiving. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 15:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I know and love you, of course, and accommodating the least of us (especially you) is the reason why we have broken up the active archiving page. What's your view on consolidating the page once the year is over, so that readers can sort the whole list all at once? I'm happy to make edits to the old pages (e.g. the 2016 page) by request if any are needed? (For reference, the 2016 page has had only three edits since April 2017.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Um, this editor (with an old, slow computer she can't afford to replace at the moment, especially just for WP) does a fair amount of archiving (mine and others'). I didn't see the need to change the archiving from date-completed to date-requested, but since it was a fait accompli I wasn't going to make an issue of it; however, some accommodation of the least of us is good for the GOCE as a whole. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 23:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm happy with either way (year requested or year edited), but I don't think we should go back and adjust the archives (I could be persuaded otherwise). I don't think it's necessary to manually insert articles into the list, since we can use sortable tables. Once we get to the end of a year, we should consolidate the list into a single table for sorting, since the reason it is broken up is related to editing speed and the inability to edit large tables for some editors. Once the year is over, sortability is more important (to me) than accommodating the occasional editor with a slow browser or connection. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks both for your comments; I think whichever system is used should be maintained and clarified so coords (now and future) can be consistent when analysing the data, which is the reason for archive requests. I hadn't read the discussion from April, there's some bedtime reading for me! :) Happy New Year all; thanks for your work this year, and in the future. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- All years prior to 2016 were ordered by completion date and listed requests completed in the respective year. I'm curious to know the reason for the change in 2016. I'd tend to favour the keep-it-simple approach: completion date would be the easier way of maintaining the archive list, as the editor doing the archiving could add to the bottom of the list instead of having to manually locate the correct position(s) in the table by submission date. (So one less thing to worry about, less chance of error, and it'd be quicker with less chance of edit conflicts.) There seem to be some similar opinions expressed in April 2017 so I'm not really sure why it was changed. (BTW, sortable wikitables allow it to be displayed either way but use Javascript which I suspect [with long lists] was the reason for some reported browser crashes – here, here and here.) – Reidgreg (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Concerns regarding research-style writing at WT:DYK. feminist (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I moved this from the Requests page, as it does not appear to be a copy-edit request. If you were intending a c/e request, please follow the form, so that that is clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I recommend moving it back and adding a third equals sign to fix the header level. I think that was the only problem with the request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- The article was rejected at DYK due to
issues in the article including unsourced controversial statements and synthesis
(see Template:Did you know nominations/Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations for full details). However, feminist—who was not the original author; the article was written as part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, and the student is long gone—has cut out a lot of material since then. Whoever takes this on should probably be aware of the other issues raised, which may not be completely addressed as yet, though they may not all be part of the copyeditor's remit. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)- Alanscottwalker: Please restore this request to the Requests page, with proper formatting, while we discuss it here. If there are questions about the legitimacy of a request, it should normally be discussed here before removing it from the Requests page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you need me -- if I misunderstood, do what you will but it was not clear at all why it was done the way it was done -- not even simple words asking for anything - just a rather cryptic statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker: Please restore this request to the Requests page, with proper formatting, while we discuss it here. If there are questions about the legitimacy of a request, it should normally be discussed here before removing it from the Requests page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- The article was rejected at DYK due to
- I recommend moving it back and adding a third equals sign to fix the header level. I think that was the only problem with the request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I moved this from the Requests page, as it does not appear to be a copy-edit request. If you were intending a c/e request, please follow the form, so that that is clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
(←) It looks as though @Feminist: is still developing the article, having made seven substantial edits in the past 24 hours, as of my timestamp. Perhaps the request could be placed on hold until she's finished her work and the article has settled. The text looks fairly good but could benefit from a c/e; I noticed use of the pronoun "that" as punctuation , and the phrase "with respect to how" in the 2nd para. I've coped the request back to the page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- It appears to me that the editor's request was posted after their last edit to the page. Unless there are subsequent edits, that seems like a reasonable series of events to me. In any event, the article is short (just over 1,000 words) and should not be too hard to copy-edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I didn't think to check and compare histories before commenting here; I've struck my response. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
Request for copy edit of user draft
An editor has requested a copy edit of User:Beyoncetan/A/1 (to be called "Từ hôm nay (Feel Like Ooh)"), which is in user space. It looks pretty good, so I suggest that rather than decline, we recommend that the article be moved into main space before we copy-edit it. Another option is to decline, without prejudice to a future request once the page is in article space. Thoughts? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think putting the request on hold until it's moved into mainspace would be a good plan; as you say it looks like a decently written piece, though I haven't checked the sources and I don't read Vietnamese. There's always the option to decline if there are problems and/or if it's kept waiting for AFC review for too long. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Since this article still seems to be under construction, I suggest that we decline until it stabilizes. All the best, Miniapolis 21:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Edits since 13:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC) appear to be tweaks and box office stats updates rather than major revisions, and I see no sign of ongoing edit warring. Perhaps a week on hold would allow it to stabilise; we could decline if the major revisions recommence. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Chunks of content removed yesterday by the requester, so I still don't think it's stable enough yet for a copyedit :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's also a bit early in the film's life to go for a GAN, the purpose of the copyedit request. The film release is still on-going, awards season is not yet over, and it hasn't yet been released on DVD/Blu-ray, so it's unlikely to be approved at this point. The nominator would be well advised to hold off a GAN for a few months at least. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, BlueMoonset, and don't like being asked to do the same job twice :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- In light of the above, and the ongoing edits to the article, I agree it's unstable and I've boldly added the
On hold template with a link here. Coordinators, feel free to revert or remove my edit. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- In light of the above, and the ongoing edits to the article, I agree it's unstable and I've boldly added the
- I agree, BlueMoonset, and don't like being asked to do the same job twice :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's also a bit early in the film's life to go for a GAN, the purpose of the copyedit request. The film release is still on-going, awards season is not yet over, and it hasn't yet been released on DVD/Blu-ray, so it's unlikely to be approved at this point. The nominator would be well advised to hold off a GAN for a few months at least. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Chunks of content removed yesterday by the requester, so I still don't think it's stable enough yet for a copyedit :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- More edits today (2/24) - why don't we simply decline it for all the reasons noted above? Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree; it's just too soon. FWIW, Jonesey's on wikibreak till the 27th and Reidgreg's been very busy with GOCE housekeeping; I'll ping Corinne and Tdslk. Whoever eventually declines it, please notify the requester with a link to this discussion. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 15:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Baffle that this page is un-copyeditable and we should decline (among other things, there's no inline source for that name capitalization). At first I thought it was a WP:BLPPROD candidate, but some of the external links may be to reliable sources. The translation is very rough, and the lack of inline citations makes checking sources more trouble than it's worth. I also left a comment on Harut111's talk page; he seems to be promoting Armenian topics, which is fine if the topics meet our notability guidelines. All the best, Miniapolis 17:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll take it. I agree it could use inline citations, but the subject seems notable to me and I don't mind working on articles where the language needs a bit more work. Tdslk (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Copied from request page:
I am requesting a copy edit for this article, which I did not expand, but looks like it'll be promoted to Good status in the near future. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the GA reviewer, who has already started work, has said he is copyediting as he goes, so another copyedit may not be necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Based on this, should we decline as redundant? All the best, Miniapolis 16:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I looked at the copyedits made by the reviewer, and I don't see anything beyond formatting. The review itself (Talk:2017 Portland train attack/GA1) notes one sentence that needs rephrasing, which could be done in a GOCE copyedit or by the nominator, but otherwise it notes "the prose is clean". Perhaps a copyedit here would make it shine a bit more? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
In need of an expert
Fellow user User:Flowerpiep has been editing FAC Sasuke Uchiha but I doubt it will pass. Is it possible for to get a user from the guild to aid Flowerpiep on a possible future nomination once the prose is improved better? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Since I've recently copyedited it twice (the whole article and the reception section), it obviously needs a new pair of eyes :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. We really appreciate the fact that you copy edited the article (especially since it happened twice). I believe that the article is in great shape the way it is, and I really don't see what else could be improved at the moment. However, some reviewers still don't find the prose good enough, and sadly I can't expand on this right now as we were offered no further specific details. Imagine how we feel since we don't even know what we are supposed to improve. Flowerpiep (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
- Tintor2, feel free to list it at the Requests page, but please remember the Guild doesn't guarantee articles will pass quality reviews; copy-editors (at least this one!) do their best to improve the quality of prose and compliance with the MOS but we can't stop editors from editing. This edit—particularly the phrase "similarly to how"—suggests Flowerpiep doesn't have a great grasp of English. Don't worry if it fails review; there's no deadline here and it can always be renominated. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you for the advice, but there is no need to judge my English based on a single sentence. Also, I fail to see exactly why you consider that particular structure to be wrong. "Similarly to" referred to an action. Thus, of course an adverb was used instead of an adjective. Flowerpiep (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
- I recommended that wording to Flowerpiep in the FAC, Bafflegab. It'd possibly be easier to reword if the reference to Japanese mythology was taken out of the sentence. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Flowerpiep, I didn't realise you'd been advised to use that phrase. It's an awkward sentence. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I recommended that wording to Flowerpiep in the FAC, Bafflegab. It'd possibly be easier to reword if the reference to Japanese mythology was taken out of the sentence. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you for the advice, but there is no need to judge my English based on a single sentence. Also, I fail to see exactly why you consider that particular structure to be wrong. "Similarly to" referred to an action. Thus, of course an adverb was used instead of an adjective. Flowerpiep (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
- I know the copyedit doesn't guarantee it, but I wondered if this set of action is possible similar to the Naruto FAC where copyeditor Mike Christie assisted user 1989 in the nomination.Tintor2 (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Working; I'm doing the requested GOCE copy-edit. As I said above; I do my level best with the material and I hope it's useful and improves the quality of the article's prose. I'm not prepared, however, to provide a line-by-line critique; sorry. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Done - Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Quotation marks in the archive
I noticed while archiving that some article titles in the 2018 request archive table—song titles I think—are surrounded with quotation marks. The quotation marks interfere with alphabetical sortation, bringing said article titles to the top or bottom when that column is sorted. Is there a reason to use quotation marks like that? I have refrained from adding them when I've archived requests myself. I've also recently noticed them being added to subsection titles in the Requests page; is this necessary as well? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- They are not part of the article title, so we should probably omit them. Style is fun, but when it interferes with functionality, we should probably skip it. Thoughts from others? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that we were alphabetizing the archives (we haven't before, and IMO control-F serves the same purpose) but yeah, I can lose the quotes (and italic markup for films, albums and books). All the best, Miniapolis 13:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Miniapolis, I'm not suggesting manually alphabetizing the archive (heaven forbid!), the sort function in the table does that. At the top of the table you'll see little up/down arrows; click on these to sort the table. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I knew it was a sortable table :-); it's just that some editors (including me) have been doing this all along and it's never been a problem until now. Guess it's time to tweak the instructions and thanks, Jonesey95, for the clarification below. All the best, Miniapolis 15:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm happy not to add quotes for song titles and other similar short works, which I have been doing because I thought it was a done thing; I agree it's better not to interfere with alphabetization in the automated sorting available in the archive. If the italics don't interfere with sorting, we can continue using them, or not, whatever folks prefer. (Since I've inserted many of them, it's only fair that I pull them from the archive if they aren't wanted. Just let me know.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have been doing the same as BlueMoonset. Also happy to stop using them and will fix my entries if you let me know.Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think the italics are lovely if you want to continue to add them. They do not interfere with any functionality, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's not difficult to strip them in any case, but I suppose this is a "don't bother" situation when archiving. Custom signatures make my archiving experience a little more difficult – I tend to copy & paste to avoid typos – but that's the job. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've just stripped out all the double quotes from around titles for 2018 and 2017. I haven't yet checked earlier years, but if I did insert any double quotes, I'll be sure to take them out, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Although I didn't add them to 2016, I've removed the double quotes there, too; I didn't find any in prior years. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've just stripped out all the double quotes from around titles for 2018 and 2017. I haven't yet checked earlier years, but if I did insert any double quotes, I'll be sure to take them out, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's not difficult to strip them in any case, but I suppose this is a "don't bother" situation when archiving. Custom signatures make my archiving experience a little more difficult – I tend to copy & paste to avoid typos – but that's the job. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think the italics are lovely if you want to continue to add them. They do not interfere with any functionality, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have been doing the same as BlueMoonset. Also happy to stop using them and will fix my entries if you let me know.Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm happy not to add quotes for song titles and other similar short works, which I have been doing because I thought it was a done thing; I agree it's better not to interfere with alphabetization in the automated sorting available in the archive. If the italics don't interfere with sorting, we can continue using them, or not, whatever folks prefer. (Since I've inserted many of them, it's only fair that I pull them from the archive if they aren't wanted. Just let me know.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that we were alphabetizing the archives (we haven't before, and IMO control-F serves the same purpose) but yeah, I can lose the quotes (and italic markup for films, albums and books). All the best, Miniapolis 13:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks all for this discussion; the italics markup doesn't appear to interfere with table sortation because it's parsed as wikicode, whereas double quotation marks aren't. Thanks to BlueMoonset for clearing the archive tables for future users. Reidgreg, you can use the template {{subst:u|User name}} when archiving; it saves messing about with heavily-customised sigs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Citation consistency?
Hi, is it also possible to ask for citation edits here? For example, articles I expanded long ago, dodo and Rodrigues solitaire, originally had one citation style, the one seen under "footnotes", but these were since changed to the style seen under "sources" without consulting me about it, and now they have a weird hodgepodge of styles. I never liked the new style (unless it is used when sources are split into multiple page ranges), but it seemed an overwhelming task to change it all back, because citation formatting kind of stresses me out... So I was wondering if that counts as something that could be requested here? FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Citation editing is not typically a copy-editing task. We focus on the prose in the article. I enjoy working on citations, however. Drop a note on my talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA declaration: copied from Requests page here by me. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I created this article but I believe copyediting on the article would be a good start. LovelyGirl7 talk 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Working Red.exxes (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've left a note on Redexxes' talk page requesting an update on this c/e; her/his last edit was at 18:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: LovelyGirl7 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock, with no chance of appeal before six months are up per their talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I actually placed a note here to that effect last week, but on reflection I decided the request was made in good faith and I self-reverted. Redexxes seems to be inactive so I'll take the request when the week's wait is over. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 05:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Up in the air Sorry I didn't respond. This is a very busy time for me, and I cannot finish copy editing. If anyone else would like to pick it up, feel free to do so. Red.exxes (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Working. Thank you Redexxes for your reply and your copy-editing on the article; I believe it may have copyright problems caused by the requester (see her talk page). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Baffle gab1978 00:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I actually placed a note here to that effect last week, but on reflection I decided the request was made in good faith and I self-reverted. Redexxes seems to be inactive so I'll take the request when the week's wait is over. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 05:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: LovelyGirl7 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock, with no chance of appeal before six months are up per their talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi copyedit
(Copied from requests page)
I know this is a draft, but hopefully you guys don’t mind if it goes through copyediting. AbuHuzaifaEditor (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- AbuHuzaifaEditor: You'll be more likely to get a copy-edit if you move the page to article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: I can’t move it, since I’m not autoconfirmed. You can move my user page if you would like and do copyediting to it. —AbuHuzaifaEditor (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
(End of copied section)
- Since the requester has been blocked for socking, I think we can decline this (pinging Pelagic). Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 22:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's a pity, Miniapolis, I thought the article was reasonably well constructed for a new piece. Given the subject matter, I assumed the author had a legitimate reason for using a single-purpose account.
- I couldn't find an SPI (but I don't really know how to look). Was there discussion on the issue? Maybe the author doesn't care to contest it since the account achieved its purpose of getting the article to mainspace?
- Anyway, the subject seems notable (or temporarily notorious) enough for the article to persist. I can't speak for Canada, but here in Australia the issue of returning foreign fighters has received considerable public discourse. If the article is to stay then I might make a couple more minor fixes outside the GOCE process, if that's okay.
- But I agree there is no need for GOCE to pursue a request from a blocked account.
- Cheers! Pelagic (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think that because Pelagic has done a part-c/e, s/he deserves credit for his/her work in the archive. The article does seem fairly well referenced. As happened with the last blocked requester, I'm happy to AGF and finish the c/e once I've done my current one, which will take a few days. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Works for me. All the best, Miniapolis 22:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Baffle gab1978: it has been instructive for me to see the extra improvements you made to this and the Pransukh Nayak article. Pelagic (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think that because Pelagic has done a part-c/e, s/he deserves credit for his/her work in the archive. The article does seem fairly well referenced. As happened with the last blocked requester, I'm happy to AGF and finish the c/e once I've done my current one, which will take a few days. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 15:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for DYK. As I am not a native speaker of English, I wish to have this article copyedited. It is a medium size article. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have given it a once-over, but would appreciate a second pair of eyes, as I'm new to GoCE Requests.
- Congratulations, Nizil, on including English translations for several of the performance titles. This greatly aids readability for those of us who don't understand the language. Could we also have glosses for the terms Natak Samaj and Mandali that appear in the troupe names?
- Good luck with your DYK! Pelagic (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Pelagic:. Thank you for quickly responding to my request. Natak Samaj and Mandali literally mean theatre troupe or group. As there are many names in the list and mentioning troupe, again and again, would make it worse so I have not added their translations. So what should I do? I would appreciate more suggestions to improve the article as well. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for delay, Nizil, my Wikipedia habits are highly intermittent. That's a very good question. There is no single best approach, and opinions will vary. I feel a footnote on first use is less intrusive than parenthesis in this case. Normally one would put translations/glosses inline, and the way you have treated play titles is quite elegant (with translation and year in the same brackets without extra typographic distinction, though MOS purists might specify single quotes[?]). I went for a footnote because it allows a longer explanation to make clear which terms are being referenced.
- Apologies all, if this is not the right place for discussion: should I move it to article talk or group talk?
- Pelagic (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Pelagic: This page should really only have comments regarding the status of the copy edit, preferably leading with the templates: {{working}}, {{on hold}}, {{partly done}}, etc. Discussion of the copy edit is usually best handled on the article's talk page or the requester's talk page. If you want opinions from other copy editors, you can post to the Requests talk page. BTW, how is this copy edit coming along (i.e.: what is its current status)? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Pelagic:. Thank you for quickly responding to my request. Natak Samaj and Mandali literally mean theatre troupe or group. As there are many names in the list and mentioning troupe, again and again, would make it worse so I have not added their translations. So what should I do? I would appreciate more suggestions to improve the article as well. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
end copied section
- Thanks, Reidgreg, good to know. Also, thanks Baffle gab1978 for doing a better CE of the article and for tidying up this discussion. Pelagic (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
GA-nominated article
Hello. I know that in the rules for this project it is stated that "If you plan to nominate the article for good article, A-class or featured article status, please wait until the copy edit is complete before nominating it." Is it a strict rule? I just nominated the article Tove Lo for GA and completely forgot about requesting a copy edit before since I have not requested one in a long time. So, can the article receive the review o do I have to retire the GA nomination? Thank you.--Paparazzzi (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- If I were you, I'd leave the copyedit request and the GA nomination alone; sometimes it takes a while for a GA reviewer to get to an article. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 13:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, can I make both the request and the GA nomination at the same time?
. Thank you for responding! --Paparazzzi (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's not a problem for us, and plenty of GA nominated articles in a decent state have been promoted before a requested c/e was started. If the c/e and GA review occur at the same time, a brief note n the GA review page might be a good idea. If the article is in a poor state, the nom may be quick-failed before a c/e occurs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your responses
Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your responses
- That's not a problem for us, and plenty of GA nominated articles in a decent state have been promoted before a requested c/e was started. If the c/e and GA review occur at the same time, a brief note n the GA review page might be a good idea. If the article is in a poor state, the nom may be quick-failed before a c/e occurs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, can I make both the request and the GA nomination at the same time?
Where is the best place for a new copy editor to begin?
I've just taken a look at the requests page after signing up and I'm not sure if I feel comfortable having a go at them (especially as a lot of them seem to be needing a higher level of copy editing than I am capable of at the moment) Is there anywhere for a new copy editor to go where they can get some practice in? LampGenie01 (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome! Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, including the sections titled "How you can help" and "New copy editors", and follow the appropriate links. If you're looking for articles to edit, I suggest starting with articles in the later months listed in the "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" table shown on most of the GOCE's pages. The oldest articles tend to be challenging; that's why they are still around. Feel free to ask for feedback on your edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Can I ask for feedback here or is there a specific place for that? LampGenie01 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Here is fine. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is probably better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Can I ask for feedback here or is there a specific place for that? LampGenie01 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I've just placed the request for Constitution of India on hold because the requester suspects it contains a lot of copyright violations. I've asked that s/he assures us this isn't the case before we do a full c/e of the article; feel free to strike my comments if they're not appropriate. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA; copied from Requests page diff by me. Baffle gab1978 07:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Constitution of India
This needs an urgent copy-edit, the earlier a thorough c/e is done, the better; I suspect there's a lot of copyvio — both literary and otherwise — in the concerned article, and as there's a still a lot of useful content in the article, nuking it wouldn't be the best-advised thing to do. I have worked on the article a good bit with my last few edits on, but, a fresh pair of eyes — which aren't involved in editing the article — having a look at it would be much appreciable.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 23:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC); edited 23:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- On hold Hi @SshibumXZ:, if you're aware of major copyright violations in the article, please deal with them before requesting a copy-edit. Although we sometimes do rewrite to fix minor copyright problems, GOCE isn't intended as a copyright cleanup project. Please read these instructions on dealing with copyright problems in articles; you can then decided the best course of action. I'll have a look through the article but I'm putting this request on hold until you can assure us it's free of such problems. Coordinators are welcome to strike my comments if you find them inappropriate. Feel free to discuss this request on REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- No issues, I am aware that GOCE's principal aim isn't to perform copyright cleanup; I'll have a look at the article and try to remove any copyrighted material that I can find; I would inform the GOCE through this page after the cleanup is done, so that a normal c/e can be done on it.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 01:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- No issues, I am aware that GOCE's principal aim isn't to perform copyright cleanup; I'll have a look at the article and try to remove any copyrighted material that I can find; I would inform the GOCE through this page after the cleanup is done, so that a normal c/e can be done on it.
- @SshibumXZ: This tool— https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Constitution+of+India&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 —Earwig's Copyvio Detector may be useful to you. It indicates 91.3% confidence there are major copyright issues. It will indicate exactly where the article has issues if you click "Compare" after you run it. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Twofingered Typist: sorry, I couldn't respond to you earlier, I was editing the aforementioned article, but, yeah, I am aware of Earwig, as I have had my share of issues with copyright as well (one of my first articles on Wikipedia was deleted because of copyvio, it's tragic story, really); the Earwig score for this article may be a bit misleading for a bunch of reasons, though, the foremost of them being that simple stuff like names of legislation, amendments, judgements etc. also register as copyvio on Earwig; still a pretty useful tool, though.
- Infringing websites' copyright may be the least of it though, as I think there's some copyvio content copied straight off of books, too, and that one is harder to see because of the lack of a tool like Earwig. This might take a few days, so, my question is that does this request stay 'on hold' till then, or, would this be removed/archived?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 00:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)- A cursory look leads me to think the problem may involve back-copying from another wiki, but WP's article's history shows copyvio revdels in the past. On hold advises editors to wait until problems are fixed; it's not compulsory and doesn't stop a c/e from occurring. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 08:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
(←) Much of the article appears to have been copied by another wiki here, which has been copied without a CC-BY-SA declaration in September 2010 from this Wikipedia version here. @SshibumXZ:, I apologise for creating this fuss and bother, but there's little point in editors improving text that may need to be hidden due to copyright infringements, especially in large articles like this. I'm thus removing the hold; thanks for your patience! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 11:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Socialist state. I don't know why this article was submitted as a copy-editing request. It looks like two editors, including the requester, are currently debating major changes to the article. I recommend declining until the article is stable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seeing the 22 major edits yesterday (16th May), the edit-warring and the expansion template at the top of the article, I agree the request should be declined as unstable; a c/e would be rather pointless. I've boldly placed it on hold for now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
(←) The other warring editor popped up on the requests page; I've boldly closed that off to avoid them spreading dramah here. Feel free to remove the templates if my action is inappropriate. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
[copied from the Requests page on 3 June 2018]
Golden State Killer is receiving over 50,000 page hits per day, making it one of our most read articles. The article is choppy and needs new turns of words to make it flow. I hope that a GOCE member agrees that it is a worthwhile project to take on. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: 200 edits in the last four days. It might settle down by the time it gets higher up on this list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
[end of copied section]
- Here are the edits in the last week. They don't amount to much, and there isn't a current content dispute on the talk page. One argument in favor of copy-editing is that a trial is presumably upcoming, so people will be visiting this page quite a bit; it would be good to have it in good shape. The argument against is the same: a trial will result in many edits to the page, though I imagine those edits will be in new sections. I think we should edit it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like Miniapolis made copy edits on June 6 and 7. Is it in pretty good shape now? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here are the edits in the last week. They don't amount to much, and there isn't a current content dispute on the talk page. One argument in favor of copy-editing is that a trial is presumably upcoming, so people will be visiting this page quite a bit; it would be good to have it in good shape. The argument against is the same: a trial will result in many edits to the page, though I imagine those edits will be in new sections. I think we should edit it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Requests removed
Hi all; I've just removed two requests, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (diff) because the requester has added four requests. I've left a note on his talk page accordingly here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Vizhinjam International Seaport
Vizhinjam International Seaport needs substantial work. At the moment it is supported by a single primary source, though there seem to be other sources out there (Deccan Chronicle, Financial Express, Times of India). Baffle gab1978 has abandoned copy edit as unsuitable at this time. Is it better to decline without prejudice or put it on hold? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Probably better to decline it until the
"substantial work"
is done. We have enough to do as it is without looking for sources as well; that's the content creator's job. All the best, Miniapolis 13:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I am moving this discussion here for the sake of continuity and tidiness. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This history article currently has long academic sentences throughout the article which need to be trimmed or broken up into two sentences. Requesting a GOCE editor with experience in GA articles, which is the article's intended direction. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator and Iazyges: I have just read the GAN review of this article by JohnWickTwo. (But not the article.) I don't think that anyone at GoCE would want to copy edit an article without the full cooperation of the two editors responsible for over 75% of its current content. Can you confirm whether you would like me to copy edit this? Iazyges, as I have assessed several of your GANs I think that you will have a reasonable idea of what I might add or subtract from the article with a copy edit. Note that GoCE is not hawking for work, especially a 13,000 word monster. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Strong SUPPORT for Gog the Mild to move forward with his copy editing. Since the co-editors of this article are insisting to re-nominate it now for another GAN without making any further fixes themselves following 2 failed GANs this year, then your GOCE copy edits would be useful and strongly supported. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like @Iazyges: to comment on this. As for JohnWickTwo's comments above, the in the first failed GAN, Iazyges was the reviewer and we then worked on the article together. The second failed GAN (John's review) was an extremely odd experience and unlike any other GA review I've been through. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- My request was that the article be submitted for GOCE prior to being renominated for another GAN. The co-editors appear deeply attached to their written text and are not rewriting even sentences longer than 40 words which recur throughout their text which they have renominated without any corrections. The article is in much need of impartial copy-editing before it is resubmitted for GAN. Strong SUPPORT for Gog the Mild to provide an impartial and much needed copy-editing of this "13,000 word monster" article as he calls it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like @Iazyges: to comment on this. As for JohnWickTwo's comments above, the in the first failed GAN, Iazyges was the reviewer and we then worked on the article together. The second failed GAN (John's review) was an extremely odd experience and unlike any other GA review I've been through. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Strong SUPPORT for Gog the Mild to move forward with his copy editing. Since the co-editors of this article are insisting to re-nominate it now for another GAN without making any further fixes themselves following 2 failed GANs this year, then your GOCE copy edits would be useful and strongly supported. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
(←) Hi all; the article is currently stable—the last edit as of my timestamp was a bot edit made at 15:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC). Unless there are any other concerns, such as copyright violations, I see no reason a c/e cannot proceed. If the copy-edits are reverted or conflicted or edit-warring occurs at the article, the copy-editor can discuss it with the relevant parties and/or mark the request Abandoned and move on to another request. Please feel free to further discuss this request at REQ talk and to discuss the article at the article's talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @JohnWickTwo: To avoid confusion I should clarify that I am only willing to start a copy edit if one, and preferably both, of the main contributors ask me to. It is not part of GoCE's role to referee any type of dispute. If they think that a copy edit may improve the article then I would be happy to work through it. It is a period I am familiar with. (I have had 18 Roman and Byzantine articles promoted to GA in the last 3 months.) Obviously they, and you, can then discuss, and in extremis revert, any changes I make. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Baffle gab1978: Sounds good, I'm not opposed to a GOCE review so much as I don't think it's absolutely necessary. That said, I think the article is fully developed, and thus a GOCE run may be helpful for attempts to later take it to FA class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- If that is a green light to say it is ok for Gog the Mild to start the GOCE copy edit then it sounds like a positive move forward for the article and the GOCE copy edit may take place whenever Gog the Mild has time to turn to it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Iazyges and Ichthyovenator: Thank you. I shall put it on my to do list. Please let me know what you think as I go along. It would be depressing to get the end and have you decide to revert everything
. And I should say that "monster" is a specialised, technical GoCE term. As I (still) have not read the article it implied nothing about its merits, or lack thereof. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Iazyges and Ichthyovenator: Thank you. I shall put it on my to do list. Please let me know what you think as I go along. It would be depressing to get the end and have you decide to revert everything
Restored three deleted Requests
I noticed three Requests that seemed to have been accidentally deleted with this edit. They aren't in the archives list and they don't seem to be multiple requests by the same editor. I've restored them to the Request page (articles Jurassic World, Focus (song) and Sairat – the requester re-listed the last one but I've popped it up the list to its original request date). Please let me know if I've got that wrong. @NeoBatfreak, UrbanJE, and Yashthepunisher: my apologies for any inconvenience. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Reidgreg; I had removed an accidentally restored completed request here but I obviously didn't notice the other deletions. Sorry 'bout that. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all; I've placed this request 
On hold; the article is still in development and has been nominated for deletion. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 07:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest declining this request; The AfD discussion resulted in a consensus to merge with Foreign policy of Donald Trump#Israel and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Baffle gab1978 22:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Deal of the Century (draft plan)
CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Requests page (diff) by me. Baffle gab1978 22:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Please copy edit this article for spelling, grammar. Your edit may help the article survive an AFD. Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Although I appreciate that you want the article kept, the AfD discussion concerns its suitability for mainspace (at this time) and not the prose. Good luck, though. Miniapolis 17:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Miniapolis: It is true that AFD discussion not depend on GOCP, but generally article need it.Saff V. (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
(←) On hold; article is nominated for deletion and is still undergoing development. so a c/e is pointless until its fate is decided. Please discuss on REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: The consensus of the deletion discussion was to merge this article into Foreign policy of Donald Trump. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Doubt
Hello. There is something I wanted to ask. I recently requested two articles to be copyedited: Vergil (Devil May Cry) and Devil May Cry 4. Since the recently finished a major expansion, could they exchange places so that a GA review could be made earlier. Thanks as usual.Tintor2 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Tintor2; yes that's no problem. It's still possible the later request may be picked up first because there's no specific order—editors are free to pick any request in the list as they wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation copied from Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm hoping to promote this to GA. Think a lot grammar and syntax work has to be done. AG47 Talk 08:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Working User:PinoEire —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- PinoEire Have you completed a c/e of this article? I noticed you edited it once on Aug. 12 and added the {{GOCE}} to the talk page, but didn't indicate here that it was complete. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007:, we usually allow editors a week or so before chasing up seemingly abandoned requests; although we like to see requests completed reasonably quickly, please remember we're all volunteers and there's no deadline on Wikipedia. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Baffle gab1978, my primary reason for asking was because the {{GOCE}} template was added to the talk page, not because of the time that has gone by. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007:, I think we should AGF for a few more days; the Guild has a process for dealing with abandoned requests. If you think the GOCE template was placed incorrectly, feel free to remove it, though bear in mind that PinoEire, while not a new account, appears to be fairly inexperienced on WP. Meanwhile, this conversation should continue on REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 05:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Baffle gab1978, my primary reason for asking was because the {{GOCE}} template was added to the talk page, not because of the time that has gone by. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007:, we usually allow editors a week or so before chasing up seemingly abandoned requests; although we like to see requests completed reasonably quickly, please remember we're all volunteers and there's no deadline on Wikipedia. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- PinoEire Have you completed a c/e of this article? I noticed you edited it once on Aug. 12 and added the {{GOCE}} to the talk page, but didn't indicate here that it was complete. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've placed this request on hold; it's a newly minted article created 23:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC), that has IMO a promotional spin. References are in Spanish, which i haven't checked because I'm not fluent in that language. The creator wants to nominate it for GAN. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed the 'on-hold' notice; there's no technical reason this can't be copy-edited, but I've left a note about its newness on the request. Baffle gab1978 23:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Slow-moving requests
For the record, I have left comments on the talk pages of the editors of Moonshine Jungle Tour and MAX Blue Line to see if they will be finishing those articles soon. Tdslk (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Tdslk; I've been a bit slack with these. The edit by Sheys_Ditty (formerly Gbolahan Adebayo) diff) isn't what I'd call a substantial copy-edit (in fact, s/he introduced an error), so I'm striking his/her Partly done template. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all; I've placed this request on hold because there are large tracts of unreferenced text in the lower part of this lengthy article. I think we should decline this one; a copy-edit would likely be wiped out by large-scale changes. Also, copy-editing isn't Cleanup. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey mate, I added the references needed for you homies to go on, sorry for the trouble homie G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaicol (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Spaicol:, thank you for adding the references; I'd still like to hear the other
homiescoordinators' thoughts on this request before I remove the (purely advisory) hold notice. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Spaicol:, thank you for adding the references; I'd still like to hear the other
- The quantity of citations looks okay, although the majority are links to one of two lower quality sources: a seemingly self-published book and a side page on a hotel reservation website. Is that what you're concerned about or do you have other concerns about the article? Tdslk (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned by the quality of the prose, which could be misinterpreted by copy-editors, though I see it's been recently improved. Must admit I didn't check the refs too closely because the one I tried to check didn't load in my browser. The article does seem to be stable though. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- yea i agree that the source ur reffering too might not be the best, problem is that its one of the few that talks about the families in that territory, i got the names and dates from a written source at my local library but i didnt know if i could use it as reference as i cant find it on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaicol (talk • contribs) 06:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- You can and should cite that written source from your library. See WP:SOURCES for more information. While you are on that page, it would be useful to you to read the whole page to learn about expectations of verifiability on Wikipedia.
- yea i agree that the source ur reffering too might not be the best, problem is that its one of the few that talks about the families in that territory, i got the names and dates from a written source at my local library but i didnt know if i could use it as reference as i cant find it on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaicol (talk • contribs) 06:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned by the quality of the prose, which could be misinterpreted by copy-editors, though I see it's been recently improved. Must admit I didn't check the refs too closely because the one I tried to check didn't load in my browser. The article does seem to be stable though. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- The quantity of citations looks okay, although the majority are links to one of two lower quality sources: a seemingly self-published book and a side page on a hotel reservation website. Is that what you're concerned about or do you have other concerns about the article? Tdslk (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
(←) I've struck my On hold notice for this request; there's no consensus to decline or proceed. Baffle gab1978 20:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If It Ain't Got That Swing
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If It Ain't Got That Swing and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt/Archive. We should probably decline this. All the best, Miniapolis 01:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Regardless of the AfD outcome, the article appears to be heavily promotional of both the book and its author. On Hold until the AfD is closed. Miniapolis, I wasn't aware that Cirt was in poor standing before his departure from WP. We also have a request from Sagecandor for Damn Senators that I've placed on hold; having checked the SPI I see Cirt is under a topic ban from political biographies,
so we should probably decline that too. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)- On second thoughts and after checking the article, Damn Senators isn't political commentary but is about a baseball team, so I'm prepared to assume good faith there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, the chronology is tricky. I was sorry to see Sagecandor CU-connected to Cirt, because Cirt has done good work here. "Damn Senators" is a play on Damn Yankees, a stage play about the New York Yankees (I'm a New York Mets fan, who—like most Mets fans—despises the Yankees :-)). And "damn Yankees" was originally an epithet used by US Southerners. All the best, Miniapolis 12:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info; most sport-based subjects, and humo(u)r surrounding them, go right over the head of this non-US person. I'm disappointed with Cirt's socking too, oh well... :( Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, the chronology is tricky. I was sorry to see Sagecandor CU-connected to Cirt, because Cirt has done good work here. "Damn Senators" is a play on Damn Yankees, a stage play about the New York Yankees (I'm a New York Mets fan, who—like most Mets fans—despises the Yankees :-)). And "damn Yankees" was originally an epithet used by US Southerners. All the best, Miniapolis 12:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- On second thoughts and after checking the article, Damn Senators isn't political commentary but is about a baseball team, so I'm prepared to assume good faith there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I support automatically declining requests from blocked users. We have enough work to do just keeping up with the requests from editors in good standing. Tdslk (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree in the case of requests made by blocked sock accounts and if the request is part of a pattern of disruptive behaviour; but I think we shouldn't automatically decline in the case of short blocks and if there are no other problems with the article. A case-by-case approach works best I think; that's why we discuss declines here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. I was thinking of indefinitely blocked users, such as Sagecandor/Cirt, when I said the above; requests from short-term blocked users where the requested article wasn't part of the problem would be fine by me. Tdslk (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that we should decline the Swing book because it appears to violate Cirt's block on editing politics-related topics, but accept the Damn Senators book, because it has nothing to do with politics. This is not a hill I'm willing to die on, though; any direction we go on this particular question is fine with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. I was thinking of indefinitely blocked users, such as Sagecandor/Cirt, when I said the above; requests from short-term blocked users where the requested article wasn't part of the problem would be fine by me. Tdslk (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should also consider declining Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk and God and Man at Georgetown Prep; although they were nominated by Another Believer after Sagecandor began GANs for them (which were reverted upon Sagecandor's sockpuppet block), they were nevertheless created in violation of Cirt's ban. If we're declining the Swing book, I think these two should also be declined, especially since the point of the request, the GAN, no longer applies. (On another note entirely, I don't really think we should be editing Senators since it was solely created because it was a book by Judge, and the article would never have been written if Judge hadn't been a figure in the Kavanaugh investigation, as is frankly true of all the articles about Judge's books. Both Swing and Senators were requested here right after having been nominated to be GAs; those GANs have also been reverted.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't mind if my requests are removed. I was just nominating them for review because they were going to be considered for Good status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to decline both of these too, not because of the nominator, but because the author of the articles created them in violation of that author's topic ban (IMO). (p.s. I really try to stay away from WP drama, and it's always a shame when it leaks over into what I think of as "our" project. I know I don't own any of this stuff, but this sort of thing still bothers me.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Decline all but Senators; socking to skirt a topic ban is unacceptable. I'm happy to take that one after I've finished my current c/e, if no-one else wants it. I'll place the others on hold for now. @Another Believer:, feel free to replace those two requests with other articles if you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think articles getting reviewed by GOCE is ever a bad thing, so I'll leave nominations, but welcome GOCE members to remove them if they prefer. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that Damn Senators was written by Mark Judge, which makes the article a violation of Cirt's TB IMO. I've worked with them in the past and am disappointed that they would try to game the system like this, but anyone who's been around here long enough knows that WP ain't RL. Miniapolis 23:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think articles getting reviewed by GOCE is ever a bad thing, so I'll leave nominations, but welcome GOCE members to remove them if they prefer. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Decline all but Senators; socking to skirt a topic ban is unacceptable. I'm happy to take that one after I've finished my current c/e, if no-one else wants it. I'll place the others on hold for now. @Another Believer:, feel free to replace those two requests with other articles if you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to decline both of these too, not because of the nominator, but because the author of the articles created them in violation of that author's topic ban (IMO). (p.s. I really try to stay away from WP drama, and it's always a shame when it leaks over into what I think of as "our" project. I know I don't own any of this stuff, but this sort of thing still bothers me.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't mind if my requests are removed. I was just nominating them for review because they were going to be considered for Good status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
(←) Result: all four requests have been declined. Baffle gab1978 20:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Kamal Hossain copyedit
I usually don't watchlist articles I'm copyediting, but am glad I accidentally watched this one because it's still being substantially expanded. Suggest we decline as unstable; in any case, I'm done with it. All the best, Miniapolis 14:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree it's unstable and should be declined. I'll put it on hold if it isn't already. It had been stable since late September but your c/e seems to have triggered a "new" editor to show up at the article and make radical changes. contribs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 18:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Weird. If that's a sock, I'd rather leave that drama for someone else. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto; I've opened an SPI request here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- SPI closed; the requester and "new" account have been sock-blocked -- see SPI page. I'll decline the request tomorrow, unless someone hoicks it first. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Declined. Baffle gab1978 02:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- SPI closed; the requester and "new" account have been sock-blocked -- see SPI page. I'll decline the request tomorrow, unless someone hoicks it first. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto; I've opened an SPI request here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Weird. If that's a sock, I'd rather leave that drama for someone else. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Eurohunter requests
Eurohunter has just made four requests. According to the rules only two outstanding nominations are allowed at once. Catrìona (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Catrìona: I didn't knew but I see now there is rule for it. These articles are from one group and I can say they are finished already so I would like to keep them here. I don't expect I will have new article request any soon. Eurohunter (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Eurohunter: To be fair and to keep wait times down we really shouldn't make exceptions, though I can see the articles are related and it might be efficient for a single copy editor to work on them in sequence. The articles are Basshunter (a DJ, not a fisherman), Basshunter discography, Basshunter videography, and List of songs recorded by Basshunter. The first is intended for GAN and the others for FL. I would suggest removing the last two from the Requests page as the first two seem like they would be the more popular pages. As each is completed, you may add another. I suppose you could leave a note on one of the requests that you have others in the series intended for copy edit, to inform the copy editor, but it wouldn't be considered a holding area or waiting list for them. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Reidgreg: You are right. Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Eurohunter: To be fair and to keep wait times down we really shouldn't make exceptions, though I can see the articles are related and it might be efficient for a single copy editor to work on them in sequence. The articles are Basshunter (a DJ, not a fisherman), Basshunter discography, Basshunter videography, and List of songs recorded by Basshunter. The first is intended for GAN and the others for FL. I would suggest removing the last two from the Requests page as the first two seem like they would be the more popular pages. As each is completed, you may add another. I suppose you could leave a note on one of the requests that you have others in the series intended for copy edit, to inform the copy editor, but it wouldn't be considered a holding area or waiting list for them. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Bowling alley
Bowling alley While this article does need some copy editing, the main problem with the article seems to be that it needs to be expanded. There are no "globalization fixes" to be made other than to expand the article to include information for bowling alleys outside the US and for non ten-pin bowling alleys. Much of this information already exists on Wikipedia, with sources. Should I copy edit the article as is or should the copy edit be put off until the expansion has been done? PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- IMO, we need to take requesters at their word. However, it's a good idea in cases like this to check the article history; if someone decides to expand the article midstream (so to speak), the copyedit request should be declined until the article stabilizes. All the best, Miniapolis 22:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okee doke. Will plug along. Thank you! PopularOutcasttalk2me! 22:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also placed Lagrange-class submarine on hold (request here) because it is still under development; last edit as of my timestamp was 17:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC). Pinging requester @L293D: for comment; please tell us when the article is stable. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 03:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've struck the on hold note; the article appears to be stable now; last major content edit as of my timestamp is 18:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC). Baffle gab1978 19:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Withdraw request
@Reidgreg: Apologies for pinging you, but I have a question about the Request process. I would like to withdraw my request for Last Night (2010 film). I was intending to bring the article through the GAN and FAC processes, but I have decided against it for personal reasons. I greatly appreciate Clikity's help so far, but I believe they are too busy to continue their review and I do not want to take any time or energy away from other items on the list. Would be it be possible to withdraw this? Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- (by talk page watcher)Withdrawn and archived. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 14:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Aoba47: Not a problem. The copy editor hasn't edited since Nov 13, which from their post on the Requests page indicates they can't continue. I've left a note on their talk page just in case. You or another editor can request a new copy edit of the article at some time in the future, without prejudice. Thanks for withdrawing the Request instead of leaving it open. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all; the article Dennis Morris (photographer) (request here) consists mostly of a laundry list of exhibitions and publications; I'm not sure there's much we can do with it in its current form. Considering Guild copy-editors aren't expected to develop article content, I'm placing the request on hold for discussion here. Pinging the requester @Drmies: for comment. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
(←) It's been a while and this request is now at the top of the page; pinging fellow coordinators @Reidgreg:, @Tdslk:, @Miniapolis: and @Jonesey95: for comment. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- That wasn't much of a response, but Drmies may be unfamiliar with how WP:GOCE/REQ works and under the impression that we're the cleanup-in-aisle-5 squad :-). Since he hasn't contributed substantially to the article, I suggest we decline and archive. All the best, Miniapolis 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not a copy-editing candidate yet; requires prose-ification. Recommend declining, without prejudice to resubmission when the article has been fleshed out. (And just a note to say that I am impressed with the formatting and referencing, which are head and shoulders above the level that biography articles at this level of development usually show.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Tdslk (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks all for your comments; request declined without prejudice. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Tdslk (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not a copy-editing candidate yet; requires prose-ification. Recommend declining, without prejudice to resubmission when the article has been fleshed out. (And just a note to say that I am impressed with the formatting and referencing, which are head and shoulders above the level that biography articles at this level of development usually show.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I've placed this request on hold; it is still under development by the requester —last edit, as of my timestamp, is 19:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since Nightclubbing has said that they'll advise when they're done editing and we encourage editors to continue while they're waiting, maybe we should give them a bit more time (but no more than that). Editors should be discouraged from parking an under-construction article on WP:GOCE/REQ just to advance in the queue :-). All the best, Miniapolis 18:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- A fair point; I've now struck my notice. Thanks for your feedback, and cheers, Baffle gab1978 23:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
As noted by Miniapolis, this article is too unstable to copy-edit. Specifically, it has had 200 edits in the past 15 days. I recommend declining, without prejudice to resubmission when it settles down. Pinging requester Power~enwiki to let them know about this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree the request should be declined; lots of significant editing has occurred in the past few days. The requester is welcome to re-request when it's stable. I'll put it on hold for now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 06:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- 30 edits as of my timestamp today. I agree with this should be declined. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK, the news updates will likely die down by mid-January, I'll re-request later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Declined; feel free to re-submit when the article is stable. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 06:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK, the news updates will likely die down by mid-January, I'll re-request later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- 30 edits as of my timestamp today. I agree with this should be declined. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I've put this request on hold; its suitability for c/e has been questioned by one editor and I think we need to discuss it. Taking a quick look (must say I had my doubts when it was requested) it's partially unreferenced and full of waffle, so I tend to agree. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 06:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I just finished going through the article revision by revision to see how it wound up where it did and if there was a suitable place to rewind to. I didn’t find one. What we are left with is a great deal of unsourced content that looks like it may have at one point been translated from a foreign-language source. The few sources that there are aren’t all that usable. I’m of a mind to hit the local university library for some business journals and textbooks to start this over from scratch if I can find the time over the holidays. It’s a good topic that deserves better treatment than this. CThomas3 (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, and there's no sense copyediting it now. All the best, Miniapolis 16:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, and there's no sense copyediting it now. All the best, Miniapolis 16:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(←) Note for archive; this request was declined. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 11:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I need some help with the George Camocke article. The original article (and the source) had dates expressed like 1714–1715. I initially thought that there was a question as to what year the event actually happened so I expanded those to 1714 or 1715. Then I came to the last part of the article. The source had letters dated from 1718 and so it would seem to me that Camocke was captured (and escaped) in 1719, but again the date is written as 1718–19. So then I thought maybe the custom was to write that at the turn or beginning of the year. That does not seem to be the case.
There was no forward in the source that might explain it. I suspect this a known way of describing years that I do not know about. I have not spent much time ready old-timey things. :D Can anyone shed some light? Thanks! PopularOutcasttalk2me! 03:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you have access to the revised ODNB, you might see if that source is written differently, or if there is an explanation of the ranges: https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/4460. To me, the ranges read as "or", as if the writer had narrowed down the date to one or two years based on a date like "12 March" written at the top of a letter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Thanks @PopularOutcast:, it's possible the exact dates are uncertain because of the change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, which the UK adopted in 1752. I would defer to the original style and not worry too much; life's too short and improving the general flow, grammar, spellings, etc. is enough. Idiomatic phrasings like, "praying that he did not have to work elsewhere for his bread." indicate It's possible some of the text has been machine-translated from a language other than English. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 11:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Jonesey95 and Baffle gab1978. I do not have access to the newest ODNB so I cannot check there. Baffle, if only we could say that was a machine. Nope, that was a human trying to paraphrase already awkward old English from the Dictionary of National Biography. I continue forth ... PopularOutcasttalk2me! 18:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I've placed this request on hold; the article is still under development; I've removed some BLP and irrelevant text based on a listing in the local property rag. Discuss on REQ talk. Baffle gab1978 08:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- As a stub, I see no reason to copyedit this at this time. All the best, Miniapolis 16:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I gave it a quick once-over after Baffle's work. The prose that remains is fine. I think we can mark it as done or decline this one; either is fine with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'll archive it as Done, though I'm not sure the redactions are what the requester wanted! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I gave it a quick once-over after Baffle's work. The prose that remains is fine. I think we can mark it as done or decline this one; either is fine with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(←) The requester KYschools1 (talk) was blocked as a sockpuppet account of LovelyGirl7 (talk), which in turn is a sock of banned user Jeffman12345 (talk). I should have known; the signs of general cluelessness, copyright and BLP violations are obvious in retrospect. Baffle gab1978 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)