Talk:The Brooksbank School

Copyedit banner 14 December 2020
This article reads like a school promo brochure. I have added a copyedit banner. The same banner was removed on 15 November 2018 after what purported to be a copyedit. Perhaps someone at WP:CLEANUP or the Guild of Copy Editors can pick up this one. Acabashi (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Clean up following a subsequent 'copyedit'. Edit summary as "Still not good enough / Removed the worst of unreferenced hyperbolic blather and vague brochure waffle / The more neutral text left, although still OR, needs citations to independent sources (tagged for 2 years), to remain in the article... so the banners remain / De-overlink".Acabashi (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I think your frustration is due to a misunderstanding - copyediting is correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, layout, and similar minor issues. That's what I - and presumably the previous copy editor - did. If an article "reads like a school promo brochure", that's a different problem; a copy editor may fix it along the way, if they want to, but they also may not. If an article needs rewriting rather than copy editing, I use the template and specify the problems I saw in the "reasons" section. Hope that clears things up a bit. I see you've removed most of the promotional stuff from the article.  Wikignome Wintergreen talk 19:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Misunderstanding? Only partial if that I'm afraid. The Guild recommends recasting for "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" as per the copyedit banner. I think examples left here such as the unreferenced spammy "described as a promising and prosperous", "final accolade was bestowed upon him", "generously providing", "impressive new school", "school’s reputation for academic achievement was growing", "embraced the idea of comprehensive education", "shed its grammar school identity", "embraced the ethos of equal educational opportunities", "a new name was needed to reflect... ", certainly fall short for at least style and tone. In these respects I admit this article, and others, do overlap with the need for clean-up, and there needs to be a discussion on this confused overlap between the two projects. I was drawn into far more than minimal copy-editing in Guild drives: adding text, refs and ref styles, and recasting text to reflect refs offered... often with further research. This highlights why I stopped being involved with Guild drives... too often drive editors did the least possible and left articles woefully lacking, but still getting a nice tick and very nice barnstars.... I think the term is "polishing s..t" :) Best. Acabashi (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that it would be preferable for folks to go "above and beyond," and I often do more than basic copy editing if I find an article interesting or its condition particularly egregious, but I don't always have that time or level of commitment. It sounds like you and the Guild had a parting of philosophies, which is a shame, and unfortunately - since the person who copy edited this article previously (to your dissatisfaction) is now a guild coordinator - I don't think things will be changing on that front. FWIW I wasn't editing as part of any drive or for ticks/barnstars; I'm just working to keep the backlog down as best I can. Wikignome Wintergreen talk 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. No personal aspersions meant... just a general observation on what I believe to be a Guild problem. Acabashi (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)