User talk:Vr parashar

Welcome!
Greetings! :) Please start a new section :) Have a nice day :)

Copy edit of Anesthesiologist
I've reviewed your copy edits on Anesthesiologist of 21 July 2017. You got rid of some redundant language and did some good cleanup of the lists. However, I'm afraid you added some minor style mistakes to the article. I shouldn't say that it's wrong, but it lacks consistency with other Wikipedia articles. Every publishing house has its own house style, and you may be used to a different style than is practiced here.

I would recommend that at some point you take a look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style and the GOCE copy editing instructions. However, there's no reason not to keep working on the article.

Some specific notes on your copyedit:
 * Excessive capitalization – There should not be capitalization for emphasis. In particular with professional titles not attached to a person's name (see MOS:JOBTITLE).  There are a lot of other generic terms (eg: Intensive Care Units, Referral Hospitals, Transplants, Multiple Choice, etc.) which should not have been capitalized. Sentence case should be used in the infobox, so instead of "Medicine, Science" it should be "Medicine, science".
 * Acronyms – should be given in expanded form on first use in the lead and body (see MOS:ACRO for use and acceptable formats).
 * Excessive bold – Wikipedia does not use bold for emphasis (see MOS:BOLD). The only bold text in an article should be when stating the subject of the article for the first time in the lead.  Bold is sometimes used for list items in a glossary article, but that's a specialized case.  Another possible exception are row and column headings in a table.  Other than those instances, bold text should be avoided.
 * Italic text is used for emphasis, foreign words not common in non-specialized English, titles of major works of art, and when referring to words themselves – but should not be overused (see MOS:ITALIC). Where you have the term anesthesiologist refers that's good, because you're referring to the word itself (see Manual of Style).  But later on, Anaesthetists are physicians is no longer necessary to be italic.  The italics in the Germany section are good (MOS:FOREIGNITALIC).
 * Section headers should use sentence case and be kept short. It is generally not necessary to repeat the subject of the article in the section header. (This can be assumed.)
 * The bulk of the article is in the section Training in different countries. I think to better reflect the content of that section, it might be changed to something like Practices and training by country, or perhaps Regulation and qualifications by country.  The "by country" part keeps it shorter than "in different countries"
 * Watch for stray spaces at punctuation, references, and inline templates.
 * Generally speaking, Wikipedia prefers prose to lists. It would be good if a lot of the lists could be converted to prose (i.e. written-out in paragraphs).
 * Watch for trivia: Sometimes editors will put trivial information in lists. Consider whether the information is important or relevant to the article.  The article is about a profession; detailed instructions on how to qualify for the profession in a specific country may be excessive. (Consider how long the article would be if there were such detailed instructions for 150+ countries.)

Sorry, this is mostly nit-picky style stuff. I hope it helps you move in the right direction. I'll try to be available to look at your prose when you've done a little more work on the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am delighted to see that you had spared a lot of time to review my work. I am really grateful to you sir, and look forward to further guidance as I progress. Thank you for providing relevant links and making out the mistakes. :) I will keep in mind all the notes and others as I find them while copy-editing. Thank you again so much:) I will also see your copy-edits and try to learn an accepted style and how to proceed with copy-editing. :) Red Pen (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Before getting back into it, I'd like to talk about some general philosophy for formatting. When a person learns about something new, they naturally want to try out these new tools of knowledge and experiment. The markup tools in the Wikimedia software let you do a lot of neat things, and templates take it even further. However, too much markup on a page can make it difficult to read. Making too many things stand out, drawing the reader's attention, can be distracting and have the effect that nothing stands out. Too much linking actually makes it less likely for a reader to follow any links (see WP:OVERLINKING). So excessive bold, capitals, italics and linking can make an article less readable and useful, which is contrary to the goal of making an encyclopedia for everyone. Use bold and italics, but use them sparingly. Capitalize where appropriate, which lets acronyms and proper names stand out. Link appropriate items relevant to the subject, which the reader is likely to follow.

Okay, lecture mode off. Let's focus on the first sentence: An Anesthesiologist (American English) or Anaesthetist (British English) is a Physician trained in Anesthesia and Perioperative medicine.
 * Bold text (for a full treatment, see Manual of Style/Text formatting)
 * The subject of the article Anesthesiologist should be in bold text on first occurrence in the lead. (MOS:BOLDTITLE)
 * Anaesthetist is a major alternative name for the article's subject, as well as a redirect to the article, and should also be in bold text on first occurrence in the lead. (MOS:BOLDSYN)
 * Some capitalization issues (for a full treatment, see Manual of Style/Capital letters).
 * Sorry if I was using terms you didn't know. In general:
 * Letter case is when you capitalize every letter, essentially using ALL CAPS. This is one of the valid styles for acronyms.  Otherwise, it is to be avoided.
 * Word case (or title case) is when you capitalize the first letter of every word (except for come less-important words, like the and of&thinsp;). This is often used on Wikipedia for titles of works of art and for proper names.
 * Sentence case is when you capitalize the first letter of a sentence (or sentence fragment). This is used on Wikipedia for article titles, section headers, and captions.
 * With sentence case, any proper names or acronyms in that sentence can also have capital letters, as appropriate.
 * So, back to that first sentence, the only proper names are American English and British English. (You can be doubly sure of that because these take their names from other proper names.)  All the other nouns in the first sentence are generic and should be lower-case.
 * Italics (general information in the main MOS, full treatment at Manual of Style/Text formatting)
 * Italic can be used for:
 * foreign words and phrases not common in everyday non-specialized English ✔️
 * titles of works of art, which in this article might be the title of a medical journal (periodical)
 * words-as-words
 * emphasis (used sparingly)
 * It is not necessary to put proper names in italics. The guideline about foreign words being in italics does not apply to proper names.  The only reason left for italics would be for emphasis, though I generally feel that the title case capitalization which proper names receive should allow them to stand out sufficiently.

A little further on, with several (CRNAs) or anesthesiology assistants
 * Acronyms
 * Acronyms should be expanded on first occurrence in the lead and body. The article shouldn't make the reader guess what the acronym means, or require them to follow a link.  Mousing-over the link might be sufficient for a common acronym, but I don't think a general readership will know this one.
 * In this instance, you could write: with several certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) or anesthesiology assistants".  I was doubtful of the capitalization and followed the link, which is a redirect, and which led to show it in lower-case (generic).  (It is not necessary to capitalize for the sake of explaining an acronym.)
 * A little further on is MD which I think most people would know from context as medical doctor / Doctorate of Medicine, but DO should be expanded and for consistency of formatting probably best to expand them both. If that becomes too "clunky" the sentence may have to be rephrased.

Down in the body of the article, there's a mix of hyphens and dashes
 * Dashes (see MOS:DASH)
 * This is pretty nit-picky but it's important for consistency, clarity and conciseness (my copy editing trinity). To show you what they look like, here is the hyphen - en dash – and em dash &mdash;.  There should be a way to enter them from your keyboard or the edit window, or you can use the markup &amp;ndash; and &amp;mdash;.  (They get their names because they were originally the width of the letters n and m.)
 * In short, hyphens are used to bring things together (conjunction) and dashes are used to separate them (disjunction).
 * Hyphens are usually used for compound modifiers such as ANZCA-approved training or three-year specialization, which increases readability.
 * Dashes are generally used to mark divisions in a sentence. Minor divisions between clauses use a comma; independent clauses can have a semicolon – stronger breaks may be marked with a dash.  However, there shouldn't be more than two dashes in a sentence, and copy editors should be careful about clarity and consider breaking a complex sentence into two simpler sentences or otherwise rephrasing it.
 * You can use spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, but should use one style consistently through an article.
 * en dashes are also used for numeric ranges, date ranges, separating list items, and certain compounds (see: MOS:DASH).

I see you've changed the lists into prose and wanted to look at that, but my attention is drifting. Will try to get a look at your prose after I'm rested. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Again thanks for extensive reviewing and showing interest in guiding a new wikipedian :) yes I basically converted it to prose and I think in the next step will go through MOS first and then do some refined edits to make it more clear. anyways Thank you for your valuable time and yes please do review the article as I again edit it hehe :D :) Thanks for helping sir. Good day. :) Red Pen (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at prose:
 * In this phrase – Anesthesiologists often provide more intensive care techniques – can you spot the ambiguity?
 * It's the last four words, "more intensive care techniques". This is why compound modifiers are usually hyphenated to make their relationship and meaning more clear.  This could be either:
 * more intensive-care techniques – which means additional intensive care techniques, or
 * more-intensive care techniques – which means care techniques which are more intense or more concentrated/vigorous
 * From the previous versions and context, I believe the first meaning was intended. But rather than "more intensive-care techniques", I feel that "additional intensive-care techniques" might be clearer.
 * Look for other compound modifiers and see if there are similar issues.
 * In [other areas of the] United States, anesthesiologists work in what is deemed – with this phrasing, you removed the part in square [brackets], which changes the meaning. Mind you, it wasn't very clear to begin with, since earlier text never specified any part of the U.S. to distinguish these "other areas".  I feel this could maybe be "In some areas of the United States" and so on.
 * At the beginning of Patient-informed consent, you moved some clauses around which changed the meaning.
 * Patient-Informed Consent is a medical principle stating that patients should be fully informed about the manner in which anesthesia will be administered to them. That makes it sound like patient-informed consent is only about anesthesia and not a broader standard in medicine.
 * On the other hand, looking at the earlier version (found under the "view history" tab of the article), I think you're right that it needs a better introduction of the principle before going into how specific national associations treat it.
 * I would recommend going back to the original version for the first sentence (you can find it under the "view history" tab on the article). The one that defines it as a "fundamental ethical and legal principle".  Then a second sentence could talk about how it applies to anesthesia, with the patient being fully informed, etc.
 * You might also link to informed consent or doctor–patient relationship, if the reader wants more information.
 * Under "Selection and training" (which sounds a little awkward) it says "Selection and training process is similar in various countries." If the process is similar, then it should be possible to generalize it.  You've read the article a few times by now, so you should be able to judge.  Consider writing a generalization which will allow the article to avoid repeating information later on.
 * The fourth paragraph of the lead is all about the U.S. and I don't believe it belongs there. The lead is meant to summarize the entire article.  I feel this paragraph should be moved down to the U.S. section and incorporated there.
 * In order to better summarize the article, you might write a new lead paragraph to replace the above. Again, you could try writing a paragraph to generalize the training or qualifications usually required by countries, or something else you feel has large coverage in the body but not in the lead.
 * In the section on Australia and New Zealand, I think the two-year PMET is before the five-year ANZCA approved-training, so it's a total of 7 years. The PMET seems to be general medical education and more of a qualifier to anesthesiology training, so I understand if you didn't want to include it.
 * In the lead, where you have a the before United States, that's a good sign you should also have a the before UK.
 * Spacing – there are a couple places where the article has a space before a comma, and I spotted one place that needs a space before opening parenthesis.

You're pretty brave to take on copy editing so soon! I was hanging around doing general cleanup for about six months before I started copy editing. When I came across statistics that the pages I was contributing to the most were getting 900k page views per month, I decided to work on improving my writing and joined the GOCE to learn and practice. I received a lot of help then, and I try to pay it forward a bit with other new editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, This is a very nice guide for a new editor and the fact that it is related specifically to my editing only and the review is also particularly about my editing only, it is really helpful. :)  yes, for me copy-editing was always interesting and the way you unfold the points that we keep in mind while copy-editing makes it all the more interesting! :)


 * So, well, I think I got too much into reducing the word count haha.. :D ok I will see the earlier versions and see what the writer actually wanted to convey. All that you have pointed is good and helpful but one thing I will like to point sir, In Australia and New Zealand section, PMET does not come before ANZCA training, it a part of it - two years of PMET and then three years of advanced training make up the total five years of ANZCA training (As it was written in it before I started editing). I am sad you could not make it out from that text. I will try to first understand what writer originally wanted to convey and will try to make it clearer while preserving the meaning of sentences(rephrasing). Thanks for your extensive guide and valuable time again sir, I am really happy to get personalised suggestions on my editing which will surely help me throughout my copy-editing in future also. Thank you. :) Red Pen (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will further edit the article after reading MoS and GOCE guidelines. so it will take a little bit of time sir, like 3-4 days. :) Red Pen (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to rush, but don't feel that you have to learn everything. Very few editors know the whole MOS, though it's good to be familiar with the main pages.  You'll learn a lot through practise, and (knock on wood) I should be able to check your work this time.  Sorry about the PMET–ANZCA thing, I was too lazy to check the other articles and/or sources to confirm. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!
 Here is a cookie, for your diligent efforts to learn and improve articles! Enjoy this and let it give you energy moving forward.
 * – Reidgreg (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't complete the copyedit for the drive, but please do continue to work on it and come back for the next blitz or drive. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for so much delay in responding sir. And Thank you for this delicious cookie!! :D :D ...actually sir I was reading it throughout and have almost covered main points so I will soon edit that page again. Thanks for your valuable support again. Red Pen (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

You have been pruned from the WikiProject India/Members list.
Hi Vr_parashar! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject India/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject India/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)