Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/Archive2023

How exactly do they work?
Hello! I've read through the Instructions, however I"m still confused as to how the copyediting drives work. I could just be dumb but it seems rather complex for something that feels like it should be rather simple. I'd love to participate but I don't want to do things incorrectly and possibly either make things more stressful or do something completely incorrectly. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Blaze Wolf: What are you finding confusing? Everything on the backlog and the requests are available, and you're reporting which articles you've edited on the drive page. If you're concerned about copy editing skills, you can go over to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to and check some of the links. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To give you a purely mechanical sequence of steps:
 * You first sign up at the page for the current drive.
 * Then as it's recommended that newer editors pick an article to copy edit from the "backlog" rather than "requests", you should find an article from the drop-down menu in the upper-right-hand corner of the current drive page. Another way of accessing articles needing copy editing is here. Remember that the oldest months (currently March to May 2022) yield a 50% word count bonus during drives.
 * To get a word count of the article, install and use the Prosesize script on the article version before you start editing. Alternatively, copy and paste article text into a word processor that will give you the word count. It's important to have an alternate way of counting, as Prosesize will not count such text as bulleted lists or text in tables.
 * Enter the word count in your entry at the signup page, either while you're still working, or after you've completed the copy edit. If you've done enough work to warrant it, enter your totals on the leaderboard near the top of the current drive page.
 * I hope that helps clear things up. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Request For Someone To Check My Work
Hello! I recently copyedited the article Sweet and Lowdown. This is my first copyedit on Wikipedia (and first major edit), so I'd really appreciate it if someone could look over my work to make sure I didn't trip over myself and make things approximately 1000% times worse. The article has several issues that are beyond the scope of a copyedit, and I'm not experienced enough to tackle them just yet. I did make a note of them so that someone else (or myself) could fix them later. Thanks in advance! CrowEater (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that you made many improvements. Thank you for your efforts. You might think about leaving more visible notes by using the "reason" parameter of Clarify, rather than hidden comments that editors are unlikely to see. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Thanks. CrowEater (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer review for work on History of the USVI request
Hi y'all, I have been copyediting the page History of the United States Virgin Islands. Would anyone care to check if I can call my work completed? Thank you. Zorblin (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks and all the best,  Mini  apolis  22:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What counts, and what doesn’t?
I’ve been working on a large article made up primarily of tables for the last week or so. How should I count it, or does it not count since I started before the drive? Thanks! ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 06:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything begun before the drive starts (tonight at midnight UTC) doesn't count towards your drive totals; virtue is its own reward . Have fun and all the best,  Mini  apolis  13:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have on rare occasion counted the number of edits performed within a drive or blitz, divided by the total number of edits, including those outside the time frame, and multiplied by the word count. That's not official policy, though. Regarding List of United States tornadoes in 1946, which I think is the article you're referring to, the "page size" script gives a word count of only 76 for that article, where I get approximately 9000 8000 from my LibrOffice word processor's word count function. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC))
 * I think I’m going to count the text of the tables I haven’t touched yet, which gives a word count of 1757.

Edit: I hit publish too soon! I’ve been treating each table as a mini article, so it seems sensible to count them that way. ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I copy-paste tables and lists (anything the word-counting script doesn't pick up) into a word processor for their word count and add it to the article's word count for the total. All the best,  Mini  apolis  14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for an online word counter, WordCounter.net is a nice free alternative. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Requests award
I propose adding an award for most backlog requests completed in future drives to put it on parity with the old requests backlog. In my view, emptying the requests backlog seems to be more important than the old articles backlog because the articles listed at the requests page have a higher chance of being improved further, since most requests precede GAN or FAC reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical of anything that might push new and less-experienced editors toward copy-editing Requests, especially if the incentive is to copy-edit them quickly. Requests require time and care and should not be motivated by awards or barnstars. Requests already receive a 50% bonus in word count; that is probably enough. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jonesey. All the best,  Mini  apolis  22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting it as an additional incentive, but as recognition for those who choose to use their time during the drives to review requests. In any event, doesn't the 50% bonus already create the problem of incentivizing new and less-experienced editors to try their hand at requests during a drive? On that point, the current instructions on the requests page don't make it clear that a less-experienced editor shouldn't try to copy edit an article where the requestor has, for example, stated that they want a copy edit to prepare for FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The instructions for copy editors at WP:GOCER do say Articles that are potential Featured Article candidates should only be handled by experienced editors. We could, perhaps, provide more extensive guidance, but I suspect that experienced copy editors don't need the advice and newbies are unlikely to find it. So it goes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that newbies are unlikely to find it; maybe some sort of caution should be put higher up on the page in an area that isn't collapsed by default? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They're already on parity, at least in terms of calculating barnstars, as both oldest requests and backlog articles get a 50% bonus (during drives only, not blitzes, which are relatively unrewarding barnstar-wise). Both are important, and both are difficult. The requests are already likely to have a high polish but also come under the gaze of a more demanding clientele (whose scathing verdict on those found wanting can be quite disincentivizing), and there are other venues to improve them, such as peer reviews, or the subject-matter editors just stepping back for awhile and later rereading them critically. Backlog articles (calling them "requests" too, as you've done, can be confusing) are more likely to be unintelligible and extraordinarily difficult to untangle, where improvement might reach fewer readers but make more of a difference to an article's usefulness. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)