Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2019

Style question
I'm currently copy editing an article that mentions "20th century". Should century be capitalized? I see no mentions of this in Wikipedia's manual of style. --Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope! (See MOS:CENTURY.) Tdslk (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Asghar Vesali
Hey! I just finished my first copy edit. I copy edited the article Asghar Vesali. Could someone check it to see if everything is alright? Thanks, MrClog (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the Guild and thank you or participating in the current drive. I've checked your copy-edit; you've done a good job and made the article clearer and easier to read; and thanks for removing the minor copyright violation too. Two minor points I'd pick out (all from the last paragraph of 'Biography') are:


 * I would have left the date of Ashura day in the article;
 * "and died after surgery" --> "and died after he had a surgery"; surgery in the sense of "a surgical operation" generally isn't preceded with "a" because "surgery" in this sense is an uncountable noun.

These are minor points so don't be put off copy-editing; there's a lot to take in! If you aren't already familiar with the Manual of Style, it might be worth a look because Wikipedia has some customs and conventions that aren't obvious to new editors. Thanks for your work and I hope you'll be encouraged to continue copy-editing. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  22:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! I have fixed the two points. Regards, MrClog (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles that are done/close to done but still have the template
Let me preface my question with two examples I've encountered.

1. Yesterday I was looking at Differentiable curve, which had a copy edit template with the specific reason of using too many first person pronouns. I reviewed the history/past changes of the article and saw that many first person pronouns have since been replaced. I also did a Ctrl+F for "we" and "I" and found nothing. Subsequently, I deleted the template without making any further edits. My logic is that since the original issue of first person pronouns was already fixed by other users, I should not claim any credit for work I did not do. I did not do anything besides deleting the template.

2. A few minutes ago, I was looking at the edit history for Croatia and the World Bank, which has a copy edit template from January 2019. It seems there has been extensive copy editing from one user and additional editing from multiple other users. As I did not closely read the article yet, the article may or may not require further copy editing.

This brings me to my question, what is the policy for articles that still have the copy edit template, but only require minimal/no copy editing because others have already done most/all of the work? Should I simply delete the template (and make minor edits where necessary)? I personally do not want to claim any credit for work I did not do. Thanks. --Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Differentiable curve article is one that I had briefly looked at when thinking of doing it. Reading more closely now, I see punctuation and capitalization errors in an otherwise well written article. There isn't much to do, but I think it shouldn't be merely marked as, as Backlog_elimination_drives#Dos_and_Don'ts instructs. "Page size" gives "11692 words" for the article, which is excessive. I don't know why math articles throw that script off so badly. I usually estimate such articles in my word count. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, we don't have any hard-and-fast rules about removing c/e templates. General practice is to remove them if a) you've improved the standard of text in the article; b) the article is unsuitable for c/e (i.e., it's unstable, promotional, its subject is not notable, has a deletion template, is incomprehensible, etc. (re-tag as appropriate)); or c) the article's prose doesn't need a copy-edit. Don't worry about taking credit for others' work; there might be multiple reasons they didn't remove the template. I'd make the necessary edits and remove it. Every article is different and you should act on your own judgement but don't overthink it too much; we're not saving the world here. Bottom line: if you've done your best to improve the article's prose you can remove the template. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  07:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that you should thoroughly check the article before removing the copy edit tag, and a thorough check is enough effort to count as a copy edit even if you don't make any changes. It's pretty rare for a tagged article to not have any issues, though. If you look closely enough, you'll probably find something to improve.  Check if there are specific MOS: pages for the subject of the article – like Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Manual of Style/Mathematics – and you may learn of issues specific to that subject.  I notice that the article uses a mix of   and  markup, which generate formulas in different ways and may produce inconsistent results; I typically try to put these into a single format, but it can be a lot of work.  Oh, but that's math cleanup, we don't count the formulas in the wordcount so don't feel obliged to address that as part of a copy edit. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, , and . Thanks for the responses. I just wanted to clarify that the Differentiable curve article originally had a specific kind of copy edit template. Pulling it from revision history, it reads, "This article may require copy editing for excessive use of first-person pronouns (MOS:WE)." I had taken this template at face value, and like I said I reviewed the history/past changes of the article and saw that many first person pronouns have since been replaced and did a Ctrl+F for "we" and "I", finding nothing. At the time, I was only looking for errors that the template was referring to. Seeing none, that's why I deleted it. If a copy edit template needs to be added back, let me know. Either way, I will go back and copy edit the article for other errors shortly. Not too experienced with editing articles with a lot of math formulas/syntax, so I probably won't be touching those. Thanks. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just writing to confirm that I've finished the copy editing for Differentiable curve. Feel free to review my edits and make additional ones where necessary. That article had too many math variables and formulas. Per Reidgreg's advice, I did do a thorough check and make some edits. As such, I added it to my list. (Word count was approximated using Microsoft Word and rounded down.) However, I am not considering it an *O article. The template was from Feb. 2019, but the first-person errors were already fixed. I only did regular copy editing. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

2007 ICC World Twenty20 Final
So I have just done my first copyedit while also expanding out on the article which might also need to do some copy editing on itself. HawkAussie (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've addressed some issues in the article and left a detailed note on the editor's talk page. If someone more familiar with cricket jargon would like to go over the article, it'd help. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Can I count newer copy-edit articles I am doing, which are not from Jan/Feb 2019?
I started copy-editing topics from March 2019. Should I count them in this drive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoDingo (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can copy edit any article from any month category and count them in this drive. Just be sure not to label articles that aren't from January/February as *O. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — DiscoDingo (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Me Too movement article
Hello,

In the article Me Too movement only one section is listed as requiring copyedit (Music). On a quick look the rest of the article could certainly benefit from copyediting too. For the purposes of the drive, should I edit only the tagged section (recording the word # for that section) and remove the tag, or plunge into the whole article? It's a big one and will take up a lot of time. Thanks for the advice. Logophile59 (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Logophile59, good question. For the purposes of the drive, only the tagged section needs to be edited and can count towards the word total. Of course, all positive edits help the overall project that is Wikipedia, so kudos to you if you make edits outside of the tagged section. You could even come back to the article in August if you want to concentrate on tagged articles during the drive. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tdslk, will do!

Jesús Ildefonso Díaz
hi, I'd appreciate a check of my edit of Jesús Ildefonso Díaz. There is a tag on the article requesting reformatting of the inline references, and I'm not sure what it refers to. Thanks! Logophile59 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your help, . Don't worry about that tag; although I sometimes reformat a ref or two if I feel like it, major reformatting is beyond the scope of a copyedit. WP:CE is a useful guide to what does (and doesn't) need doing. Have fun and all the best,  Mini  apolis  13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Glad to help. Logophile59 (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Incredible work everyone!
I'm not too familiar with the culture of GOCE yet, so I don't know if this is appropriate, but I just wanted to congratulate everyone! After finishes J.A.K.Q. Dengekitai, we will have finished the entire January/February backlog, which started with over 100 articles! (And there's only one June 2019 Request article left as well!) For me, this is mind-boggling to think about; what an amazing community achievement. On a side note, it's truly satisfying seeing the counter go down almost every day.

I just wanted to thank the GOCE coordinators for organizing the drive (and the guild in general). In particular, I wanted to shout out, who gave me a ton of constructive advice and feedback for three of my copy edits. He went above and beyond to help a newbie. Thanks Reidgreg!

So, what happens next? Will articles from March 2019 be the new *O articles? —Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for pointing that out. It is great to see the collective efforts pay off (progress box).  As  has begun actively copy editing the last February backlog article and added it to the drive list, we'll open up March as an "old" month for the drive.  We don't expect it to be finished, but this will let our script count articles tagged in March for the 50% wordcount bonus.  It's hoped that this will encourage editors to continue copy editing for the last few days of the drive, and to ensure that there is a range in the quality of target articles. All articles from the Requests page also get the 50% bonus. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto; it's great to see the backlog shrinking. Thanks to everyone for their great copy-editing work. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I second the congratulations to all, including -- sterling work!  It's nice to feel you've done your bit to make the world a better and more knowledgeable place. Logophile59 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more! —Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Signing off
I've edited my final backlog article this month and want to say thanks again to the team. I learned a lot and hope to be back in September. Many thanks to, , , and  for coordinating, and to  for taking down an incredible 48 "copyedit" tags. All the best! Logophile59 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mad props to you as well for copy editing 66k words' worth of articles! I'm also looking forward to the September Drive, and might join the August Blitz as well. See you around! —Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both— —for your contributions. Your help, and that of everyone else who participated, is welcomed and greatly appreciated.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I haven't done much work for this drive (it's summer here), but thank you both for your work here; it's most appreciated. I hope you'll be participating in future events. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  21:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, the backlog was brought to a record low of 585 articles! We had 29 editors take part in the drive, which is a high going back to at least January 2017.  Great work, and great to have a some enthusiastic new copy editors joining in! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)