Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2020

Duration of July Drive
Hello everyone! I see that it's stated that the Drive ends 21 July 2020. Is this an error and if it isn't why is this month's Drive shorter? &mdash; BroVic (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've boldly edited it to read 31 July 2020. I'm not aware of any pre-existing reasons for the drive ending earlier than usual. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  03:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh that's good. Thanks! &dash; BroVic (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's just a typo. Thanks, and ! Tdslk (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Associations in a foreign language
Should associations/groups in a foreign language (e.g. Catholic association Dijaški Orel) be italicized or put in quotation marks? Jv0314 (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:BADITALICS AND MOS:", neither. Foreign proper names are generally not italicized. All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for your answer. Jv0314 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

X and Y or Z (Maneuver warfare)
It's an ambiguous statement. There are 3 combos. Really when you have these statements, the intention is No. 1 or 2, but the annoying No. 3 is here!
 * 1) X and Y
 * 2) X and Z
 * Z

So here is a text post-copyedited from Maneuver warfare

So 1, I'm not sure if the Prussian Army, knowing that France is a noun plus -ing problem since there is a "splitter" (a comma in this case); 2, the made a plan that required speed by surrounding and destroying or bypassing French strongpoints annoys me with the ambiguity. I considered the follwowing I also have concerns that they may be ambigous. Arrgh. Can I Log In (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ...surrounding the French strongpoints while [also] destroying or bypassing them...
 * ...destroying or bypassing the French strongpoints while (they are/also being) surrounded...
 * , the fragment knowing that France was capable of fielding an army larger than theirs is a parenthetical thought. Removing it from the sentence doesn't change the main point: that they formulated a plan that they called the Kesselschlacht. It's fine as it is, but if it really bothers you, you can swap out "knowing" with "aware" or "who knew".
 * For the ambiguity in your second issue, I prefer surrounding the French strongpoints while [also] destroying or bypassing them as it doesn't switch voices halfway through like the second proposal (which also switches the subject from the Prussian Army to the French strongpoints, which would introduce another ambiguity). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the two offered, I would also choose your first alternative; though I'd choose "and" rather than "while"; one of the two alternative actions—bypassing or destroying—were done after surrounding, not at the same time. The original sentence *is* a bit long-winded; you could reasonably break it into at least two shorter ones. I'd also ditch the unnecessary "that" before "France"—there's only one France so there's no need for a pronoun there. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  07:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To know for sure, you would have to check the original source material, but from a military tactics standpoint, "surround and bypass" does not make sense to me as an option. I would rewrite the whole sentence, with the key section written as "required speed in order to surround and destroy French strongpoints, or bypass them entirely". If you do not have access to the source, add a clarify tag with an explanation of the confusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To know for sure, you would have to check the original source material, but from a military tactics standpoint, "surround and bypass" does not make sense to me as an option. I would rewrite the whole sentence, with the key section written as "required speed in order to surround and destroy French strongpoints, or bypass them entirely". If you do not have access to the source, add a clarify tag with an explanation of the confusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Review request
I have worked on one article chlorine perchlorate, and before I move it to my completed articles list I will like a reviewer to please review it and tell me whether it is enough to consider it completed and remove the copy edit tag from the article. thanks :) Red Pen (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: I am moving on to next article(s) and putting this one (chlorine perchlorate) in my 'completed' articles list. Reviewers may find it there and review my work and guide me if that much copy editing work is actually a 'done job' or it needs some more copy editing. Good day everyone! :) Red Pen (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the GOCE. I'm not a chemistry expert but I'll review. diff of c/e. I think you've made some good changes to this short chemistry article; I've only one minor point to comment on:


 * In "Reactions" --> "notes", you changed "[formula] is a pale yellow salt that is stable at room temperature." to "[formula] is a pale yellow salt which is stable at room temperature.". The original version was correct; "that" is used to join defining clauses whereas "which" is used to offset non-defining clauses. See this link for more.
 * I hope that's useful anyway; thanks for your copy-editing work. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  08:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I went through your provided links and they helped me to understand the use of "which" and "that" more clearly. Thanks for the review, appreciation and guidance! :) I was also a bit confused about their usages but now I will be using them correctly :) thanks again for your help :) Cheers! XD Red Pen (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A milestone to celebrate
We've managed to remove all of May's backlog! — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hoorah! :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Leaderboard and progress chart
There seems to be something wrong, but I don't know how to fix it. The progress-chart section is above the leaderboard, but it looks okay in edit mode. Stay well and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . The closing markup for the table had been deleted in error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)