Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June 2017

Is this going to happen?
Discussion header added by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) at 04:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC) to make discussion separations clearer.

I'm sorry if this post is improper, but is this going to happen? Because I think it should. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that our hard-working coordinators are taking a well-deserved break this month for the GOCE elections. Perhaps  could verify? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * usually does the blitzes. Torchiest started them back in the day, but he's gone and I welcome the between-drives month to work on requests. The elections don't much matter to me, since I pretty much do the same stuff whether or not I'm a coordinator. We always need more help with the administrative side of the project. All the best,  Mini  apolis  17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll set up a blitz after the weekend, to start during the following weekend. We'll probably work on Requests unless someone has a fun theme to suggest. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Counting requests as complete while articles are unclear
Hi! I know that, for articles tagged with Template:Copy edit, it is acceptable to count them as copy edited even if there are still Clarify span tags left in the article (as established here). However, I am not sure if it is acceptable to count a request as complete if there are still tags left. Please let me know whether it is or not. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in the answer to this also because I do add clarify tags at times (usually with reasons) when there are things that I can not correct as "grammar, spelling, prose"—usually in the hopes to start a discussion about sources, if I see something that is confusing but that I can not immediately correct without going to sources then I will add a tag. I'm not sure clarify or citation needed should be resolved through a copy edit? Many of the articles in the backlog need significant work, but I think it is better to improve the prose and writing as much as possible, even if there are still citation needed or better source needed or primary inline tags, etc. I guess they could just be marked GOCEreviewed to decline, but is this required? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say it is acceptable. Resolving a clarify tag may require topical knowledge the volunteer copy editor won't have. Of course, if you can resolve it yourself, that is a good thing. Tdslk (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, ! This will be very helpful. Thanks again! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is acceptable. I just tagged a Request with a clarify tag and notified the requester that I had done so. Sometimes there is content that could be copy-edited effectively if you knew what the words were supposed to mean, but rather than make a wild guess, a clarify tag is the least bad option. P.S. to, can you please fix the syntax in your signature as I just did above? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting on it passes the article down to verify content.  After someone does that, if they feel it is required, they can pass it back up to us with a copyedit tag, or ping the copyeditor.  In terms of blitzes/drives, I suppose there are two things, to be fair.  We should each have only one open copyedit at a time, and we should only claim what we do copyedit.  If you can do substantial copyedit to an article then you should be able to claim at least a partial word count.  If there are sections you can't do, mark them with appropriate cleanup templates (see: TC and Template:Inline cleanup tags) and discount those words from your total.  I tend to leave detailed notes of any issues on the article's talk page, pinging the requester or major contributors.  At that point, having done as much copyedit as I can, I'll mark it as done and move on to the next article, periodically checking back for activity and follow-up.  I'd also mention that if something is unclear, but it's obvious it shouldn't be in the article in the first place (eg: trivia, excessive detail, OR) then don't spend time trying to fully understand and copyedit it, just remove it.
 * BTW,, I was looking over your blitz articles and I only noticed the first one, Robert F. Kennedy presidential campaign, 1968 from the Requests page. Did some of them not archive? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I only did the one from the requests page, the others were from the backlog. Not sure if those count, but I added them in my section—maybe I did it incorrectly? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Reidgreg is correct. While the (month-long) Drives cover both the tagged articles backlog and articles on the Requests page, the (week-long) Blitzes are organized around one topic; this month it was the Requests page. Of course, Wikipedia still benefits from the copy editing regardless, so thank you for your work! Tdslk (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , do join us for the July drive, which starts in a couple of days. We love to have good copy editors who are thoughtful and excited about improving Wikipedia articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. I was checking how to archive requests and thought I'd missed something.  I was impressed with how many articles you did; you'll likely place on the drive leaderboard at that pace. Reidgreg (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)