Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to

Neutral Point of View Problem done by GoCE?
Is an article with the NPOV tag eligible for a Copyedit tag with "tone" as the problem, or is this beyond the scope of GoCE efforts? I could cite an example, but please answer the general question. I will not apply the tag until the November drive, if eligible for Copy editing.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see copyedit tags with "tone" and similar reasons with some frequency. I have always found that the articles need at least some copyediting, so I don't worry about the original tagging reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I plan to add the article in November.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Checking and adding sources
I was reading the requests list and noticed that some editors requested sources be added or checked. Looking at the How to, I don't see anything about checking or adding sources. What's the word? PopularOutcasttalk2me! 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Adding sources is definitely not part of copy editing. Checking sources to see if they, say, support a statement or are a reliable source is also outside the scope of copy editing. Checking that references are formatted consistently and correctly is plausibly within our sphere, but not something I tend to concentrate on as Wikipedia allows a range of styles as long as it is clear what is being cited. Tdslk (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 21:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a request will ask for help with paraphrasing of source material and/or quotations, and I feel that's a job suited for copy editors though I don't often check for it unless specifically requested. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

External resource
I don't see any place to leave external resources, but I think this Doris and Bertie posting gives some good tips for copy editing. They talk about some techniques that I employ in my process, like doing multiple revisions with somewhat long breaks in-between. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

GOCEreviewed tag info deletion
I deleted some info from the GOCEreviewed tag subsection, namely (outside of brackets), "[There are occasions when you will encounter an article in the backlog that is unfit for a major copy edit] due to other issues; for example, it may need a cleanup tag with an explanatory reason, or it may need more sources before copy editing is appropriate". The intention was to avoid redundant info already covered, in my opinion, in the section under which I placed Gocereviewed tag (Uneditable content and useful tags), viz., "While we try as far as possible to copy edit articles, this is not always achievable where the text is confusing, is missing too many citations, has too many content disputes, or is in need of content expertise." My train of thought was that this quoted info covers also the reason why "an article in the backlog that is unfit for a major copy edit"; although after your observation Jonesey95, it is apparent that more connection is needed with the previous info, therefore, agreeing with your edit summary comment, I suggest the following text:

==Uneditable content and useful tags== [Removed bolding to avoid confussion with talk page heading] While we try as far as possible to copy edit articles, this is not always achievable where the text is confusing, is missing too many citations, has too many content disputes, or other issues. We are then forced to use a tag to attract help for the article. Some useful tags are:

off-topic ~ Expert-subject ~ contradict ~ confusing ~ refimprove ~ nofootnotes ~ notability ~ original research ~ crystal ~ POV ~ unreferenced ~ expand acronym ~ Out of date ~ cleanup

(See WP:TC for a full list of cleanup template messages)

===GOCEreviewed tag=== [Removed bolding to avoid confussion with talk page heading]

There are occasions when you will encounter an article in the backlog that is unfit for a major copy edit due to the aforementioned issues. In those cases, it may be advisable that you place the GOCEreviewed tag at the top of the article's talk page. [...]-- Thinker78   (talk)  19:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of Wikidata links
I have done some editing on Zeno of Verona, which used a technique for red links that I hadn't seen before. The editor first created a Wikidata page, then added the Wikidata link after the red link, as:

Bishop Saint Petronius of Verona

This is quite clever but I don't know if it is an accepted way to anchor redlinked entities. Unfortunately the editor who did this has been banned for socking so I can't ask how they came across this. But for future reference, is this an ok practice? Lamona (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)