Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2015 Annual Report

GOCEreviewed tags
There are two ways the number of copyediting requests go down, either by GOCE members and occasional other editors doing copyediting and removing the tag, or by a tag being suspended by or  tags. There are 983 articles in the Category:Articles reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors, and this category continues to grow. I have added 11 articles in January. I presume that other editors do likewise.

What the Guild should do is put copyedit tags on some of the older articles, since they were not deleted at all. A few are awaiting references, which might have happened, or could be done by Guild members. What do other editors suggest about this situation?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know other editors' criteria for using GOCEreviewed, but I only have two: if an article is part of a merge proposal, or if there's a significant chance it will be deleted. I don't think editors are misusing the tag to knock down the backlog, and once they're tagged the onus is on other interested parties to address the issues and re-tag with copy edit. We're busy enough as it is :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  23:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have ever used that tag with the intent to come back later and check on it. I may have tagged one or two articles to say "I reviewed this and it was fine, no copy edit was needed", but only in extraordinary circumstances.


 * When an article is tagged for deletion using a CSD template or PROD or even AfD, I don't remove the copy edit template, since it usually takes no more than a week or so to find out if the article will be deleted. If I tagged an article with "awaiting deletion" as a reason, I would feel obligated to remember to check on it later, which is too much hassle for me.


 * Typically, if I find an article that should not be copy-edited, I will change the tag to cleanup or another appropriate tag, with an explanation in the edit summary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: after looking through this category for a while, its contents bother me. It appears to be a purgatory for articles that need a copy edit, but that a GOCE editor decided, sometimes for no stated reason, to tag with GOCEreviewed. I think we should move this discussion to a more visible GOCE talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I'm copying to the main talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅; further discussion should take place at a more appropriate venue. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Word count, etc.
Thanks for doing the summary. I'd love to see word and article totals for each drive/year publicized. That way we can compare them drives and years. That's hard now, because the bucket has water coming in while we shovel it back out. A table?

Period | Words | Articles | Backlog change | ____________________________________________ 2015  | 500k  |  250     |   123          | ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 00:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)‎


 * Go for it! We have a table at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors that shows the number of articles in the backlog at the end of each month. Each drive /Barnstar subpage has a total word count; it counts the words that drive participants report. The number of backlog articles edited in each drive is reported in this 2015 annual report; again, it counts only the articles reported by drive participants. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)