Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2015

The Nobel Peace Prize for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution

The Nobel Peace Prize for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is tagged for "Copy edit for=consistency in display of foreign-language text". This does not seem like a task for the GOCE. What should the tag be?--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the editor meant by that explanation, but the article needs copy editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, grammar and punctuation is poor, too.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Starting number

The starting number of copyedits on the progress table is shown as 2,432, as is also shown on the top left summary, but the category is actually 2,403. I say the start is 2,403, and we should not start 29 articles in the hole for the month. Category:All articles needing copy edit is the starting point, and the starting time was about 35 minutes ago.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, the progress box template (the list of months on the right side of the drive page) is correct, and the number listed on the category page is wrong. If you page through the category pages 200 at a time and keep count, you will see that the number on the category page is wrong. It takes a long time – weeks or months – for that count to update, for some obscure technical reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 category reviewed

I have reviewed all of the articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from February 2015 to ensure that the articles actually need copy editing. Sometimes editors will place the copy edit tag on the article instead of a more appropriate tag. I managed to reduce that month's count from about 380 to the current 343 by retagging articles, copy editing a few very short ones, and otherwise cleaning up.

There are still a bunch of very short (shorter than 300 words) articles in that month's category if anyone here is motivated by reducing the raw overall count of articles tagged for copy editing.

I haven't looked at any of the other months yet; it's a bit grueling, since some of these articles are in bad shape or need attention for reasons other than copy editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Grueling is right. Yikes. With luck, I will hit the shorties again in the May drive. Watch out, backlog! Lfstevens (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you; what I do is grind away at the oldest stuff, and before each drive I vet the oldest articles like Baffle used to do. Seems like some editors involved in AFC and NPP tag most (if not all) of what they review with {{copy edit}}; it's a catchall, like {{cleanup}}. All the best, Miniapolis 00:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Good work, Jonesey95. I been doing something along the same lines by removing copyedit tags and adding {{GOCEreviewed |user=Dthomsen8|date=March 2015|issues=awaiting deletion decision}} or in one instance {{GOCEreviewed |user=Dthomsen8|date=March 2015|issues=awaiting merge decision}}. In many cases, the deletion will happen, and the GoCE will not see them again, and our numbers go down. I check the whole 2,380+ articles for this situation.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Counts?

DO I add the 50% bonus for old articles to my total myself or will it be added automatically? Peeteygirl (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It'll be added automatically; when the drive is over, Torchiest runs a script. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 23:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Shilluk language

Please look at Shilluk language and tell me if other copyediting is needed. I worked on the lede and added a reference, but I do not see what else may be done.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you've done as much as possible with what's there, and can remove the {{copy edit}}, {{tone}} and {{multiple issues}} tags. All the best, Miniapolis 22:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of leaderboard

As it stands now, the leaderboard for the drive is inaccurate with regard to number of Oldest Articles. Several more people have copy-edited at least one, and at least two have done more than that. How important is it to have the board accurately reflect the work done, even if some authors chose not to place their totals there, for whatever reason? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I will update the leaderboard from the Barnstars page. The lower table on the Barnstars page is generated by a script, so it should get the math right. We then update the leaderboard on that page, and if we remember, copy it back to the main drive page for posterity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)