Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arfaz (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 24 July 2011 (July 2011: Two new requests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Guild of Copy Editors' requests page

On this page, you can request that the Guild of Copy Editors copy-edit specific articles.

Instructions for requesters

To make a request, remove any existing {{copy edit}} tags from the article, then click this button and follow the instructions:

Please remove any existing {{copy edit}} tags from the article to avoid edit conflicts during the copy edit.

Please note:

  • No request by an unregistered editor will be accepted unless the IP has done significant work on the article. Drive-by IP requests already on the list may be declined by any editor.
  • The average waiting time is two or so months. Please be patient and feel free to improve your requested article while you wait.
  • If you plan to nominate the article for good article, A-class or featured article status, please wait until the copy edit is complete before nominating it.
  • Having your article copy edited by our team does not guarantee that the prose will be considered acceptable during any of the above reviews.
  • You may have up to two open requests at any one time. This is enforced so that every request can have a fair chance of being fulfilled within a reasonable period.

Requests may be declined if the article is:



June 2011

This article already is GA, but needs some copy editing to make it a bit smoother to read. Wiki4des (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete article has been spell-checked, further improvements on tone of voice is needed in some sections. 87.139.56.104 (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Working:I've started looking at it, it's a pretty good sized article so could take me a while. --Blackmane (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor reminded as not started yet. Chaosdruid (talk 21:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Editor reminded again, if no action within 24 hours, will return it to the pool. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Returned to pool. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmane is still working on it as tonight's edits show. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to let this one go. Real life is encroaching too much on my time to spare any at the moment.--Blackmane (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The present plan is for us do do a group effort on this article after the July drive. It needs a lot of work, so it will have to wait. --Diannaa (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The artical needs copy edit, I plan to geting the artical to FA, it's been Copy edited before, but it needs another one to get to a FA status. Pedro J. the rookie 19:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Will work on this one. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the best I could, but I'm not a native English speaker. A second look by someone else would be appreciated. Cambalachero (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Yellowcrocus (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

This article needs a thorough copy edit before being nominated for GA. Arfaz (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Working--Aichikawa (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choppy in places, almost completely garbled in others. Needs a rewrite from a native English speaker. Hairhorn (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working, but RL is busy at the moment, so feel free to check on my progress. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jivesh Talk2Me 12:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has failed GAN for prose issues. Being that I am familiar with the content, it is often difficult for me to differentiate what a reader who is not familiar with the subject with comprehend. I need a good copy-editor who can help enhance the prose. Thanks guys :)--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 08:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, possible request. Is it possible to develop an article Corbin Bleu and become a good article See the article Arabic Wikipedia good article, can you?

Look at this version will help you to become a good article look--77.31.36.7 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to nominate this article for GA status. Will someone be so kind to copy edit it? Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked the article up to GA status, and had it peer reviewed prior to trying a FA process. The main issue was with some of the prose, which the reviewer recommended that I get a fresh pair of eyes to copyedit it. Miyagawa (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done sort of. There are several times where a sentence uses the word "breed" twice, but I'm not conversant in "dogspeak", so I don't know what synonyms are appropriate. Also, I've left a comment in the Temperament section, where I merged two sentences into one, and am not 100% certain if the reference is still appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a thorough copy edit before being nominated for GA. Arfaz (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to find this page by chance, and I hope someone will copy-edit it soon (it's nominated as good article). Thanks! Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 15:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started a GAN back in May but apparently was abandoned by the nominator. I'm trying to save the nomination by taking over the process. It's a brief article and should not need extensive work. Brad (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been working on this for some time and plan to take it to GAN, but I'm not a native English speaker, and parts of the prose feel stiff and unpleasant to read even to me. Would be great if someone with a more natural feel for the language could take a look. Smetanahue (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it came here a while ago, the page has undergone massive expansion and significant revision. I would like to have it checked over by a copyeditor who did not work on the last revision.Jinnai 21:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment I was given in its previous FAC was to make the prose "engaging". I'm not sure what that means exactly as the example they gave as a quality article to look at Halo 3 is undergoing a FARC now. So if someone have help with that kind of copyediting, please do so.Jinnai 21:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting another copyedit after another failed FAC. It's been charged with being "overly long and rambling" and that it "needs to be pruned back to give it some much needed focus". Other editors have also pointed out that the article contains long, snaking sentences that need to be split and sentences that are vague and needing of rewriting for clarity. Finally, I need help rewriting the "Promotion" and "Singles" sections because, apparently, I was too anal with listing dates and other information at the expense of flow and readability. I just thought I was being comprehensive. Anyway, I need help to fix these problem points. Thanks in advance. -Red marquis (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make this into a good article; needs some copyediting before that happens though :-) --Addihockey10 e-mail 02:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix all issues that were stated on the last peer review it had received. It was nominated at FAC two times but was opposed, while at GAN it wasn't promoted. I am now done with expansion and fixing just need someone to copyedit the article before I nominate it for FA status. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to take the article to FAC and it definitely needs a copyedit beforehand. This was one of the reasons it failed last time, so a copyedit will iron out the issues with the prose. NapHit (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs · count) in this recent peer review. Aiming for GA status next month and FA soon after. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Norwegian political party. The article is in a need of a copyedit. --TIAYN (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another article needing a serious copyedit. --TIAYN (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is close to approaching FAC, and it would be great if someone not directly associated with the article go through the prose and make any necessary copyedits on stuff we may have missed. –MuZemike 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious copy-edit required before being nominated for GA. Arfaz (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another article needing copy-edit. Arfaz (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]