So far I mostly edit articles on music and musicians: mostly classical composers, conductors, and pieces, but occasionally things that relate to other genres as well. The dividing lines aren't as clearly drawn as many of us think; after all, as Duke Ellington said, "If it sounds good, it is good." (quote stolen from Peter Schickele)
Occasionally I'll also do some copy-editing to whatever article I run into, on whatever subject, for grammar, clarity, heading-structure, redundancy, neutrality, citation, etc. etc. The article that can't be improved in these areas seems to be rare.
**This image has been deleted (along with its discussion, which I didn't think was supposed to happen) by the enthusiastic enforcers of Wikipedia's paranoid and arbitrary Fair Use "policy". (Actually there is no particularly clear policy against fair use, and these deletions certainly do not reflect any consensus of editors, but the board issued a (poorly-worded and contrafactual) statement, so I guess that's that.)
You see, it's theoretically possible that an editor could run into a subject in an airport, or hide in their bushes, and snap a "free" photo (crude, out of focus, unflattering, but free!). Alternatively, a subject could be stupid enough to sign a GFDL license and thus endorse any and all future use and abuse of their image. The likelihood of these scenarios may be small, but because it is not zero, the use of professionally produced, subject-endorsed photos, offered by their employers or representatives explicitly for reproduction, to illustrate WP biographies is strictly verboten. Anyone who objects to this just doesn't understand that the realmission of Wikipedia is not to produce a good encyclopedia, it's to preserve the sacred rights of hypothetical downstream users to Photoshop a WP image into fake porn, or to copy and sell what Wikipedia is already giving away. You've been warned. (see also links above)
