- 1 Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
- 2 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2
- 3 Acne listed at Redirects for discussion
- 4 A cup of tea for you!
- 5 On this day, 5 years ago...
- 6 WP:MEDMOS
- 7 Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- 8 Copper
- 9 Nutrition and MEDRS
- 10 Vitiligo
- 11 The Signpost: 6 September 2017
- 12 The Signpost: 25 September 2017
Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
|Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter!
December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.
January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).
February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.
Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!
Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."on their well-deserved induction into the
Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators:, , and .
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
That was a tough FAC; but, look how much better the article is from when you first started! Thank you for working on such an important topic. Next time you send it up for an FAC please email me and I will post a review again. Once it becomes a FA you are going to have such a huge sense of satisfaction. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Core, but I don't think I'll be resubmitting the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was looking forward to a renomination. It is an important article. It is worth FA status. So what if it was closed. Happened to me (Lead, Metalloid); happens to other people. Get up and have another go. The objective is to get to the mountain and enjoy the view, never mind the jungle, swamp, and piranha-filled river you have to cross. I have my own projects, articles and RL obligations but am willing to help when I can. At least the pressure is off---I find it a more enjoyable to do editing after an FAC has been closed, rather than during it. Other editors are available to help. Sandbh (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Acne listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not interested, you can have the conversation without me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|Looks like you need one after that epic featured article nomination! You've made great improvements in lots of medical articles, and your work around here is greatly appreciated. Hope you can keep it up after a suitably reinvigorating rest :) Tom (LT) (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)|
On this day, 5 years ago...
- Yes, Sandbh repeatedly requested this on the FAC and talk page stating that it's not typical for FAs to have refs in the lead (though I've seen multiple FAs do this). No one objected when this point was raised multiple times. It doesn't matter to me. If the community feels differently, feel free to rollback the changes I made. It probably warrants further discussion on the talk page but I was being bold. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- MEDMOS actually says "Adding sources to the lead is a reasonable practice but not required", which is not exactly as strong as "we tend to do this". However, because acne is so common, IMO this would be a particularly useful article for the translators to take on, and translators sometimes only translate the lead, so I'd support including them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
|The 2016 Cure Award|
|In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.|
Hello Tyler: You said - Is there a reason none of the USDA nutrition tables I'm looking at on various food pages display their copper content? I realize it's a micronutrient that doesn't get the spotlight as often as some of the others but it is still considered an essential micronutrient and deserves mention. Do you have any thoughts about this? Frankly, I don't know why it's not included in the standard WP nutrition template and have always assumed there's a template error prohibiting it to be displayed. Now I feel guilty about not pursuing this. To show the error, I edited the two tables for kiwi that you worked on today, using the alternate "opt-in" code (which works for everything else), but copper still doesn't display, indicating there is coding that prevents it from being shown. Perhaps a request to WP admin about this should be raised. Here's the NAS review discussing copper as an essential nutrient. Let me know if you need further input or support. --Zefr (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Nutrition and MEDRS
Could you give your thoughts about this, please? The editor is debating whether nutrition is governed by MEDRS. I looked through dozens of WT:MED archives and didn't find a specific discussion supporting nutrition as a MEDRS topic, although we all know it does. Issues I raised (or would raise) included:
- the lede sentence mentions "maintenance, growth, reproduction, health and disease of an organism", which collectively imply MEDRS
- last lede paragraph mentions numerous diseases which result if nutrition is poor or absent, implying MEDRS
- DRIs are based on diseases which develop if a specific nutrient is absent, demonstrating MEDRS
- the other editor objected when I removed an opinion article which she wanted to use for a lede statement that the nutrition field is only "half-understood" by nutritionists and poorly understood by the public. I can agree to both assumptions, but the NYT article is a survey and opinion, not a MEDRS-quality review.
I don't get it - talk to who, you or the other guy? where? There is need to show there is another theory even if not yet proved or disproved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Soaringbear, you can talk to me, James, and all other Wikipedia contributors about the changes to the article you're proposing on the vitiligo article's talk page. At the top of the article you'll see a button that you can click where it says "talk". If you go to that page, click new section, and state what change you would like to make to the article, based on what source(s), and why, that will get things rolling. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 September 2017
- From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?
- News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments
- Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies
- Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts
- Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future
- Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube
- Technology report: Latest tech news
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up
- Humour: Bots
The Signpost: 25 September 2017
- News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL
- Humour: Chickenz
- Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe
- Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications
- Gallery: Chicken mania
- Traffic report: Fights and frights
- Featured content: Flying high