250:, we don't have any hard-and-fast rules about removing c/e templates. General practice is to remove them if a) you've improved the standard of text in the article; b) the article is unsuitable for c/e (i.e., it's unstable, promotional, its subject is not notable, has a deletion template, is incomprehensible, etc. (re-tag as appropriate)); or c) the article's prose doesn't need a copy-edit. Don't worry about taking credit for others' work; there might be multiple reasons they didn't remove the template. I'd make the necessary edits and remove it. Every article is different and you should act on your own judgement but don't overthink it too much; we're not saving the world here. Bottom line: if you've done your best to improve the article's prose you can remove the template. :) Cheers,
191:, which had a copy edit template with the specific reason of using too many first person pronouns. I reviewed the history/past changes of the article and saw that many first person pronouns have since been replaced. I also did a Ctrl+F for "we" and "I" and found nothing. Subsequently, I deleted the template without making any further edits. My logic is that since the original issue of first person pronouns was already fixed by other users, I should not claim any credit for work I did not do. I did not do anything besides deleting the template.
339:
article and saw that many first person pronouns have since been replaced and did a Ctrl+F for "we" and "I", finding nothing. At the time, I was only looking for errors that the template was referring to. Seeing none, that's why I deleted it. If a copy edit template needs to be added back, let me know. Either way, I will go back and copy edit the article for other errors shortly. Not too experienced with editing articles with a lot of math formulas/syntax, so I probably won't be touching those. Thanks. —
357:. Feel free to review my edits and make additional ones where necessary. That article had too many math variables and formulas. Per Reidgreg's advice, I did do a thorough check and make some edits. As such, I added it to my list. (Word count was approximated using Microsoft Word and rounded down.) However, I am not considering it an *O article. The template was from Feb. 2019, but the first-person errors were already fixed. I only did regular copy editing. —
560:
630:, we will have finished the entire January/February backlog, which started with over 100 articles! (And there's only one June 2019 Request article left as well!) For me, this is mind-boggling to think about; what an amazing community achievement. On a side note, it's truly satisfying seeing the counter go down almost every day.
123:, welcome to the Guild and thank you or participating in the current drive. I've checked your copy-edit; you've done a good job and made the article clearer and easier to read; and thanks for removing the minor copyright violation too. Two minor points I'd pick out (all from the last paragraph of 'Biography') are:
201:
This brings me to my question, what is the policy for articles that still have the copy edit template, but only require minimal/no copy editing because others have already done most/all of the work? Should I simply delete the template (and make minor edits where necessary)? I personally do not want
338:
article originally had a specific kind of copy edit template. Pulling it from revision history, it reads, "This article may require copy editing for excessive use of first-person pronouns (MOS:WE)." I had taken this template at face value, and like I said I reviewed the history/past changes of the
291:
markup, which generate formulas in different ways and may produce inconsistent results; I typically try to put these into a single format, but it can be a lot of work. Oh, but that's math cleanup, we don't count the formulas in the wordcount so don't feel obliged to address that as part of a copy
672:
has begun actively copy editing the last
February backlog article and added it to the drive list, we'll open up March as an "old" month for the drive. We don't expect it to be finished, but this will let our script count articles tagged in March for the 50% wordcount bonus. It's hoped that this
499:
Hi
Logophile59, good question. For the purposes of the drive, only the tagged section needs to be edited and can count towards the word total. Of course, all positive edits help the overall project that is Knowledge (XXG), so kudos to you if you make edits outside of the tagged section. You could
483:
only one section is listed as requiring copyedit (Music). On a quick look the rest of the article could certainly benefit from copyediting too. For the purposes of the drive, should I edit only the tagged section (recording the word # for that section) and remove the tag, or plunge into the whole
266:
My feeling is that you should thoroughly check the article before removing the copy edit tag, and a thorough check is enough effort to count as a copy edit even if you don't make any changes. It's pretty rare for a tagged article to not have any issues, though. If you look closely enough, you'll
221:
article is one that I had briefly looked at when thinking of doing it. Reading more closely now, I see punctuation and capitalization errors in an otherwise well written article. There isn't much to do, but I think it shouldn't be merely marked as {{GOCEreviewed}}, as
198:, which has a copy edit template from January 2019. It seems there has been extensive copy editing from one user and additional editing from multiple other users. As I did not closely read the article yet, the article may or may not require further copy editing.
844:
Wow, the backlog was brought to a record low of 585 articles! We had 29 editors take part in the drive, which is a high going back to at least
January 2017. Great work, and great to have a some enthusiastic new copy editors joining in!
21:
223:
673:
will encourage editors to continue copy editing for the last few days of the drive, and to ensure that there is a range in the quality of target articles. All articles from the
Requests page also get the 50% bonus. –
140:, it might be worth a look because Knowledge (XXG) has some customs and conventions that aren't obvious to new editors. Thanks for your work and I hope you'll be encouraged to continue copy-editing. Cheers,
226:
instructs. "Page size" gives "11692 words" for the article, which is excessive. I don't know why math articles throw that script off so badly. I usually estimate such articles in my word count.
828:
Well I haven't done much work for this drive (it's summer here), but thank you both for your work here; it's most appreciated. I hope you'll be participating in future events. :) Cheers,
396:
I've addressed some issues in the article and left a detailed note on the editor's talk page. If someone more familiar with cricket jargon would like to go over the article, it'd help. –
663:
793:
Mad props to you as well for copy editing 66k words' worth of articles! I'm also looking forward to the
September Drive, and might join the August Blitz as well. See you around! —
17:
132:"and died after he had a surgery"; surgery in the sense of "a surgical operation" generally isn't preceded with "a" because "surgery" in this sense is an uncountable noun.
442:
Yes, you can copy edit any article from any month category and count them in this drive. Just be sure not to label articles that aren't from
January/February as *O. —
35:
I'm currently copy editing an article that mentions "20th century". Should century be capitalized? I see no mentions of this in
Knowledge (XXG)'s manual of style. --
272:
854:
839:
823:
802:
780:
730:
716:
698:
682:
649:
609:
587:
546:
509:
493:
465:
451:
435:
405:
390:
366:
348:
301:
261:
235:
211:
173:
151:
109:
81:
63:
44:
747:
I've edited my final backlog article this month and want to say thanks again to the team. I learned a lot and hope to be back in
September. Many thanks to
276:
637:, who gave me a ton of constructive advice and feedback for three of my copy edits. He went above and beyond to help a newbie. Thanks Reidgreg!
622:
I'm not too familiar with the culture of GOCE yet, so I don't know if this is appropriate, but I just wanted to congratulate everyone! After
633:
I just wanted to thank the GOCE coordinators for organizing the drive (and the guild in general). In particular, I wanted to shout out
381:
So I have just done my first copyedit while also expanding out on the article which might also need to do some copy editing on itself.
431:
537:. There is a tag on the article requesting reformatting of the inline references, and I'm not sure what it refers to. Thanks!
136:
These are minor points so don't be put off copy-editing; there's a lot to take in! If you aren't already familiar with the
375:
819:
814:—for your contributions. Your help, and that of everyone else who participated, is welcomed and greatly appreciated.
707:-- sterling work! It's nice to feel you've done your bit to make the world a better and more knowledgeable place.
534:
195:
687:
Ditto; it's great to see the backlog shrinking. Thanks to everyone for their great copy-editing work. :) Cheers,
500:
even come back to the article in August if you want to concentrate on tagged articles during the drive. Regards,
830:
689:
252:
142:
815:
764:
419:
798:
726:
645:
447:
362:
344:
207:
77:
40:
776:
712:
605:
542:
489:
662:
You're welcome, and thanks for pointing that out. It is great to see the collective efforts pay off (
578:
461:
427:
386:
354:
335:
218:
188:
752:
627:
321:
159:
850:
678:
401:
297:
279:– and you may learn of issues specific to that subject. I notice that the article uses a mix of
811:
794:
768:
722:
704:
657:
641:
443:
358:
340:
245:
231:
203:
73:
36:
808:
788:
772:
708:
623:
601:
553:
538:
485:
169:
105:
556:. Don't worry about that tag; although I sometimes reformat a ref or two if I feel like it,
268:
137:
756:
595:
569:
505:
480:
457:
423:
382:
59:
565:
846:
748:
674:
634:
568:
is a useful guide to what does (and doesn't) need doing. Have fun and all the best,
397:
329:
293:
286:
97:
90:
416:
I started copy-editing topics from March 2019. Should I count them in this drive?
313:
227:
412:
Can I count newer copy-edit articles I am doing, which are not from Jan/Feb 2019?
165:
118:
101:
51:
484:
article? It's a big one and will take up a lot of time. Thanks for the advice.
760:
640:
So, what happens next? Will articles from March 2019 be the new *O articles? —
519:
501:
55:
668:
96:
Hey! I just finished my first copy edit. I copy edited the article
100:. Could someone check it to see if everything is alright? Thanks,
267:
probably find something to improve. Check if there are specific
771:
for taking down an incredible 48 "copyedit" tags. All the best!
353:
Just writing to confirm that I've finished the copy editing for
180:
Articles that are done/close to done but still have the template
184:
Let me preface my question with two examples I've encountered.
334:. Thanks for the responses. I just wanted to clarify that the
164:
Thanks for your review! I have fixed the two points. Regards,
194:
2. A few minutes ago, I was looking at the edit history for
128:
I would have left the date of Ashura day in the article;
564:
major reformatting is beyond the scope of a copyedit.
18:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy
Editors
202:
to claim any credit for work I did not do. Thanks. --
273:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
703:I second the congratulations to all, including
8:
271:pages for the subject of the article – like
277:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Mathematics
417:
533:hi, I'd appreciate a check of my edit of
224:Backlog_elimination_drives#Dos_and_Don'ts
7:
557:
28:
558:
552:Thanks very much for your help,
131:"and died after surgery" --: -->
187:1. Yesterday I was looking at
1:
376:2007 ICC World Twenty20 Final
875:
855:00:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
196:Croatia and the World Bank
22:Backlog elimination drives
840:21:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
824:12:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
803:05:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
781:01:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
767:for coordinating, and to
731:02:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
717:01:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
699:01:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
683:00:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
650:23:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
618:Incredible work everyone!
610:14:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
588:13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
547:02:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
510:03:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
494:01:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
466:19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
452:19:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
436:19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
406:19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
391:10:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
367:17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
349:15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
302:12:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
262:07:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
236:06:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
721:I couldn't agree more! —
212:17:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
174:10:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
152:22:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
110:14:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
82:20:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
64:18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
45:18:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
472:Me Too movement article
535:Jesús Ildefonso Díaz
529:Jesús Ildefonso Díaz
355:Differentiable curve
336:Differentiable curve
219:Differentiable curve
189:Differentiable curve
807:Thanks to you both—
628:J.A.K.Q. Dengekitai
816:Twofingered Typist
765:Twofingered Typist
438:
422:comment added by
866:
836:
792:
695:
671:
661:
600:! Glad to help.
599:
583:
574:
563:
562:
561:
333:
325:
317:
290:
282:
258:
249:
163:
148:
122:
874:
873:
869:
868:
867:
865:
864:
863:
831:
786:
745:
690:
667:
655:
620:
593:
581:
572:
559:
531:
481:Me Too movement
479:In the article
474:
414:
379:
327:
319:
311:
284:
280:
253:
243:
182:
157:
143:
138:Manual of Style
116:
94:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
872:
870:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
826:
753:Baffle gab1978
744:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
619:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
530:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
513:
512:
473:
470:
469:
468:
454:
413:
410:
409:
408:
378:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
351:
322:Baffle gab1978
305:
304:
264:
239:
238:
181:
178:
177:
176:
160:Baffle gab1978
134:
133:
129:
125:
124:
93:
88:
87:
86:
85:
84:
67:
66:
32:
31:Style question
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
871:
856:
852:
848:
843:
842:
841:
838:
837:
835:
827:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
790:
785:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
742:
732:
728:
724:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
697:
696:
694:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
670:
665:
659:
654:
653:
652:
651:
647:
643:
638:
636:
631:
629:
625:
617:
611:
607:
603:
597:
591:
590:
589:
586:
585:
584:
577:
576:
575:
567:
555:
551:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
536:
528:
521:
517:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
498:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
482:
477:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
377:
374:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
350:
346:
342:
337:
331:
323:
315:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
299:
295:
288:
281:<math: -->
278:
274:
270:
265:
263:
260:
259:
257:
247:
241:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
199:
197:
192:
190:
185:
179:
175:
171:
167:
161:
156:
155:
154:
153:
150:
149:
147:
139:
130:
127:
126:
120:
114:
113:
112:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:Asghar Vesali
92:
91:Asghar Vesali
89:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
69:
68:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
48:
47:
46:
42:
38:
30:
23:
19:
833:
829:
812:Bobbychan193
795:Bobbychan193
769:Bobbychan193
746:
723:Bobbychan193
705:Bobbychan193
692:
688:
664:progress box
658:Bobbychan193
642:Bobbychan193
639:
632:
621:
580:
579:
571:
570:
532:
478:
475:
444:Bobbychan193
418:— Preceding
415:
380:
359:Bobbychan193
341:Bobbychan193
255:
251:
246:Bobbychan193
204:Bobbychan193
200:
193:
186:
183:
145:
141:
135:
95:
74:Bobbychan193
37:Bobbychan193
34:
809:Logophile59
789:Logophile59
773:Logophile59
743:Signing off
709:Logophile59
669:Logophile59
624:Logophile59
602:Logophile59
554:Logophile59
539:Logophile59
486:Logophile59
52:MOS:CENTURY
50:Nope! (See
757:Miniapolis
596:Miniapolis
522:, will do!
458:DiscoDingo
456:Thanks! —
424:DiscoDingo
383:HawkAussie
72:Thanks! --
626:finishes
847:Reidgreg
749:Reidgreg
675:Reidgreg
635:Reidgreg
592:Thanks,
518:Thanks,
432:contribs
420:unsigned
398:Reidgreg
330:Reidgreg
294:Reidgreg
292:edit. –
20: |
832:Baffle☿
691:Baffle☿
666:). As
476:Hello,
314:Dhtwiki
254:Baffle☿
228:Dhtwiki
144:Baffle☿
582:apolis
326:, and
166:MrClog
119:MrClog
102:MrClog
761:Tdslk
566:WP:CE
520:Tdslk
502:Tdslk
56:Tdslk
16:<
851:talk
820:talk
799:talk
777:talk
763:and
727:talk
713:talk
679:talk
646:talk
606:talk
573:Mini
543:talk
506:talk
490:talk
462:talk
448:talk
428:talk
402:talk
387:talk
363:talk
345:talk
298:talk
287:math
283:and
275:and
269:MOS:
232:talk
217:The
208:talk
170:talk
106:talk
78:talk
60:talk
41:talk
834:gab
693:gab
310:Hi
256:gab
242:Hi
146:gab
115:Hi
54:.)
853:)
845:–
822:)
801:)
779:)
759:,
755:,
751:,
729:)
715:)
681:)
648:)
608:)
545:)
508:)
492:)
464:)
450:)
434:)
430:•
404:)
389:)
365:)
347:)
318:,
300:)
289:}}
285:{{
234:)
210:)
172:)
108:)
80:)
62:)
43:)
849:(
818:(
797:(
791::
787:@
775:(
725:(
711:(
677:(
660::
656:@
644:(
604:(
598::
594:@
541:(
504:(
488:(
460:(
446:(
426:(
400:(
385:(
361:(
343:(
332::
328:@
324::
320:@
316::
312:@
296:(
248::
244:@
230:(
206:(
168:(
162::
158:@
121::
117:@
104:(
76:(
58:(
39:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.