A short article on a locally well-known Spanish illustrator, written by a Spanish-language speaker. I've done my best, but I can't be sure about the results and would appreciate if someone would check.--Lionni 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Short enough, I thought I'd go ahead and copyedit it while I had some spare time. Interesting short page, take care. --Kenneth M Burke 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a lot of work. From looking at the talk page the article appears to have been translated word for word by a non-native English speaker,leaving all sorts of very obvious grammatical errors. While I have already done a bit of work on this article, more help is needed. --Oneworld25 02:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, OneWorld, and see if I can iron out the prose.--RedPen 5 July 2007
- quite an easy cp-ed, although I have small concerns about formality of tone. There's a concern on the talkpage that a regular contributor ought to fix soon. Ready for proof. Cricketgirl 04:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited this article as best as I could, but I would really appreciate some proofreading. The Other Work section still seems weak, but I'm not sure how to polish it further. Thanks. Cygnus.ion 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just look it over a bit; it's mostly done. Best regards.--Song 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did this - I still have concerns about the prose and there is a sentence that doesn't make sense (see talk page). Cricketgirl 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
, now in peer review as a preliminary step prior to FAC. The article is in pretty good shape but could use an outside reader. Suggestion to enlist someone from the League of Copyeditors was made during peer review. Buddhipriya 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on this one, but will have to do so in stages. Galena11 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galena11 was doing a wonderful job on copyediting of Ganesha but she not been active since May. I hope all is well with her. If she is inactive, is there some process for getting another member of the League working with us on that article? Status is that peer review is completed and we are just waiting for completion of copyedit before going to FAC. The article is in good shape otherwise. Buddhipriya 04:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit done. The article was in fine shape. I fixed some bits of punctuation and a few things related to clarity. Finetooth 03:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Couldn't resist the chance to do the final proof. Nice job on the final c/e, Finetooth! Galena11 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this article is like the plague. No one wants to touch it and I don't think it's because the article is really good. Any help you can offer would be great. CJ 13:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No plague. I did some tweaking of the lead and the later sections and some larger re-casting of the History section. I also added some comments to the article's Talk page. Proofing won't be hard. Finetooth 19:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I support Finetooth's comment on the talk page. Cricketgirl 13:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment on the article's FAC page reads- 'The Board', the 'Series' and 'Related programmes' are very bitty, esp. with repetition of the mainarticle template. Help would be VERY much appreciated. Thanks so much, Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now copyedited, needs proof. The article has been improved a lot since Dale's plea. Cricketgirl 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-I copyedited the whole article to the best of my abilities but i think that the article lacks NPOV.Gprince007 15:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Proofed this, adding a number of comments for clarification. Still has major NPOV and referencing issues, but I think LoCE has done all it can. Cricketgirl 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- copyediting is finished....but a few sentences were confusing....maybe someone with subject knowledge can contribute...also it is not NPOV and also doesn't cite sources....Gprince007 15:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Cranmer(edittalklinkshistory) Currently Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas Cranmer, and seems to be stalled as of 13 August 2007 on copy editing concerns. The last reviewer said, Oppose until properly copy-edited. Then gave some examples. Those were corrected. Then the reviewer said, "Thanks for addressing those points, but they're only samples." So, it looks as if the article is stuck because of copy editing problems. The article has been copy-edited several times and the reviewers last comments are not helpful. If there are problems, we can't find them. We need fresh eyes. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate entry: I'm requesting this article be copy-edited in response to reasons raised in its FAC review, with one of the suggestions being to give it a copyedit for prose, et cetra. -- SECisek 06:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this one. Galena11 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the c/e on this, but had a lot of issues/questions with context that need fixing (see COPYEDITOR'S NOTES in hidden comments within the article text). Other than these, though, The issues have mostly been fixed, and it is ready for proof. Galena11 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Some Copyeditor's notes in the text still to be resolved by main article authors, but text looks good now. Cricketgirl 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the great copy edit. Wassupwestcoast 22:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from talk page: I posted a request for proofreading on this article on this project's FAC/FAR section, but as I saw some older requests apparently still unattended, I'm echoing my request on this talk page. Any volunteering help would be truly appreciated! Thank you. Parutakupiutalk || contribs 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA article, hoping to go for FAC. Factually very good quality and comprehensive. Compotent fresh eyes would be great though. Merbabu 15:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for proof. Note that this article uses UK English, so proper usage is "U2 are" (not "is"). I have a question on the talk page about the use of "group" and "band" as singular or plural.Galena11 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Needed a little more pluralising, and I fixed some of the copyeditor's questions. Cricketgirl 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
currently a GA; since I wrote nearly the entire article, it's sometimes hard to spot my errors in writing. Still looking for hard references for a possible future FAC nomination. PhoenixTwo 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can start work on this page in the near future. --Kenneth M Burke 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page will be a challenge and will probably require going through it a couple of times; but I'm up to it and will take my time with it. --Kenneth M Burke 15:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are some factual curiosities in the article, but its ready for a final proofread.--Kenneth M Burke 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently GA and in peer review, expanded and getting it ready for FA. General copy-edit for prose and grammar required and highly appreciated (bearing in mind the FA criteria). → AA(talk) — 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is close to completing its peer review and should be up for FAC soon. Could I please request it be looked at soon (pretty please?... :) TIA. → AA(talk) — 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting done. Should be an easy proof. Cricketgirl 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneProofread complete...Gprince007 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A nicely referenced and well PR ed article. Need some little help in copy editing. Some issues regarding grammer and sentence arrangement has been put up in FAC. Help me, its urgentAmartyabagTALK2ME 05:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate entry: now in peer review as a preliminary step prior to FAC. The article is in pretty good shape with no major issues left to answer, except copyedit. Suggestion is made to enlist it to the League of Copyeditors during peer review. Currently in GAC.Immediate attention needed. Maximum parts done, required better prose in some parts.AmartyabagTALK2ME 10:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit done....ready for proof.Gprince007 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is now a FA. Gprince007 06:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Finally got it all proof-read... started this one a month ago! Cricketgirl 16:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to get this article to a standard level to at least GA, specially with grammar, spellings, POV, etc. AmartyabagTALK2ME 11:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyedit tag wasn't present or was removed early. It's now been added to the article. --Sigma 7 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting has been completed and it's ready for final proofread.Gprince007 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- copyedit done but certain biography detail need to be added....maybe someone can help!!...ready for proofread.Gprince007 14:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current featured article candidate in which all issues raised have been addressed with one reviewer suggesting "Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout by someone new to the article." I would be grateful for help as my editing has been described as "unidiomatic wording and weird turns of phrase" Thanks — Rodtalk 09:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done - proofer should look out for choppy prose (lots of short sentences). Cricketgirl 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cricketgirl left me little to do. It was fun. Finetooth 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I finished expanding it just today, is certainly GA/FA class in terms of citations and content, but also needs attention from a native speaker before it is ready for that level of recognition.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is in good shape. Should be an easy proofread. Finetooth 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed some names, I hope I didn't mess up —Dalobuca 19:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter and there's only so far someone like me could go, maybe some other folks have a better angle on it. --BrokenSphere 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i'm brave; i'll see what i can do. Imfa11ingup 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, didn't get far. Imfa11ingup 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did a pass, Description section needs more work. The sentence describing the church seems awkward. --Sigma 7 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, we can remove the general copyedit tag and replace it for individual sections, but this page still needs work from someone familiar with the subject. --Sigma 7 04:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did everything except the very difficult Murree hills culture section. I'll try and have another go at this later. Cricketgirl 07:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the article to the best of my abilities. Some more info can be added in the Tribes section by someone familiar with the topic. However, I think we can move this for proofread.Gprince007 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the section on "contemporary Persian literature" needs copyeditting. This section has been added after the article was promoted to GA status. The contemporary section has a lower quality than the rest of the article. Obviously the article is very important part of world literature and particularly Asian literature. Many thanks. Sangak 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on helping out with the CE of that section.--RedPen 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect my question about the usage of Persian vs. Iranian applies to this article as well. (See "Science and technology in Iran", below) Galena11 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sangak, Persian is the language used in the literature, and should always be referred to as such. In context as a nation, all references to the country prior to 1935 should be "Persia", 1935 and after should be "Iran". Galena11 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving for final. --Sigma 7 08:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I made a large number of small changes throughout and a small number of more substantial changes to the contemporary section. I piped many existing wiki-links that caused redirects without pipes. I caught a couple of the Iran/Persia mix-ups. I can't promise I caught everything. Someone with expert knowledge could no doubt do better with the contemporary section. Finetooth 03:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Easy. Cricketgirl 09:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)