Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives

Request For Someone To Check My Work

Hello! I recently copyedited the article Sweet and Lowdown. This is my first copyedit on Wikipedia (and first major edit), so I'd really appreciate it if someone could look over my work to make sure I didn't trip over myself and make things approximately 1000% times worse. The article has several issues that are beyond the scope of a copyedit, and I'm not experienced enough to tackle them just yet. I did make a note of them so that someone else (or myself) could fix them later. Thanks in advance! CrowEater (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that you made many improvements. Thank you for your efforts. You might think about leaving more visible notes by using the "reason" parameter of {{Clarify}}, rather than hidden comments that editors are unlikely to see. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks. CrowEater (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer review for work on History of the USVI request

Hi y'all, I have been copyediting the page History of the United States Virgin Islands. Would anyone care to check if I can call my work completed? Thank you. Zorblin (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 22:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What counts, and what doesn’t?

I’ve been working on a large article made up primarily of tables for the last week or so. How should I count it, or does it not count since I started before the drive? Thanks! ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 06:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything begun before the drive starts (tonight at midnight UTC) doesn't count towards your drive totals; virtue is its own reward . Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 13:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have on rare occasion counted the number of edits performed within a drive or blitz, divided by the total number of edits, including those outside the time frame, and multiplied by the word count. That's not official policy, though. Regarding List of United States tornadoes in 1946, which I think is the article you're referring to, the "page size" script gives a word count of only 76 for that article, where I get approximately 9000 8000 from my LibrOffice word processor's word count function. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC))

I think I’m going to count the text of the tables I haven’t touched yet, which gives a word count of 1757.

Edit: I hit publish too soon! I’ve been treating each table as a mini article, so it seems sensible to count them that way.~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I copy-paste tables and lists (anything the word-counting script doesn't pick up) into a word processor for their word count and add it to the article's word count for the total. All the best, Miniapolis 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for an online word counter, WordCounter.net is a nice free alternative. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Requests award

I propose adding an award for most backlog requests completed in future drives to put it on parity with the old requests backlog. In my view, emptying the requests backlog seems to be more important than the old articles backlog because the articles listed at the requests page have a higher chance of being improved further, since most requests precede GAN or FAC reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I am skeptical of anything that might push new and less-experienced editors toward copy-editing Requests, especially if the incentive is to copy-edit them quickly. Requests require time and care and should not be motivated by awards or barnstars. Requests already receive a 50% bonus in word count; that is probably enough. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jonesey. All the best, Miniapolis 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting it as an additional incentive, but as recognition for those who choose to use their time during the drives to review requests. In any event, doesn't the 50% bonus already create the problem of incentivizing new and less-experienced editors to try their hand at requests during a drive? On that point, the current instructions on the requests page don't make it clear that a less-experienced editor shouldn't try to copy edit an article where the requestor has, for example, stated that they want a copy edit to prepare for FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The instructions for copy editors at WP:GOCER do say Articles that are potential Featured Article candidates should only be handled by experienced editors. We could, perhaps, provide more extensive guidance, but I suspect that experienced copy editors don't need the advice and newbies are unlikely to find it. So it goes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that newbies are unlikely to find it; maybe some sort of caution should be put higher up on the page in an area that isn't collapsed by default? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

They're already on parity, at least in terms of calculating barnstars, as both oldest requests and backlog articles get a 50% bonus (during drives only, not blitzes, which are relatively unrewarding barnstar-wise). Both are important, and both are difficult. The requests are already likely to have a high polish but also come under the gaze of a more demanding clientele (whose scathing verdict on those found wanting can be quite disincentivizing), and there are other venues to improve them, such as peer reviews, or the subject-matter editors just stepping back for awhile and later rereading them critically. Backlog articles (calling them "requests" too, as you've done, can be confusing) are more likely to be unintelligible and extraordinarily difficult to untangle, where improvement might reach fewer readers but make more of a difference to an article's usefulness. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Work on multiple at once?

As the subject line suggests, can I work on multiple at once? I just finished a 16,000 word behemoth and kept thinking it would be nice to have a "palate cleanser" between sections. Would it be okay to tackle a short article that would take around an hour while working on a week long project? ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 00:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Argenti Aertheri. I understand your fatigue (having felt it myself), but copyediting long articles is a matter of choice. We discourage working on more than one article at once because quality tends to suffer. All the best, Miniapolis 12:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the speedy answer ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Words

Exactly how do words work? I read it over and I don't really know how to get them. Is it for every word you fix or rearange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatOneWolf (talk • contribs)

@ThatOneWolf: It's for how many words the article had before you started editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: So basically if I edit a bigger article that would mean more points? Wolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@ThatOneWolf: In essence yes, but that doesn't mean go through large articles as fast as one can; it's expected that more attention and time are going to be given to those, and in cases of poor copyediting a penalty may be imposed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

ThatOneWolf: remember that the goal is to apply high-quality copy-editing to articles. The drive leaderboard is just for fun; some people find it motivational. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now. Thanks! Wolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)