Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2019

Section edit guidelines

So, on this section in the November 2018 drive talk page, it says that if we're doing a section copy edit, we should only claim the tagged section(s). But in the FAQ, in the question "How should I approach articles which are only tagged as needing copy editing in a particular section?" it says that "For the purposes of the drive or blitz, you should generally only count the section that was tagged with {{copy edit-section}}. If you find the rest of the article needs copy editing to the same degree as the tagged section, count the whole article.

So I think that the drive discussion is correct, than can somebody update the FAQ? – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Ben79487: This is what it says under the FAQ - looks like one and the same to me - if you do the section count only it, if you do the article count the whole thing. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben79487, I think we need to tag in Reidgreg for this since s/he is the one who said that for drives and blitzes we could only take the total for the section. As you probably remember, I had to deduct words from my total word count because of this guideline. It would be good to have the guidelines be consistent. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read the relevant section of the FAQ. If you think it needs clarification, let us know. I also find it useful to keep in mind that the GOCE is "dedicated to improving the quality of writing in articles on the English Wikipedia" (a quote from our main project page). Many of us find that seeing the results of a good copy-edit is the primary reward of participation in the GOCE drives and blitzes, and that keeping a strict, accurate count of every word that passes through our hands is secondary. The drives and blitzes are useful tools to keep editors coming back, and it is fun to have a little friendly competition, but the counting itself is not the point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And as every experienced copyeditor knows, all word counts are not created equal. I've been slaving away for days on TNT (Russian TV channel), and am nowhere near done. Sure, it started out as 8,000 words; however, those 8K words were written by a person (or persons) with a limited command of English (and, unfortunately, many Russian media articles are in equally sorry shape and may have been created by the same editor(s)). But do I feel like I'm wasting my time? Hell, no; I'm improving an encyclopedia on which I rely. It distresses me that there's currently so much emphasis on the leaderboard; for crying out loud, it's only a barnstar. That's why I've never liked the blitzes; they can encourage a similar winning-is-everything mindset (and we do enough bookkeeping as it is :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 15:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, It's not that the FAQ is unclear, it's that we were told to only count the section tagged for the blitzes and drives. What the FAQ says versus what was said in the talk page differs. Whatever y'all decide is cool, it just needs to be consistent. But, this is my point and Ben79487 may have had a different one with the initial question.

Some people may be primarily motivated by the competition. IMO there's nothing wrong with that as long as the work still gets done. If the drives and blitzes are useful tools for getting editors to come back, then it means that the competition aspect is rewarding to people, not just the results of a good copyedit. Many things are gamified specifically because humans respond to it. For any game, clear and consistently applied rules are important (flashback of sitting in gaming rooms with people arguing over rules, shudder).

Also, as I was writing this, I saw my first American goldfinch of the year at one of my feeders. At another, two Baltimore orioles chattered. This concludes my bird geekiness. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 15:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Santa brought me an oriole feeder, but It'll be a few months before I can fill it :-). Miniapolis 15:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You will love watching and listening them! I know to look out my window when I hear thair chattering. I get them for the winter so I don't get to see the whole mating thing and the fledglings. I think my grape jelly feeds more bees than orioles but I like bees so that's okay. :D PopularOutcast^talk2me! 17:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

" For the purposes of the drive or blitz, you should generally only count the section that was tagged with {{copy edit-section}}. If you find the rest of the article needs copy editing to the same degree as the tagged section, count the whole article."

@Twofingered Typist: Okay! So basically, it's "count what you do." Cheers! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 01:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence, I've been having issues with my ISP. The drives and blitzes are set up to remove tagged articles from the backlog, so we should generally count only what is covered by the tag. It is inconsistent where the FAQ says If you find that the rest of the article needs copy editing to the same degree as the tagged section, and you copy-edit the whole article, count the words in the whole article. While I encourage editors to be thorough and fix other problems they come across, I would cautiously note that a full-article copy edit may not be appropriate on an article with a section tag. If we think of tagged articles as being low-level Requests, an editor may tag particular section(s) while continuing to work on citing and expanding other sections, for which a copy edit may be unwelcome. Sticking to what's tagged may help to avoid the frustration of being reverted or getting mired in other article issues. As for wordcounts, we're on the honour system and I tend to trust our copy editors to be fair in claiming their work. I'm trying to be more concerned with quality than quantity. (I was pleased to see a number of red-bellied woodpeckers come for suet.) – Reidgreg (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the problematic sentence from the FAQ page. All the best, Miniapolis 23:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wot? I had this idea that you lived on the Canary Islands. Obviously I am wrong about that. Also I am thrilled to be among other bird enthusiasts! Although we have red-bellies all year round here, I tend to see them at my feeders mostly in the winter. I don't put out suet anymore (because rats with fluffy tails) but they manage the regular feeders okay. I may try suet again only in the winter. I guess that's now. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 19:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis:OK! Thanks, everybody, for resolving this issue! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Curly quote bot?

Recently, some of the articles I copy edited, including Digital civics, had curly quotes (“, ”, and ’ for example) instead of the straight quotes (" and ') that should be used, according to this MoS section. Here's a quote:

Use "straight" quotation marks, not “curly” ones. (For single apostrophe quotes: 'straight', not ‘curly’).

So I'm wondering if there is a bot that is working on this issue. If not, can somebody please write a bot (or ask somebody else) to do it? It's getting annoying. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 02:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ben; a bot to perform that task would be great but I don't know whether one is performing it – you can always ask here. In the meantime, if you want to change the quotation marks you could use word processing software (MS Word, LibreOffice, etc) to quickly do that and other tiresome tasks using the find/replace function. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 03:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ben79487: There was a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Bot requests in 2016. While there were bot operators willing to jump on this, consensus was that this is a type of edit that should be performed by a human editor. The primary concern was that curly quotes may be an indicator that a section of text was copy-and-pasted and may represent copyright violation. Some editors who specialized in this were specifically checking articles with curlies. Essentially, the larger policy issue overrode the MOS guideline concern. You can find the previous discussion at bot requests here.

If the curlies are in a title or quoted text, then there's no copyvio and you can fix them without worry. Otherwise, use your own judgement. If the section with curlies doesn't have encyclopedic tone, that may be another indication of a copy-and-paste, and can be fixed by paraphrasing and summarizing. There's more information at Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 and a link to Earwig, a popular tool for detecting copyvio from online sources. If you suspect copy-and-pasted text but don't feel you can fix it, you can tag the article/section with {{copypaste}}.

On a personal note, when I learned all of this in 2016 as a new editor, it really opened my eyes and pushed me to think policy while working on guidelines, and I also became involved with the GOCE at about that time to learn of other article issues and to be more thorough in my editing practices. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:Okay! I guess I'll just have to settle with doing it by hand. I never knew that sometimes the curlies might be a sign of copyvios. Although I suppose it makes sense now, Google Docs (even when in a monospace font like Consolas) always curls the quotes, but Wikipedia doesn't. I think that many other websites may do that too. In my experience, the only time when text editors don't do it is the Wikipedia source editor and coding IDEs, like the Python IDLE or Eclipse for Java.

Oh, and for the curly titles, do I just move the article to the intended title (without curlies)? I think so, but I just want to check. Happy (copy)editing in the 2-1th month of the year 7!/2-500-1! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 20:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have another question: What about curly quotes in references, like this:

<ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/06/21/lgbt-pioneer-in-congress-favors-baby-steps-in-same-sex-marriage|title=LGBT pioneer in Congress favors ‘baby steps’ in same-sex marriage|website=Manila Bulletin News}}</ref>

Do we replace the curlies now? Or do we let them stay?

Oh, and just so you know, this was from the page Geraldine Roman's "Same-sex marriage" section. Once again, the day is ending (it's the 3×7th hour). Cheers! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 21:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ben79487: Ah, I meant titles of works, but yes, you should be able to move article titles from curly to straight equivalents. Anyone can move an article, but if you haven't done a lot of moves and aren't familiar with the article title guidelines, you may prefer to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves (by placing {{subst:Requested move}} on the article's talk page – check that template documentation first). I've gotten a lot of good advice from the editors there. When an article has a typographically weird name, usually it will be located at an easy-to-type title with the magic word DISPLAYTITLE providing the typography. In other cases, like an accented title, there will be a redirect from the easy-to-type name (without accents). There's also a bit of housecleaning you should do following a page move (like checking What links here on the sidebar and making sure there are no double redirects).

I tend to leave citations alone, in case the original format makes it easier to locate the source (if a URL is moved or archived), though that probably isn't an issue with curlies as most search engines seem to treat straight and curly apostrophes the same. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Vetting

Just a quick note that I've finished reviewing the articles tagged for c/e in July and August 2018; I've removed c/e templates from articles the lack references, are poor machine-translations or have other problems that would prevent a full c/e from sticking. The remaining 52 articles should be fairly easy to c/e, though some will be more challenging than others. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, thanks! I struggle many times with knowing if articles should be copyedited. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 22:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Thanks! Sometimes the machine translations have very poor grammar. (I once tried the Chinese phrase "井底之蛙," which (roughly) means "frog at the bottom of the well," and Google Translate said it was "bottom of the frog!" Oops!) – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 02:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both; I think some editors confuse the GOCE with Cleanup and other similar projects. We shouldn't expect anyone to c/e text that will likely be removed or mostly rewritten, or is incomprehensible. Ben, Translate can provide hours of idle amusement. :D Thanks both for your work and patience; it's much appreciated. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Russian quotes?

So, I recently copyedited the article Nil Khasevych, and there, I found a couple quotes like this: «» Should I replace those with regular quotes (""), or should I leave them alone? – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 02:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben79487, according to MOS:CONFORM, they should be replaced with regular straight quotes. Good luck, PopularOutcast^talk2me! 03:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Or with block-quotation templates or tags. I remember looking at that article and recall that the quoted material there is rather lengthy. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, ah yes, I didn't look at the article. MOS:BLOCKQUOTE says quotations of over about 40 words should be put in blocks. Thanks for catching that. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 03:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben, considering the lack of inline references there, I'd be inclined to mark it with {{Rough translation|Russian}}; kudos if you understand Russian. If you wish, you could use word processing software to find/replace the quotation marks (see above). Thanks for your work there. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978:Yes, I noticed. Also, I do not understand Russian. I'll tag it with {{Rough translation}}. Do you know any Wikipedians who understand Russian? – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 01:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't, sorry. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ben79487: Yup, MOS:CURLY tells us to use only regular straight quotation marks, not guillemets («») or other typographically fancy punctuation. However, block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks of any variety; the indented block of text is enough to distinguish it from the rest of the prose (MOS:BLOCKQUOTE). For a foreign-langauge blockquote, I like to use {{Verse translation}} which lets you put the original and the translation side-by-side.

With this particular article some of the quotes are rather long and you might want to consider trimming or removing some of them. Encyclopedic articles should not overuse quotations, and should only have them "to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". If you aren't sure about the merits of a quote but don't feel strongly enough to remove it, you can tag it with {{relevance inline}} (or {{cite quote}} if unsourced) and leave it for another editor. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: The subject of the article is a Ukrainian nationalist and I believe his quotes are in Ukrainian; the reports of the attack may be Russian, though. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:Yes, I'll fix up the quotes. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 01:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: Do I do the same thing with {{Text and translation}}? – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 01:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You can use either template, though I prefer verse translation which is a little more versatile (pun intended). If you use verse translation, set |italicsoff=yes, as non-Roman script such as Cyrillic should not be in italics (MOS:FOREIGNITALIC). – Reidgreg (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy edits by Balasubramanianrajaram

So, we've got a new editor (registered in October, less than 200 edits), with consensus by three coordinators (Jonesey, Baffle gab and myself) that a copy edit is below basic competency. I reviewed three more of their eleven claimed copy edits and found them all problematic. I might be persuaded to give partial credit if the editor followed the feedback and worked to improve their edits before the end of the drive (or if I find a copy edit that's acceptable), but the editor has essentially stopped editing. I'll try to check a couple more as time permits. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I found the edits to Michael Masto diff were sub-par, being unnecessary minor changes. I'm neutral about giving credits at the moment, but I think a reduced award would be fair on other editors and might encourage the editor to improve. Thanks for doing further checks Reigreg. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless they come back, I think it's safe to assume that none of their copyedits meet the GOCE standard; thanks, both, for noticing. Partial credit may discourage a good-faith copyeditor who hasn't yet amassed the numbers (I remember that :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 23:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm not supposed to post on here, but I agree. I looked at the edits to A Feast of Vultures (diff) mostly to be unnecessary changes, and usually, I don't like to delete large sections of text. I even found a few comma problems in there. All the same, I'm pretty new, too (registered 2 October), and I kinda stumbled a little on the copyediting at first. My advice would be that I would be lenient; see if the editor comes back. But there's no wikibreak sign on the user page and the editor hasn't responded to Reidgreg's comments from a few days ago. Hope this helps! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

See also my talk page section on Michael Mastro. I tried to give constructive feedback and gently push the editor away from copy editing per CIR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I finished checking the rest of this editor's copy edits; they all introduced errors. The only one I felt was a net improvement was Mehrunisa V Lub U (diff) but it only dealt with the first half of the article so it was incomplete. While I am in favour of the GOCE being a place where editors can learn, some basic competency is required and I don't want to give false encouragement. ('False encouragement is a kind of theft: it steals time, energy, and motivation a person could put toward some other purpose.' Sam Harris) – Reidgreg (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Running out of articles

The drive month of August is down to 117 articles, which is good news; well done everyone. Should we open up September if August is done before the end of the drive? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 17:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

My weak preference is that since it is January 23, it's a bit late in the month to add bonuses for September articles. I would rather see people focus on quality edits to as many articles as possible in order to get the overall backlog total down. We have been trending down nicely, but it takes focus on the high-count months, at least during some parts of the year, to keep that big number headed lower. That is purely my personal preference, however, and it won't take much to persuade me that bonuses for September articles is a good idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't open September until August is empty; otherwise, I get stuck doing the last few (difficult) articles :-). There's always requests, if folks want extra credit. All the best, Miniapolis 23:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I know we've done this a few times before, and I've always liked it. It seems like an opportunity to reward (?) those who like to focus on old articles and have been so diligent this month. Still, like Jonesey, it's not a strong preference, so I'd be fine with whatever is decided. Tdslk (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Once August empties out, probably in the next 24 hours, it strikes me as a good idea to open up September. Otherwise, the momentum dies away: it's always good to have a specific goal with incentives to keep people engaged, and there's over a week to go in the current drive. (There's only one unclaimed December Request; that'll easily in the next week.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all; I'm neutral but I'll do some pre-emptive vetting of the Sept articles tonight. How nice to run out of oldest articles! :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's down to 3, and I took another one, so we're down to two. And I agree with BlueMoonset; it's a good idea to open up the September ones. Next drive we'll probably do October, November, and December, because there are 75 articles in September. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ben, we'll do that later today; they're only vetted to 'H' so be aware you might find some are unsuitable for c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we've run out of target articles (this drive specified December Requests). So pats on the back all around, I am very pleased that I can count the backlog months on one hand (hey, calendars are tricky!). Seeing as we have a full week left, I support opening up September for the old article bonus and to also add January Requests to the official targets. (I encourage newer copy editors to spend a little time checking over their work before taking on too much more.) – Reidgreg (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm working on the last August article, it's fine by me. I agree that this "progress" may be too true to be good :-). Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 23:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg, did I misunderstand the directions? I thought all the request page articles were counted for the bonus 50 percent, not just December. I took "You will receive a bonus score of 50% over the article's word count for articles that were tagged with {{copy edit}} in June, July, and August 2018, and for articles listed on the Requests page" to mean that they all did.

I need to change how I listed them on my little snippet of drive page if that's not the case. Umm, I guess the ones that are not for December do not get the *R? Or do they just not count for the drive? PopularOutcast^talk2me! 01:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Requests always count (so far as I can remember). I just meant the targets, listed with bullet points at the top of the drive page. I think we prioritized December to get that year finished. Miniapolis added January while also adding September, so that they are equal priorities. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

All Requests get a 50% bonus. #allrequestsmatter – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

All right, thanks you two. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 16:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Graph update for 25 January

The progress graphs were not updated to 25 January; it was still on 24. Can a coordinator fix it? – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 00:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben79487, I believe they do it manually so it generally takes a bit of time until they get to it. Misunderstood your request. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 00:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. Someone may slap my hand. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 00:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@PopularOutcast:Thanks for the fix! I wasn't sure if I could fix it myself. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 01:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What's all of the <small>foo</small> commenting about? I don't understand. Also, what does "Kudos" mean? Ben79487 (talk contribs) 01:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both; my error. D'oh! Ben: "Kudos (from the Ancient Greek: κῦδος) is acclaim or praise for exceptional achievement.": see Kudos. We use commenting in the page to guide users and coordinators who may not be familiar with our arcane ways to update stats, article counts, etc. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben, Baffle, what am I missing here? I can't find the word kudos anywhere on that page or much foo. What exactly were you referring to, Ben? I know Baffle already answer you but I am curious and would like to learn. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 02:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a synonym (of sorts) for "congratulations", mostly in American English. All the best, Miniapolis 14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

And Internetese. :) Ben79487 (talk contribs) 00:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Repetitive wording template

Hi! So when I was copyediting NCAA Emerging Sports for Women, there was some repetitive language. For example:

As of the fiscal year 2016–17, there are 52 DI, 9 DII, and 3 DIII schools which are participating in varsity competition.

This kind of wording appeared a lot in the article, and I don't know how to reword it. Is there like an improvement template (eg {{copyedit}}, {{primary sources}}, {{under construction}}, etc.) that I can put on the page! Thanks in advance, Ben79487 (talk contribs) 00:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

In my reading of your example, DI, DII and DIII schools are three types of school that participate in varsity competitions; the sentence isn't repetitious. Unless I'm missing some context, the only change I'd make to that sentence is to swap 'which' for 'that'. Am I missing something here? You could use {{copy edit|for=repetitive text}}, but we're on a drive to remove c/e templates, not add them! :D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Ben is referring to the fact that there are many sentences almost like that one, except for the numbers. Probably the best way to present the information would be in a table, but to my knowledge there isn't a "someone please make a table" template. Your best bet might be to add the generic Template:Cleanup and specify what you want in the "reason" parameter. I hope that answers your question. Tdslk (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If I could weigh in: the "D" in this instance refers to "Division", i.e. Division I, Division II, Division III. I would suggest writing each out in full at the first instance Equestrian Sports Division I (DI) etc... for clarity, followed by their abbreviations DI, DII, DIII and then leave the abbreviations as they are written in the rest of the article. The text is correct, no templates are required. Just a thought. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both for clarifying; I hadn't checked the article for context. I think this goes beyond copy-editing. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ben79487: I agree with Twofingered Typist about this; like any other acronym, they should be defined in expanded form with first use in the lead and body (MOS:ACRO). If you're unsure what an acronym is supposed to be, you can place the inline tag {{expand acronym}} at the first occurrence. (I often place that while working on an article but usually figure it out as I go, and the tag helps me find the place to put the expanded version.) If there is a lot of sourced material that's just not understandable, the typical tags I'll use are {{expert needed}} or {{cleanup translation}} as the case may be; these have parameters to specify the problem and will hopefully get the article the help it needs. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg, Twofingered Typist, Tdslk, and Baffle gab1978: So I'll go with the following, for example this excerpt from the Equestrian section of the article:

"18 Division I (DI), 5 Division II (DII), and 21 Division III (DIII) schools"

Thanks, everybody, for your advice, and hope you have a happy end of the drive! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 00:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Deadlines

So when I was copyediting the article Racism, which is 1244812443 words long, I believe, a question occurred to me: What if I don't finish the article in time (like the drive ends first)? What happens to the edit count? Can somebody answer the question? Thanks in advance, Ben79487 (talk contribs) 01:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. The article Racism's huge!

If you don't finish it by the close of the drive (midnight GMT/UTC on 31st Jan), just count the number of words you have c/e'd by then and mark it as 'partial' on your subsection. You can still add to your stats for 24 hours after the drive closes. It normally takes me a few days to complete an article that long. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben79487: Even if you don't finish copy-editing by the end of the drive, please continue editing the article after the drive. Imagine the look on your friends' faces when you tell them "I fixed Racism this week." – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:Oops. I fixed the word count. [Self-trouts]

I'm trying to get a good one for the "Longest Article" section. Well, *cough* I didn't want to "fix Christianity." *cough* – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 04:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, how do you get the edit count for part of an article? I'm pretty sure that I won't finish it. Thanks in advance, Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The easiest ways are to copy that portion of the article into your sandbox and run the Page Size script there, or copy the article portion into text editing software on your computer and use its word count function. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Prosecount works in edit previews if you don't want to save it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 06:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)