Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Criteria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tighter guidelines[edit]

I feel that the easiest way to clear or reduce our current backlog of requests is to tighten the criteria which articles must meet before they can be requested. If this is applied retrospectively, we can clear many of the backlog articles by denying them on the new procedural grounds. I know that sounds harsh, but of course the main purpose is not simply to find excuses to deny requests. Instead, let's discuss any new criteria on their own merits and come up with criteria that focus our limited resources where they can do the most good. Essentially, that means where our edits are least likely to be overwritten by rewrites or drowned out by new information.

Currently on this project page are three guidelines that I think are self-evident. However, let's discuss them, along with any others that people propose, below. The format of the page is that it is transcluded onto the main page, with <noinclude> tags limiting the information that is transfered. We should therefore be able to boil each criterion down to a nutshell-esque phrase which appears on the main page, combined with a more exensive explanation which appears only on the subpage. In the proposed wording below, the summary section is bolded. Happy‑melon 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria suggestions[edit]

English[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed wording: The article must be written in English. The League will not copyedit articles that are written in a language other than English, or those which have been auto-translated into English.

We should add to the "must be in English" requirement that we will not work on auto-translated articles if they are not in summary format and/or have not had a preliminary attempt at standardizing the translated English. Often, those auto-translated articles do not turn out well and it is almost impossible to determine the intended meaning. Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, and Galena's addition. Happy‑melon 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manual of Style[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed wording: The article must comply with the major stylistic requirements of the manual of style and the stylistic requirements of appropriate WikiProjects. While it is the League's purpose to ensure that every nuance of the MoS is followed, the League will not copyedit articles that do not comply with the requirements of specific layout guidelines (such as WP:FICT, MOS:FILM, MOS:MUSIC, etc), and with WP:GTL, WP:SS and WP:L. The article must also meet any standards set by relevant WikiProject style guidelines, such as WP:MUSTARD for music-related articles. Shortcuts will be expanded


Where applicable, articles must meet any standards set by the relevant WikiProject (such as WP:MUSTARD for music articles).
Followup question: Is there a page that lists all of these wikiproject standards?Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Happy‑melon 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content issues[edit]

Proposed wording: The article must be free from major content issues. The League exists to polish the prose of an article towards the "compelling, even brilliant" level found in Wikipedia's best articles. Its efforts are wasted if the text that the League edits is overwritten by major rewrites or restructures. To that end, the League will not copyedit articles that have, or need, any of the following cleanup tags:

The last requirement "The article must not contain substantial issues with original research, notability, neutral point of view, etc." is a bit too vague and offered more specific examples above.
If we see or have to add a tag for any of the following conditions in any part of the article, we will deny c/e on the basis that resolving these issues is likely to significantly affect the article's content: no or too few references/citations, NPOV, cleanup, original research, notability
Are there any other issues like this that I didn't think of? Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a conflict between the stated eligibility criteria for copy-editing and the advice on this page:

A copy-edit should address only technical aspects of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Specialized or controversial topics may require specific wording for accuracy and NPOV. One solution is to solicit a copy-edit from an editor with expertise in the subject.

The third sentence `contradicts the first, regarding the scope of copy-editing.
For example, consider the request for copy-edit of Consumers' cooperative. The article is tagged NPOV, and a brief look does indeed show substantial POV issues. These should be repaired before requesting c/e, but those behind the request might well have been following the last sentence of the above blockquote. That is why I did not put a denial on this request.
Perhaps the sentence, " One solution is to solicit a copy-edit from an editor with expertise in the subject" should be changed to " ... solicit a rewrite from an editor..." or some other language. In any event, could you make the criteria clear and consistent on all pages? It would be much easier (and faster) for the League to focus on "... technical aspects of spelling, grammar, and punctuation" if NPOV issues do not have to be handled also. In addition, of course, it's pointless to c/e an article that's going to be re-written anyway, as you've mentioned. Thanks for your work on this project. Unimaginative Username 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find that quote you gave on the page you referenced. I'm also not sure I understand the problem. Happy‑melon 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Etiquette" section, third paragraph. The general question is: Do copy-editors focus on "technical aspects of spelling, grammar, and punctuation", etc., or are they also expected to fix major POV issues on subjects that they have not researched and of which they are not knowledgeable? The specific problems are: The article on Consumers' cooperative is tagged POV, and has major issues, which, IMHO, should be repaired before a c/e is requested; and that the quote discussed appears to encourage writers to ask the League to fix their POV issues. Sorry this wasn't clear from the OP. Unimaginative Username 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the confusion in the quoted text is that they are confusing "copyediting" with "editing". Copyediting, as explained by rest of the WP:COPYEDIT page, does not resolve issues with missing or inappropriate content but rather brings the content into alignment with the MOS and general English usage. It is the editors role to get the content up to snuff. Galena11 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. At first, I thought that the page referenced was a policy page that should be edited only by admins, but a closer look indicates that that's not so. So, I made the edit suggested in my OP. Unimaginative Username 04:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this discussion, I have denied the c/e request for Consumers' cooperative, as per my OP. Agree that patrolling requests for POV issues would reduce the backlog and help focus on articles ready for c/e. Unimaginative Username 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, after issuing the above denial, I edited the denial template from "Unfortunately the request was denied..." to "Unfortunately, the request was denied..." (comma for introductory word/clause). Unimaginative Username 05:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this with interest, and have a question. Should we include {{in-universe}} in the above list? It seems to me that in-universe prose is often best handled during a copyedit. EyeSereneTALK 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In-universe issues are tricky in terms of c/e, because sometimes it requires considerable knowledge of the topic to fix. That was the likely logic behind its inclusion in our list above. Galena11 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stable[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed wording: The article must be stable. That is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war.

While I agree that it is critical that articles be stable, we need an agreed-upon definition for "stable" so we can all apply the same standard. Not sure what to suggest, though--maybe a certain number of reverts and/or edits within a stated time period? What seems fair? Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Could be hard to judge. Happy‑melon 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the same wording used for GAC?? I've added it above. Happy‑melon 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other ideas[edit]

Featured[edit]

Proposed wording: The article should not be featured. As it is a requirement for Featured Article status that the article's prose must be "compelling, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", the League is unlikely to be able to make substantial improvements. As a general rule, therefore, the League does not copyedit Featured Articles unless the quality of their prose has been questioned at Featured Article Review.

Seems sensible to me. Comments? Happy‑melon 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that when the article first becomes featured it is brilliant, but over time as more editors edit, the article can loose its shin. And that is when you copyeditors are really needed. You shouldn't have to send a FA to FAR in order to get it copyedited to maintain its brilliance. I would suggest a policy where a FA can be copyedited at anytime. These articles are our best work, we should keep them that way. Also, I don't think the backlog you have is with FAs, I think the backlog is other articles that are no where near close enough to even approach FA or GA. I would focus on trying to weed out those articles. Maybe a requirement that in order to be copyedited the article has to be rated at least B class, GA candidate, or is a FA candidate. KnightLago 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points on both sides. I think that maybe we continue to allow people to post FA requests, but put a disclaimer that they will be c/e'd at our discretion, rather than treated as part of the backlog. I also think the B Class or FA and GA Candidate requirement is a good addition. Galena11 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal observation is that most articles on the Main Page have a fair number of minor errors, unless they were c/e as part of FAR. Most articles probably should be -- it's embarrassing to display poor punc and grammar as our example to the world. Anyway, not sure if I agree that the League couldn't make improvements to a lot of FA, but it would surely be better if they were made before the Main Page posting. Unimaginative Username 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we deny copyedits to articles which attain featured status before their request is acted upon; the justification being that if they did not already feature "brilliant prose", they would not have passed FAC. This would not prejudice FA articles being nominated if their prose could do with touching up. Happy‑melon 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, but how long until a copyedit can be requested? KnightLago 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No limit, only that it must be done after FA status is attained. Happy‑melon 12:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they have attained FA status "before their request is acted upon", wouldn't "after FA status is attained" already have been met? Seems like the answer is "anytime/immediately". (or are you saying that the c/e must be re-requested after FA? .... I guess that's a more logical interpretation.) Unimaginative Username 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting confused. How about a different direction? Wouldn't it be better to just say that once an article is a FAC the LoCe will not work on it until after its FAC is closed one way or the other? This would ensure that the league is not rushed into copyediting, allow the copyeditors to focus on all articles instead of the ones that are FACs, and encourage people to improve/work on the article before going to FAC. Once a candidate gets to FAC it is supposed to be perfect, or so close that the suggested changes will easily enable it to be promoted. As it is now, I have seen a number of articles get to FAC and then a LoCe request follows. You could also maybe include a requirement that a new FA has to wait a month or two at least before a copyedit, unless the are extraordinary circumstances. KnightLago 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is getting confusing. Ideal situation: FA reviewers find that the article is FA-quality in every other way (content, source, layout, etc.), but needs a c/e. Not uncommon at all -- many excellent researchers and editors are not excellent spellers, grammarians, etc., esp.. the non-Native speakers of English. We c/e; it becomes FA; everybody happy. Isn't this pretty much what happened with Florida Atlantic University, in which you (KnightLago) were a prime editor?
I think the immediate issue in question is: What if the FAC is approved after the c/e request is made but before the c/e happens? The original issue was: What if someone makes a new c/e request for an article that is already FA? Galena11 had a good comment that could apply to both: Treat the request at our discretion, not as part of the backlog. I second that. A quick glance is usually enough to tell whether an article will benefit from c/e, anyway. Unimaginative Username 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't recall it when I first wrote that, but you did go through the article again after it had been nominated. I did however, request a copyedit, and you obliged before I nominated it for FA. Anyway, I was just throwing out a suggestion. Your discretion sounds fine to me also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightLago (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authors responsible for FAC/GAC outcome[edit]

  • Authors should be responsible for adding comments to FAC and GAC articles listings on our Requests page indicating the outcome of their attempt. Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this sounds great, how often is it really going to happen? Most people would forget or not even know of this rule. KnightLago 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I just wish there was a way to monitor this in a better way...maybe a bot (although I have no idea how that might work....)? Galena11 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bot could in principle be written that monitors GimmeBot's edits to flag up FACs that have been closed one way or another. GACs would be harder. It's not something that could be done easily, that's for sure. Happy‑melon 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length[edit]

  • Should there be any reference to the guidelines for maximum article size? It's a good idea anyway to encourage writers to use the length guidelines, and reducing both the length and the number of overly-long articles makes the C/E's job easier and permits more articles to be c/e more promptly, thus reducing the backlog. It also might encourage more C/Es to participate, and existing C/Es to participate more often, though these are of course secondary to encouraging article writers to write in a concise style. Unimaginative Username 08:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. I've added that to the stylistic requirements above. Happy‑melon 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Unimaginative Username 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a great suggestion, too. Galena11 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added WP:L to the "Manual of Style" section. Happy‑melon 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy‑melon, WP:L redirects to "Lists". Should this have been "WP:LENGTH", or "WP:SIZE"? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wince! Fixed on main page. Happy‑melon 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One nomination at a time[edit]

  • Maybe include that an editor can only nominate one article at a time for copyediting. There are 6 articles on the page now from the same editor. KnightLago 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about this one. It might seem like we are punishing an industrious editor, and I think our criteria should be more around the article than the authors themselves. Galena11 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Galena11, but also understand what KnightLago might be getting at: If one editor is frequently asking for CE of articles that aren't up to the standards, wanting the LoCE to make up the difference, then a message should be left directly for that editor, politely explaining the problem and pointing to the standards for requesting CE. If one editor has six articles all ready for FAR (for example), except for the CE, then hurray for that editor! Unimaginative Username 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the distinction now. I agree with Unimaginative Username's approach. Galena11 17:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, I have just left remarks on the Requests page about one editor who has three requests up, while failing to respond to issues I raised in copy-editing two of his previous requests several weeks ago. I think these requests are the type that KnightLago was referring to. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for consensus[edit]

I think we've pretty much reached consensus on the English, MOS, content, and stability issues. Since those are already the covered criteria on the current page, can we move the new verbiage to the main page/criteria page? We can continue to discuss the new items. Galena11 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Unimaginative Username 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Happy‑melon 20:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps put the agreed-upon criteria on the Requests page?[edit]

Been thinking about this... Authors who want a c/e will be at the Requests page. Perhaps these criteria should be there, to be read *before* they put their requests on the list. Sort of self-triage. Move the copy-editors' instructions off the page, directed elsewhere, so that the Criteria will be the most prominent. Maybe something like this: (just an idea)

At the top of the Requests page, in big writing, something like,

"If you are a copy-editor, please click HERE for the procedures to move these requests through the system as you copy-edit and proofread them.

If you are here to request a copy-edit for an article, please READ THESE CRITERIA FIRST. If your article meets these criteria, the instructions for making the request are below."

Then would be the criteria, then the instructions to list the article. The public would presumably have to read, or at least move past, the criteria before submitting requests.
The instructions for proofreading, removing, and denying would be moved to the c/e instruction page described above. These are in-house things, for our use only, and don't need to be taking up space on the public's intake page.

The thinking is that repeat copy-editors will become familiar with clicking on the directed page to find the templates to add; it will clean up the page so that requesters will be more likely to read the criteria. Just a thought... Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal priorities for responding to c/e requests[edit]

<soapbox> Looking at the large backlog of requests for c/e, one finds that a substantial number are for articles on video games, video game characters, movies (IMDb does a fine job on these), movie characters, movies about toys, TV shows, TV show characters, lists of TV deployment, rock musicians, rock albums, persons whose sole contribution to humanity is the ability to kick, throw, or hit a ball, teams consisting of such persons, ad infinitum. Meanwhile, articles of perhaps more scholarly or durable value, such as those on history, geography, science, sociology, psychology, persons and institutions that genuinely enhance human knowledge, etc., sit on the list for months awaiting c/e or p/r. Of course, any article meeting the notability guidelines has its rightful place in the encyclopedia. The great thing about being a volunteer is that one can choose for which projects to volunteer, and no disparagement is intended to copy-editors who c/e the first category of articles. This user certainly has enjoyed playing video games, watching movies and TV, listening to music, playing and watching sports, etc., but would like to state that given the limited number of hours in any human's lifetime, those hours available to this editor for c/e WP will be allotted mostly to the second category. Would be interested to know the feelings of other League members on this issue. </soapbox>. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I'm glad you guys have made some tighter guidelines. I think we may want to start going through the 2000-some articles that have been marked and removing the tag from articles that don't meet the criteria. There's no sense in encouraging editors to continue waiting for a copy-edit when they just aren't going to get one. Wrad (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing our two areas of focus. Of much more importance to us is the requests page, where we respond to direct requests for copyedit from other editors. This is the area where these criteria are really designed for, because this really occupies our full attention. If League members have any time to spare we like to try and reduce the number of articles in the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. This is the one with the (currently) 3029 article backlog, but this is a relatively low priority for the league. What would be an excellent use of your time would be to go through what's left of WP:LOCE/P and then WP:LOCE/R and clean out any requests which fail these criteria. Happy‑melon 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I went through and did a couple in the January cat. I'm just wondering if when we run across something with a big fat NPOV tag on it can we just take it off the list? Wrad (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the cats with {{copyedit}} on them are a bit different to our requests - we're not the only people who work on those articles, or the only people "qualified" to fix them. So I wouldn't remove a {{copyedit}} tag just because there are other tags on the article. By contrast, any article on the WP:LOCE/R or WP:LOCE/P pages with tags (unless they're very minor ones) should probably be denied. Happy‑melon 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace[edit]

Does anyone object to it being a criterion that the page must be in the mainspace? It sounds stupid, but User:Mitchazenia/Sandbox LNBS 1 is listed on the old page, and I really don't think this is the kind of thing we do here. If the text isn't even ready enough to go live, why should we have anything to do with it? Happy‑melon 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Criteria&oldid=1137377104"