I've put the above request on hold because the requester @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: (courtesy ping) indicates the presence of close paraphrasing, which can often mean copyright violations. I've asked them to either indicate the relevant (sub-)section(s) using a template so the copy-editor knows where the problem text is or, if it's a true copyvio, to remove the problem text and have the revisions deleted. I'm happy for this to stay on hold for a while so this can occur. Cheers, Baffle☿gab20:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Baffle☿gab. Nothing needs to be revdelled, the issue was close paraphrasing rather than direct copyvio. As this will be copyedited by a third party, I believe I should be able to approve the DYK following that, so I gone ahead and handled the small amounts of close paraphrasing remaining myself. The copyediting that is desired now is an overall copyedit to help weave the points taken from disparate sources together. Let me know if there is anything else needed. Best, CMD (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Chipmunkdavis, my concerns are addressed and I'll now remove my hold notice. I was concerned a copy-editor wouldn't know if text they would consider acceptable, and thus may not reword in any way, may be the exact text they need to adjust. Cheers, Baffle☿gab03:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold; hi @Vigilantcosmicpenguin:, copyright problems should be dealt with before a copy-edit takes place. If only part of the article is closely paraphrased, please identify the (sub-)section(s) using {{Close paraphrasing}} so a copy-editor knows where to work. If text is close enough to the original to be a copyright violation, it should be removed and the revisions deleted via {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Discuss at REQ talk. Baffle☿gab20:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mox Eden: I guess at the end of July. Now I've graduated from high school and I'm no longer allowed to use the computer, so I'll have to do it on my cell phone. In case I haven't done anything by the end of July, you can pick this because I see you're interested too. Santi (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this this discussion, and the one on their talk page, Pollosito hasn't edited this article so I'm going to boldly take over this request. Discuss at REQ talk or send complaints to /dev/null. Baffle☿gab02:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For GAN. Please check whether the prose checks out on verifiability longer quotes in the Reception section (excluding the one in the quotebox) can be paraphrased. Thanks, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy:, please note citation-checking is not part of the copy-editing process. Per WP:BURDEN, the person adding the material is responsible for its accuracy and verifiability. Copy-editing is a "final prose polish" not a general fix-me-up. Cheers, Baffle☿gab04:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This probably needs no comment yet but I've put the request for the above article on hold because the article is currently at AFD here. Courtesy ping: TheNuggeteer currently has a Working tag on the request; they may continue to work on the article if they wish. The AFD currently looks like a keep or merge outcome. I apologize for not noticing the AFD earlier. Cheers, Baffle☿gab03:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed, Baffle; I really appreciate what you do. Since TheNuggeteer hasn't edited the article since the 19th (but voted keep in the deletion discussion) and the discussion is now leaning merge, I suggest we decline for now. All the best, Miniapolis13:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Miniapolis; the discussion is trending towards a merge so I agree to decline; much of this article's content may be lost in the merge and the requester is always welcome to submit a request for the merged article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab18:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the request for the above BLP article on hold and suggest we wait a short while then decline because the article, as the requester @DareshMohan: (courtesy ping) says here, it is largely unsourced. Unsourced content in BLP articles should be either cited or removed, so c/e-ing this would be pointless until this unsourced content is dealt with. GOCE is not Cleanup. Cheers, Baffle☿gab07:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I noticed a while back the archiving bot at REQ doesn't archive requests that have an asterisk in them. First-world problem, I know. So I've been removing asterisks from the page. After a chat with @Dhtwiki: (courtesy ping) here (permalink), I see the asterisks are added by the page notice, which I don't have permission to edit. TBH, I edit without JavaScript and didn't even know that template was able to do that! There are three solutions I can see:
a) edit the page notice to remove asterisks and replace them with a colon or double colon;
b) bother the bot operator to try and stop it from ignoring asterisks; or
c) continue with regular manual asterisk removal.
I think (a) as the best solution if it can be done; (b) is less good because there may be times when we want to stop the bot archiving a subsection and it involves poking the bot op; and (c) is a daily chore I won't always be around to do, although it will help me reach 100,000 edits more quickly! Cheers, Baffle☿gab19:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: Dhtwiki's test here (diff) showed the bot doesn't have a problem with asterisks so I apologize for making a fuss. I'l try and work out what really happened. I think this earlier bot outage (permalink) has something to do with it. :) I'll use asterisks in my next request; see what happens. Cheers, 22:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for noting this, @Tenryuu:. That user has requested an unblock, saying they were joking about sharing the account. I think we can agf for now but if the block is upheld, please put the request on hold and post at REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle☿gab07:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More or less Done. I've corrected grammar and such throughout the article. It remains quite stylistically choppy in places, and I think the whole thing could do with a de-crufting, but I'll leave that for someone else who has the intestinal fortitude (and hopefully a modicum of knowledge about Filipino pop culture, which I lack). Fluffernutter (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm not a good copyeditor myself, so I'm requesting another article. I fixed a lot, but this needs more fixes. This is pretty lengthy, but this is an interesting article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 08:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer: Done. However, there was one sentence I struggled to untangle, and I think it could use more attention: Under "Rebuilding", there is a sentence that says (after my tweaks) "The project required three phases: the planning, which was initiated in December and was finished in January, Implementation, which was deployed shortly after and ended in February, and then the full second phase, with whom a partner deployed another related project, which was deployed in April and ended at the end of the year." This is...really unclear. My understanding of it, which may or may not be accurate, is that there were three phases:
The planning phase (begun in Dec, ended in Jan)
The implementation phase (why is "Implementation" capitalized?) (begun in January and ended in February)
The second...phase? But we've already covered two phases, so isn't this the third phase?? Also what partner, and what related project, and why aren't we naming those? And once we sort that out, we really ought to change at least one of those "deployed"s to some other word to avoid repetition.
Sorry for taking long, I was busy updating things. For 1st, nothing's wrong with it, right? For the 2nd, uncapitalize Implementation. For the 3rd, the source states that it's named the "second phase" even though it's supposed to be the third. I found that the partner was CBO, which I don't know. I tried searching, but the only thing that popped up was Cotabato Airport, and I don't think an airport is eligible to be a business partner. For the rest of the changes, sure.
Thanks for the quick response, TheNuggeteer! Between what you said here and what is said in the source, I pieced together a version of that sentence that I'm happy with. So your copyedit is now officially done! Fluffernutter (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working towards a FA nomination (FAC) for veiqia (tattooing practice in Fiji) and have just competed a copy edit myself, but I would be really grateful if another editor has time and interest to look for things I may have missed Lajmmoore (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done. Worked on this for style, punctuation, smooth English reading and general cleanup. Consider it good and ready to be blessed by a more senior copy editor of the GOCE. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done – It reads well. During a quick read, I didn't see anything more than something I *might* have changed if I thought more about it but was very likely correct. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Done, but I'd appreciate a second review from another copyeditor, specifically on the matter of number agreement involving the group's name. Something about the way it's sometimes referred to as "they" and sometimes as "it", with corresponding conjugations in other words ("they were" but "it was"), throughout the article is nagging at me, but I can't quite put a finger on how to straighten it out to make things consistent. Fluffernutter (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part the article reads well. Sentences such as:
Fans and critics alike have praised Bini for their stable vocals, excellent synchronization, and meaningful lyrics.
On May 4, 2021, Bini released their first official debut teaser through a QR code leading to an image that reads "Are you ready for the Biniverse?"
work because "Bini" is an implied plural noun.
Sentences such as:
From this pool of auditionees, with recommendations from talent scouts, the first set of female SHA trainees, 12 girls, was selected. While Dyogi initially planned to debut a nine-member idol girl group, it was eventually trimmed down to eight girls:... ("...it was eventually..." -> "...which was eventually..."?)
In February 2022, the group was featured on the cover of the Dubai-based magazine Xpedition as "The Burgeoning Grace", making Bini one of the first Filipino celebrities, alongside brother group BGYO, to have an NFT magazine cover launched through the Metaverse. ("making Bini one of the first Filipino celebrities" -> "making Bini among the first Filipino celebrities"?)
I'm not sure whether to mark the request here (permalink} for Maxwell's Silver Hammer should be marked withdrawn. On their talk page, the requester @BernaBotto: says there's "nothing to do cuz my editions have been reverted", and they haven't responded to me on their talk. Should I accept their comment as a withdrawal without confirmation? Meanwhile, I'll put the request on hold. Cheers, Baffle☿gab21:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that's my first time writing an article in english, so i'm not so used to the grammar. The FAC failed and Skyshifter recommended to come here. BernaBotto (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article in its current version and didn't spot anything that needed fixing from a copyediting POV. It looks from page history like BernaBotto attempted some large changes and then the changes were reverted back to the status quo ante, so I'm not sure there actually is anything to do at this point. BernaBotto, can you specify if there's particular issues outstanding that you're aware of or if this request is now moot? (I'll leave a note to this effect on BB's talk as well). Fluffernutter (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the preliminary 2024 sums; here's the table. I counted the number of requests in the uncompleted months (November and December) from REQ. I haven't done the purpose codes yet. Feel free to check them, though please tell me if I'm wrong because this is from the Annual Report. You can tell I wasn't out partying tonight!
On a lighter note, I was considering using AI to work on these stats so I fed one column of data, the Dec completion times, into Microsoft Copilot and asked it for the mean average. It's as bad as me; it miscounted 41 data points as 42, then also miscalculated the mean. So I think I'll stick with a calculator and a spreadsheet for now! :)
^Mean average days to completion for requests we completed that month. Includes 52 requests we received in 2023, and excludes declined and withdrawn requests. Rounded to one decimal place.
^"Received" means all requests we received between 1 January and 31 December 2024, inclusively.
^"Processed" includes 52 requests from 2023 that we processed in 2024. It also includes declined and withdrawn requests but excludes all requests we received in 2024 that were processed in 2025.
^"Requests completed" excludes all requests we declined or were withdrawn. Requester-blanked requests are not archived.
Thank you. Here's a pointer to the draft 2024 Annual Report. This table looks very specific, and I can't quarrel with its validity. Making the columns sortable should be an easy fix that would make the table more useful. It looks like March was a good month for both making and processing requests. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I'm still plugging away at the report. September and October were good for clearing the oldest requests; I think many editors, including me, are less active in the mid-year months. I'll look at sortability, thanks for the suggestion. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab16:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I re-thought sortability, which won't work unless the entire row is sorted with whatever column is used as the key. That should be doable as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the request for this article on hold because its GA reviewer @Lazman321: says there are copyright infringements in the article the requested didn't mention but doesn't say where they are. Known textual copyright concerns should be addressed before requesting a copy-edit, otherwise volunteers' time gets wasted on edits to infringing material that needs to be redacted and/or may be quickly removed. Also courtesy-pinging the requester @Versace1608:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab17:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: If you'd like to know where the close paraphrasing is, here's the evidence I found during my spotchecks. I apologize if it is a little hard to read. Basically, in my spotchecks, I found over a dozen instances of close paraphrasing based on the first fourteen references, particularly in the composition section. For an article as short as this one, I found it too significant. Lazman321 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Babblegab, I did not commit copyright infringement. I am going to ask User:Dianna to look over the article and give me her opinion about it. The article has been reviewed three times in the past and none of the other editors who reviewed it pointed out the "issue" that Lazman321 raised. Lazman321 closed the GA review and didn't even give me the chance to work on it. He is now admitting that the article is short but couldn't spare me a couple of days to actually address his claims. I am going to renominate the article once all of this is cleared up and someone else can review it. I cannot work with someone who abruptly closes GA reviews without giving the nominator time to address the concerns raised. Versace1608Wanna Talk?18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Thanks to both for your comments here, and thank you Lazman for the link above. The copyright issue should really be discussed at the article's talk page; let's discuss the request here. I think it can stay on hold for now, which is only advisory and doesn't stop anyone copy-editing it if they still wish to do so. I think Versace1608 intended to ping @Diannaa:. Best regards, Baffle☿gab23:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Diannaa, I think I can remove the hold notice now, though I'll leave a link to this discussion for context. Thanks all and cheers, Baffle☿gab23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
