User talk:Stfg

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

careful reading
... you were recipient no. 455 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prose help for Reger's Requiem, - encouraged, I try again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking now at Rossini's mass, - in a way a similar piece, a composer's last choral work ;) - The article as I found it (most of it from French WP) is a strange mix of detailed analysis of some movements - too detailed even for my taste - and complete negligence of others (Credo, Agnus Dei). Lack of refs also, and those I keep finding contradict what's written. - I wonder if I should just leave it as it is, or do what? Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've had a quick look. I quite like articles to have plenty of analysis, so long as it's properly sourced, and this Rossini work is certainly worth an article. But this article isn't much of a start, is it? As you say, it needs work on sourcing and removal of OR. I won't be able to help, unfortunately. I haven't recovered from my wiki burnout yet, and I'm taking an exam two weeks from today. Best, --Stfg (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

After your exam, please look again. With the help of friends, I have now three good journal sources to build on. I still think that some details in the (old) analysis are not only unsourced but also a bit boring. Will sing it in two weeks, third time, first time piano version, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible opinion on matters British

Your user page mentions that you are from the south of England. From your experience in the guild of copy editors could you glance at the article for the British author Jane Austen to see if it is approaching peer review quality for a featured article or perhaps mention what needs attention. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fountains-of-Paris, but that's a very large article and I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia and quite busy IRL. I suggest making a request to the Guild of Copy editors at WP:GOCE/REQ. All the best, --Stfg (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

During the last days I did list Jane Austen on GOCE as you suggested above for final review prior to the next peer review upgrade nomination. It appears to have received a response from a young 13-19 year old editor interested in making subjective/objective edits to the article. Maybe you could look at their remark on the Austen Talk page. Is this what you had in mind when you suggested I list the article at GOCE? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris, I see no reason to presume that teenagers cannot do good copy editing just because they are teenagers. This one's talk page looks to me as if they can write quite well. When new editors work for GOCE, the GOCE coordinators review it. In addition, the Austen page has almost 400 page watchers, so any issues are likely to be spotted pretty quickly. The new editor's "remark" (as you have chosen to call it) on the Austen talk page reflects inexperience of how Wikipedia works, as indeed does your reply. It does not bespeak any inability to do good edits. We all started somewhere, as did you, and as will that editor. The inexperience shown, by the way, is in thinking they needed to ask permission to edit the article. That was polite, but it was quite unnecessary, and it's also unnecessary to ask for your approval before editing the article itself, especially if the intention is simply to copy edit. Having them propose their edits on your talk page first is inappropriate: it smacks of ownership. Since the editor is American, you might like to remind them that the article needs British English. Then let them get on with it, but keep a friendly eye on it. If difficulties arise, ask for help on the GOCE coordinators' talk page. I don't expect to be involved. --Stfg (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Message received and I am open to receiving and reviewing their edits. I have no ownership on the article and only made the suggestion you refer to based on the other editors posting on the Talk page first for the benefit of getting added comments. My own concern is that the new editor appears to have become active at GOCE only a few weeks ago (3-4 weeks ago), and that the editor in question appears not to have GA or FA experience (at least after looking at their full contrib history). Otherwise its really up to the quality of the edits being made there if you feel all else is normal. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. We normally do prefer editors to have considerably more experience than this before working for FAC. But that isn't a hard-and-fast rule, of course. I do feel all else is normal, and as you say, what matters is the quality of the edits. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That all looks fine along with your contacting the editor with helpful notes, though that editor does not appear to be signing in for several days now. I imagine that everyone can wait a few more days though if that editor doesn't sign on at all then maybe you could think of or suggest another GOCE reviewer with peer review experience who might be willing to look at a literature article to get things moving forward. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris, please can you take this up with the GOCE coordinators at WT:GOCE/COORD. It's not my problem. I've done all I can. --Stfg (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2016 News Hello everyone, welcome to the June 2016 GOCE newsletter. It's been a few months since we sent one out; we hope y'all haven't forgotten about the Guild! Your coordinators have been busy behind the scenes as usual, though real life has a habit of reducing our personal wiki-time. The May backlog reduction drive, the usual coordinating tasks and preparations for the June election are keeping us on our toes! May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's record-setting backlog reduction drive. Of the 29 people who signed up, 16 copyedited at least one article, 197 copyedits were recorded on the drive page, and the copyedit backlog fell below 1,500 for the first time! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz will occur from 12 June through 18 June; the themes will be video games and Asian geography. Coordinator elections: It's election time again; how quickly they seem to roll around! Nominations for the next tranche of Guild coordinators, who will serve a six-month term that begins at 00:01 UTC on 1 July and ends at 23:59 UTC on 31 December, opens at 00:01 UTC on 1 June and closes at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. Voting takes place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. If you'd like to assist behind the scenes, please consider stepping forward; self-nominations are welcomed and encouraged. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; remember it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for supporting my candidacy for assistant coordinator at GOCE, but in spite of searching for a while in the Revision History, I could not find your edit, even though it appears in the list of votes. So, I came here to thank you. Good luck in your course.  – Corinne (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)