Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2020

Copy edit tracking and report

Key:

Bold: Done, or triaged as not required.
Italics: Probably good enough; could do with a look over if time permits, but not a priority.
Asterisk: Requires attention. Please feel free to mark it with {{Working}}, put a note on the article's talk page and copy edit it.
(MH) A military history article.

1. Another of those dubious ones. (MH)

2. Promoted 8 months ago by an experienced nominator. IMO this can be skipped. (MH)

3. 30 months since promotion. An experienced nominator has maintained it. IMO this can be skipped.

4. 9 years since promotion. An experienced nominator has maintained it. IMO it could do with a light touch look over if time permits.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5. Promoted 8 months ago by an experienced nominator. IMO it could do with a light touch look over if time permits. (MH)

6. 3 years since promotion. An experienced nominator has maintained it. IMO this can be skipped. (MH)

7. 3 years since promotion by an experienced nominator. A lot of edits since, so IMO it could do with a copy edit.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8. Promoted a week ago. An experienced nominator. It received a good kicking at FAC, so IMO it can be skipped.

9. Promoted 8 months ago by an experienced nominator. IMO this can be skipped.

10. 3 years since promotion. An experienced nominator. IMO it could do with a light touch look over if time permits.

A beautiful article. Left a copy of the MoS on possessives on the talk page with an explanation of the options. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11. 4 years since promotion. An experienced nominator. IMO this can be skipped.

12. 2 years since promotion. An experienced nominator has maintained it. IMO this can be skipped. (MH)

13. 8 years since promotion. An experienced nominator. IMO it could do with a light touch look over if time permits.

14. 9 years since promotion. An experienced nominator who is no longer very active. IMO it could do with a copy edit.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15*. 5 years since promotion. An experienced nominator who is no longer very active. IMO it could do with a copy edit.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16. Promoted last month. IMO it could do with a light touch look over if time permits.

17. Promoted yesterday. A first-time nominator. I looked at this FAC. IMO it could do with a copy edit, preferably not by me.

Minor changes, left a few notes on talk page for nominator. Reidgreg (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18. 2 years since promotion. An experienced nominator has maintained it. IMO this can be skipped.

19. Promoted last month. Received a thorough check at FAC. I am in two minds as to whether this would benefit from further work.

Reads alright, very minor MOS fixes; left note on talk page for a missing caption. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20. Promoted 8 months ago by an experienced nominator. IMO this can be skipped.

21. Promoted 3 months ago by a first time nominator. TfT copy edited this as a request pre-nomination. IMO this may benefit from a light touch copy edit.

22. Promoted 4 months ago. I copy edited it for GOCE in March. IMO this may benefit from a light touch copy edit. (MH)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little twitchy about this one, as virtually all the changes were for tone or personal preference, but what a nice response - Talk:Muhammad II of Granada#TFA prep

. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23. 4 years since promotion. A pair of experienced nominators. IMO this can be skipped.

24*. A lovely article promoted 2 weeks ago by an experienced nominator. IMO this may benefit from a copy edit.

25. Promoted 15 months ago by an experienced nominator. IMO this can be skipped.

26. 6 years since promotion. An experienced nominator. IMO it may benefit from a light touch look over if time permits. (MH)

27. Promoted 18 months ago by an experienced nominator. IMO it may benefit from a light touch look over if time permits. (MH)

28. 7 years since promotion. An experienced nominator. IMO this can be skipped.

29. Promoted 10 months ago. I reviewed it at FAC. IMO it may benefit from a light touch look over if time permits. (MH)

30. 3 years since promotion. A pair of experienced nominators. In the light of the "old style" FAC, this is either rock solid or could do with a look at.

31*. Promoted two weeks ago. IMO this may benefit from a copy edit.

WT:TFA#What is the process?

You guys seem to be getting some pushback at that link. Personally, I tend not to participate in discussions (in any context) about "who's the boss of who"; I think it makes more sense to talk about text ... what was changed, why was it changed, can we get agreement on the changes. I'm going to be taking a one-month wikibreak in January (my first in 12 years), so it probably doesn't make sense for me to get started with this discussion now, but I'll be happy to join any ongoing discussions over conflicting copyediting standards (if there are any) when I get back. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg, Twofingered Typist, and Dank: Courtesy ping for information. I have responded. Please feel free to contribute, disagree, or stay well out of it as you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, Reidgreg, and Dank: Apart from one unfortunate meltdown (quickly retracted), if there have been no complaints—except for some crack about "wet paper bags

—, then what we have been doing is causing no harm and may in fact be improving the articles. This is why I copy edit. I for one am happy to continue as I have been, working on whatever comes up in the FAC list in between handling GOCE requests. I think some commentators believe we are editing the content of the article which is certainly NOT what any of us have been doing. Beyond this I will stay clear of the debate. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep an ear out for trouble ... it's clear that there's a little bit of skepticism, but otherwise, the comments have been positive. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unwatching here (for consistency ... I'm taking a break in January). - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]