Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December 2014

Swamp Thing

Currently listed: Swamp Thing + religion = ?? —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list was generated by searching the category "Religion", along with subcategories three levels deep, for articles tagged with {{copy edit}}. It's remarkable how far you can get from an original large topic by going down into subcategories. In the case of Swamp Thing, the tree goes Religion → Fictional religions → Fictional deities → DC Comics deities.

Doing the category scan this way gives us enough articles to work on, and it also provides a good variety of articles for editors to enjoy. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to hang my Darlingtonia californica by the mantel, in hopes that the Swamp Thing will come down my chimney and leave me something smelly and delightful in a couple of weeks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... The cobra is a sacred Hindu symbol, so Darlingtonia californica may be just the ticket. By the same token, there is a request up for GOCE attention on "my" article the Camas pocket gopher. These gophers are known to damage Christmas tree farms. Ergo, the Camas pocket gopher should be catagorized as a species important to the topic of religion. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

I am a first time contributor at GOCE. Kindly, will somebody review the edits I have made to the article The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Am I on the right track? I have thus far focused on the WWII section. The article also needs general cleanup, as there are serious issues with citations, sources, etc. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look just now. Yes, you're very much on the right track. I like that you're going the second mile and checking some of the sources, too. Good work. --Stfg (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan dynasty

I'm looking for a second opinion on whether I should remove the heading "Present" from the Narayan dynasty article. Also, everything after the heading "History of Ramnagar" is copy-pasted from the article Benares State. Should I remove it or is this too sweeping of a change/ not appropriate?

Also any feedback on the edits I have made would be appreciated. Biggs Pliff (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, imo it would be good to remove the heading "Present" and also to remove the text of that section, which is uncited puffery about a person whose notability has not been established (i.e. redlink).

The "History of Ramnagar" stuff appears to have been added in March 2009 without an edit summary, and with no explanation on the talk page. So it doesn't conform to WP:COPYWITHIN. There are one or two ways to solve that, but since it's tangential to the subject of the article, I'd delete it all and replace it with a See also section linking to Benares State. To forestall indignation and possible edit warring, it might be wise to note this action and reasons on the talk page. Hope this helps. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks!Biggs Pliff (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Mattson

I've done some work on the article Ingrid Mattson to address copy edit needs, POV, peacock words, etc. There remain long bulleted lists of accomplishments, awards, interviews, and a plethora of external links. How should I handle these? Ignore them? Convert them to prose? Selectively delete? Move to talk page? At what point is it appropriate to remove the copyedit needed template and call it quits? Thanks Gaff (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of tagging the two of those sections that have no references. Just my opinion (others may disagree), but I think it's difficult to make much headway against such obvious COI, and there are better ways to spend our time. I think you've done as good a job as can be done there, and you were fine to remove the copyedit tag. What you said on the talk page was good, too. No need to prosify those lists -- they are just collections of facts that don't need elaboration. --Stfg (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absentee funeral prayer (Islam)

Do I understand correctly that only the 59 articles in the list are part of the blitz, and the Absentee funeral prayer (Islam) I did does not count in the blitz? I think I am right, but I want confirmation from a coordinator.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on that article; you even added some new references! It's clearly a religion-related article, so I'm going to go out on a nice sturdy limb and say that you should count it. It didn't make the original list because it is four levels down in the category hierarchy from Category:Religion, and the search I did was limited to three levels (see above). Adding a fourth level of search would have added more religion articles, and also more stuff hardly related to religion at all, not to mention probably being too many articles for a blitz. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I often go beyond copy editing itself to add inline citations and talk page assessments, if I find the article interesting. I am pleased to find that my thinking (does'nt count) is wrong.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nijhum Rubina

The Nijhum Rubina article is awaiting deletion, so I have removed the copyediting tag and put a notice on the talk page. I am leaving it to the coordinators to change the list for the blitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 16 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

List changed, and the incorrect category removed. --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]