Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2024

Merry Christmas! And a heartfelt thanks

I just wanted to pop by and say thank yall for doing a much-needed task on Wikipedia. For me in particular, I put in a rushed request for Yule cat- and yall came through beautifully. So, thank you all, have merry Christmas, and a happy New Years. Sincerely, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

SilverTiger12, thanks for the kind message. Happy New Year! Wracking ^talk! 21:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Stadio Olimpico

Hello, I'm an Italian wikipedian, and wrote the said article on en.wiki. I would like to have a native speaker to correct my English, how can I request help? -- Blackcat 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Blackcat. You can request a copyedit here, and someone will get to it as soon as possible. All the best, Miniapolis 00:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Miniapolis:, you're very kind. -- Blackcat 00:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Astroworld Festival crowd crush copyedit

I took on a copyedit request for this article, and I'm slightly regretting it. I'd love to continue working on it, but I'd like to request some help with it.

Largely, the article is just far too long, at over 10,000 words - and its length is especially present at the Timeline heading, which needs:

• Source review
• Massive cutdown of superflous text
• Simplification of detailed account of events - I'm having a hard time myself prioritsing what is/isn't important so would love to sound off about it with someone else
• General spellcheck etc

I'm going to remove the article from my tasklist in the January challenge, but would love it if someone would help me out with this :) EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

EphemeralPerpetuals, you're certainly not the first (or last) of us copy editors to bite off more than you can chew!

I recommend working on the backlog (as it looks like you're doing). I find that articles that have been tagged more recently are usually a bit easier to tackle.

If an article seems too complicated or long, skip it. (If the copy edit tag seems insufficient/inaccurate as the article has bigger problems, you can also remove the copy edit tag and replace it with more relevant ones – see WP:OVERTAG). Also, as a note, while copy editors may have to check sources (e.g., to discern meaning), full source reviews are usually out of our purview. If an article seems to have sourcing issues, I usually add a relevant maintenance templates (I keep a list of several navboxes here: User:Wracking/helpful).

Thanks for signing up for the drive and for your efforts thus far! Wracking ^talk! 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@EphemeralPerpetuals: Expect a 10,000 word article to take some time. If I can get through 1,000 words a day, I'm doing well.

This article seems fairly readable. There are parts that could be clearer, such as "Pictures and videos shared on social media showed split metal detectors, rushing checkpoints, fans on top of cars...", where "split" should probably be "broken" and "fans" should precede "rushing checkpoints". It doesn't help that an apparent typo such as "turnt-up" (should read "turned-up"?) accurately reflects the wording in the source. For the moment, strive for making the text clear and don't worry too much about the amount of detail or the plethora of citations (I myself leave detail in, unless blatantly redundant or irrelevant). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki, see wikt:turnt Wracking ^talk! 16:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice !! :) EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@EphemeralPerpetuals I've noticed you were the one to take on my copyedit request, many thanks! I'd be glad to help a bit, as I understand your overwhelmed feelings (exactly how I felt before asking for assistance, lol). In terms of advice, I think the extreme details that feel far too intricate should be removed. For example, I don't think there's much reasoning for describing events only occurring minutes apart as separate under the 'Crush' subtitle, the fifth paragraph. Another thing, I think the extremely long paragraphs should be chopped up a bit to make them easier to read and not feel exhaustive. Again, much luck to you, and again, I'd be happy to help out a bit if needed. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hannah Lewi

Hello to all. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and starting with assisting via copyediting. Is anyone willing to take a look at the Hannah Lewi page and let me know if there's anything I missed or should be watching out for when it comes to copy editing? Thanks for any assistance and excited to get more practice in. WW0CJ (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

One thing I just realized - would you guys keep the here with the mention of other architects? Not sure how applicable it is here...

> Alongside Paul Walker, Julie Willis and Philip Goad, Lewi is a co-director of the Australian Centre for Architectural History, Urban and Cultural Heritage (ACAHUCH). She is renowned for her generosity towards other scholars and mentoring of new researchers. WW0CJ (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @WW0CJ:, welcome to the Guild. I can't comment on that particular article but you can find some links to copy-editing tips on our "How-to" page. I've also added a "welcome" to your talk page, it has links to pages about Wikipedia policies, guidelines and editing culture. I hope you find it useful. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 09:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the quoted sentences, the first one is matter-or-fact and has a citation supporting it, but the second verges on MOS:PEACOCK and is unsupported, as well as having a "citation needed" template attached. Otherwise, the article seems in good shape. However, more could be done. The capitalization of "Chair" and "Vice-Chair" is questionable, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Among "Selected publications", journal article titles should be set off with double, not single, quotation marks. There are several citations that supply only bare URLs. Fixing those isn't usually considered copy editing per se, but it is generally helpful to have more information given, to help prevent WP:LINKROT. More terms could be linked to other Wikipedia articles, such as placemaking and architecture of Western Australia. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

Hi,

I really want to let you all know that I am really interested in copy editing on Wii. I really want to do this but I am really silly and I just look at an article and don't know where to begin.

I have very bad self confidence issues and I think it's a double edged sword, because I want to use this as a way to get it better, but it's so bad that it's stopping me feeling good enough to contribute.

I would love a step by step guide to check for things on each page so I know what I'm looking for, where to start. A flowchart would be amazing.

I have read the guides that are linked on the copyedit page and the beginners guides and everything but I feel silly as I still feel overwhelmed MrBauer24 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@MrBauer24: One of the things that I do when starting a new article is look at spacing issues. Look for separating hatnotes, image specifications, and punctuation from following text. A lot of what we do here involves just making sure that the spacing is appropriate. While you're doing this, you are apt to spot gross errors in spelling or diction, without having to get too immersed in the article's subject matter. Another thing is to look over the references section and flesh out with templates citations that contain only URLs or are otherwise insufficiently informative, or correct citations that have been flagged for errors. Reading through the cited material while you're doing this, especially when it's online, will give you a handle on what the article is supposed to be saying, as well as making sure that the material exists for readers to consult. Apart from all that, pick shorter articles for copy editing, and those on subject matter you're familiar with. As far as Wikipedia's guidelines, there is indeed a lot to understand, and you shouldn't be surprised that you feel overwhelmed. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MrBauer24:, welcome to the GOCE. I understand copy-editing can be overwhelming. I agree with Dhtwiki about taking short articles to begin with. below are a few tips to make copy-editing a little less stressful:

• Edit one section or sub-section at a time, this makes even huge articles less daunting.
• Work paragraph by paragraph, just fix the language as you go.
• Break up long paragraphs into shorter ones of seven or fewer lines. Break them after a citation if you can.
• Read each sentence (speaking it aloud might help) and think about what it is telling you. If you can, simplify the language by removing or replacing unnecessary words and phrases like "due to the fact that", "moreover", etc.
• Our step-by-step copy-editing guide should be enough to give you some ideas.

Good luck and cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

MrBauer24: This may seem a bit mean, but given the many punctuation errors in your message above, it may be best for you to work on some other aspect of Wikipedia aside from copy-editing. That said, some of the articles tagged for copy-editing are indeed short and of very low quality, and I expect that you could improve them. One tip I use a lot is to read a sentence aloud to see if it makes sense when I speak it; if not, I try to fix it accordingly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Need crosscheck on request article

Just finished a quick CE on Matooskie. Could anyone look over my edits and see if I should consider the CE finished? Zorblin (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, and the article survived the GAR. You should add {{GOCE}} to the talk page (under the WikiProject banners), so other editors will know it's been copyedited. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 14:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also courteous to add {{GOCEtb}} to the requester's talk page, in case they're not watching WP:GOCE/REQ. Miniapolis 14:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks! Zorblin (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you for the check-in, coming back from a irl break. Zorblin (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for crosscheck on Joyce Mojonnier

I signed up to CE an article from the backlog, Joyce Mojonnier, and would appreciate feedback. After reviewing some of the comments above, I think I may have done more than is required. I'm a novice, so I did do a bit more than just CE, like verifying links/citations. I spent the time trying to learn and practice using some of the wiki-concepts. So here are some specific questions I have (about the process and the edits I made):

• I added a thread to the Talk page, which I think I know isn't required; but I wanted to try out that process. There, I outlined my changes, and added a {done} tag to keep track. Question: Any feedback on those issues? (Besides the fact they are probably beyond what is meant by a basic CE.)

In fact, if it's easier to give feedback by leaving it on the article's talk page, I can check there.

• As instructed, I added the {GOCEinuse} tag before starting work; and I removed the tag for {Copy edit|for=tone} that had already been left. So some of my edits were for 'tone', which seemed to be a bit of peacocking (is that the word?) or advertising (like for the Foundation and Museum). If this is part of CE, do I just leave an appropriate comment (and take out or rephrase for NPOV)?
• I removed some material that seemed off-topic (better suited for another article); so I added a thread (actually two) on the Talk page to keep track. Q: That is required, right?
• Some of the material removed was simply not relevant (as outlined on my talkpage thread). In that case, it's just ok to leave a comment with the CE? (As I did, I think.)
• One of the comments above mentions: as a note, while copy editors may have to check sources (e.g., to discern meaning), full source reviews are usually out of our purview. But I went ahead, anyway, and checked the citations. Some had old xlinks, so I found/replaced with new. I also added some citations to material that seemed unsupported. This may be outside CE, but isn't that suggested as an alt to just tagging with {citation needed}?
• Even after editing, I think some of the material could still use better citations: so I tagged two specific spots (and added a thread to the talk page). I don't think this is a highly trafficked or controversial article; so is adding a few inline tags better than the big warning citation tag?
• Last question (I promise!): CE does include looking at the wikitext (like in hatnotes), yes? (I think that may be answered above.)

Anyway, advice and feedback would be appreciated; and let me know what to do next on this task. I'll try to look for another simple, short article in the backlog (or recent requests for GOCE attn) for my next one; but some of them seem like they need more project level revision, than just CE or TLC. (I think the advice given above was: If it's too complicated, skip it.) Thanks for your time, in advance. (And apologies for my verbosity.) — Yogabear2020 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You've done a thorough job and turned a wall of text into something that's more manageable to read. Thank you for your help.

The detailed threads such as you added to the talk page are more likely to be seen on articles where copy edits have been requested and there are likely to be interested editors to respond. They are less likely for articles that have been tagged for copy editing, where active subject-matter editors are less likely to be paying attention. Explaining yourself to others (and to yourself, which is always helpful) can be done with edit summaries alone, where you have a 500 (or is it 1,000?) character limit, and where people can more directly examine the changes via diffs. The reasons you gave for removing extraneous material seem sound to me.

Full source reviews are not required for copy editing, but any copy editing is made better by consulting sources and in doing so finding citations that could stand improvement, as well as making other improvements, such as more specific hatnotes, wiki-links, and anything else that make the article more intelligible.

As far as further improvements: I would provide some ending punctuation to the items in your bulleted list, and improve the complicated next-to-last sentence, possibly to This museum collects and displays—both online and at the physical space—video-recorded oral histories, as well as other historical memorabilia, collected from former female members of the California legislature.

Dhtwiki (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Your explanations of "source review" and using "detailed threads" was helpful. Should I just remove that whole detailed thread I first added to the talk page? But leave the others (just in case) explaining why material was removed?

For the article, I changed the next-to-last sentence as you suggested. But before adding punctuation to the list, I wonder about MOS:LISTFORMAT. Here it suggests using sentence case for list items that are "complete sentences", but not to use sentence case for "fragments" (such as the items on the JM article-list). The MOS then adds:

A list item should not end with a full stop unless it consists of a complete sentence or is the end of a list that forms one.

Can you clarify for me? Then I'll fix the list, and take the next steps to finish the CE review. Thanks again! — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 13:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Leave the talk page threads. They're fine. That article's talk page doesn't have but one other thread, and no archives.

Most lists consist of simple names, such as of people or places. Your list is more complicated, and I thought it looked barren without more punctuation, such as ending most items with semi-colons and the last with a period, as though it is a complete sentence, as follows.

These include:

• the Hazardous Medical Waste Management Act, which served as a national model for medical waste clean-up;
• legislation to provide closed circuit television testimony for use with child witnesses involved in cases involving sexual offenses, and similar legislation for use with violent offenders to eliminate the need to transport them;
• legislation to require children's waiting rooms at courthouses, in the interest of protecting young children from unfriendly or threatening circumstances;
• and legislation requiring reflector license plates.

Dhtwiki (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that all makes sense! I followed your model, and made the changes (incl. "and" in last bullet). Per the Backlog Drive instructions, I removed {{GOCEinuse}} from article, and added {{GOCE}} to talk page. Is that right? Hope so. I'll later add completed on drive page.

Thanks very much for your help and encouragement. (And your patience.) — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 00:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's usual to fill the "user" and "date" fields when placing the GOCE template on the article talk page, which I've done for you, as well as including your hidden comment, as that might be mystifying, especially if it becomes separated from the template. Also, it's usual to have the GOCE template within the WikiProject banner shell template, if one is present, which is where I've moved yours. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. I had looked at how the editor on the previous thread had placed the tag on the Matooskie talk page; but I guess I should have looked at the GOCE page for instructions. Still learning! Thanks, again. — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 12:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Big blue button?

I am requesting the {{Big Blue Button}} template be added somewhere on the page. The template looks like a big blue button with text saying, "Click this button. Copy edit an article." I feel like this button would be useful for those who want to help with copyediting. - Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hate that hedgehog!)} 13:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, and thanks for the suggestion! It's a painless way to get started with copyediting. All the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good on the project page, and I love the randomness Thanks again, The Master of Hedgehogs! All the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar question/Commas with Nonessential Elements

Hello,

We have a grammar question about using commas in a sentence. We are currently editing the Israel page and have questions about comma use in regards to the below proposed sentence:

"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

I think the two commas in the above sentence are structurally offsetting a “nonessential clause” [1][2][3]. I think that this means a nonessential clause is something that can be removed without changing the core meaning of a sentence. Since two commas are placed around the British Mandate portion, and since that portion is grammatically removable, I think that portion is grammatically a nonessential clause. Removing the non-restrictive portion, the sentence becomes

“Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948 and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.”

I think this is problematic because I think it gives the impression that Israel declared establishment, and the war immediately broke out. The war actually broke out the next day from an attack.

So I recommended changing to list format to avoid using nonessential elements:

“On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, and Israel declared its establishment.”

@Makeandtoss thinks that I may be overthinking the grammar and interpretation, so this is why I am seeking clarification about the grammar and whether or not the British terminating the Mandate is being used as a nonessential element in the sentence: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

If it is being used non essentially, are there any suggestions on how we can improve the sentence grammar or how to rewrite the sentence?

Thank you! Wafflefrites (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The easiest path to sensibility would be to remove the second comma: Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. Otherwise, the sentence seems muddied and perhaps run-on. Could the British "terminate" the (League of Nations?, UN?) mandate (usually mandate is granted by some other entity)? Did the war erupt on account of the end of the mandate or the establishment of Israel (I'm guessing the latter)? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Another editor/editors jumped in a proposed to use “intervened” for the Arab side so I think we will use that. The war didn’t really erupt because of the Declaration of Independence, it was an extension of a previous war, but more of a second phase that became international Wafflefrites (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If events unfolded as described in the messages above, I think the sentence is flawed. It implies that one thing caused another and that they happened on the same day. I would break it into two sentences, something like: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. The First Arab–Israeli War erupted the next day." – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! There are several editors working on this, and I think we are still determining consensus on the correct wording for additional details. Tagging Makeandtoss so that he is aware of the grammar/clarity best practices on the sentence @Makeandtoss (see above suggestion about breaking up the sentence) Wafflefrites (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Progress chart

Hello all, just FYI I created an updated version of the chart, with only the data since 2020. On the topic, I was wondering if anyone has an explanation for the macro trends in the data (steady decline 2013–2020, near-zero in 2020, steep rise 2021–2022, slower rise 2023). Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I think that once the goal of reducing the backlog and requests as much as was attained in 2020, maintaining that reduction doesn't have the same excitement. We could also take steps to lessen the speed to which our workload is added to, such as limiting requests to one, not two, open articles per requester, or, after a quick perusal, peremptorily removing {{copy edit}} templates from articles that need such care less than others. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You know that Margaret Mead quote about a few people making a big difference? I think it's true here, except it might be just two people in our case. We had one editor who was intensely focused on clearing short articles from the backlog in the late 2010s, and while they are still quietly one of our most active copy editors, they are no longer copy-editing many hundreds of articles per drive. In 2021, we also lost a prolific copy editor who worked on Requests and backlog articles at a high rate. I don't know if there is a way to do a robust analysis, but my gut sense is that the decrease in copy-editing activity from those two editors is the primary reason for the change in the direction of the backlog.

It has been my experience as a wikignome in many maintenance areas of Wikipedia that often just one or two people are keeping a particular backlog from getting out of control. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

May drive

As some of you may know, I generally clear out the 150-200 shortest articles on every drive. I don't list them on the drive page, because it becomes too bloated. That number approximately matches the backlog reduction for each drive. I will not be doing that for the May drive. I encourage any/all of you to take on that task. (I hate it when a drive doesn't provide a net backlog reduction.) Thanks and good editing! Lfstevens (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and for your hard work. Do you have a way of finding the shorter articles, eg a petscan query? Wracking ^talk! 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of some of your efforts being only nominally recorded on the drive pages. When you say "bloated", would it be discouraging for others to be aware of your productivity, or could it be an example for the rest of us to do more? I'd be sorry to see your efforts diminished due to discouragement. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Lfstevens, I didn't mention your name directly above, because I don't like to put people on blast, but I just want to say that I have appreciated your copy-editing work for many years now. Thank you for (tens of?) thousands of copy-edited articles. I will try to pick up some of the slack for the May drive.

Wracking and others: Here's a petscan link to all articles under 8,000 bytes, sorted by size (currently 195 articles). Picking off sentences and paragraphs tagged with Template:copy edit inline is also a quick way to shrink the backlog. Have fun! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I"m not leaving, just need a change of pace (so many villages!) You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for all your efforts. If we hang together, we can make a huge impact on the pedia. Go for it! Lfstevens (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

William I, Count of Nassau-Siegen

I noticed that the article William I, Count of Nassau-Siegen has been edited. Phrases that were split with references were combined with the references. They were split because the references to the phrases were different, the reference books did not give the same information for both parts. This is no longer clear now. Furthermore, texts have been modified in such a way that they no longer correspond to what is written in the reference books. Please remove my name from the article history, so that I cannot be associated any longer with this article. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Roelof Hendrickx. You do not own any article on Wikipedia, and you cannot stop other editors from editing content which you have written. If you have specific concerns about an edit, please bring them up at Talk:William I, Count of Nassau-Siegen, or fix it yourself.

The Guild of Copy Editors has no control over the history of any article, and this is the wrong place to bring about any request in that regard. If you would like to change your username, see WP:RENAME. If you would like to leave Wikipedia forever and change your username, see WP:VANISH. Wracking ^talk! 17:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I never said that I owned that article, nor that I didn't want others to edit the article.

Bringing my concerns up on the talk page will have no effect, as the changes will never be made. I found out that it is common practise on Wikipedia to change correct into incorrect. Therefore it will useless to fix it myself, it would only lead to edit wars. That's the reason why I have no intention to contribute to Wikipedia any longer.

I don't want to change my username or vanish, as I still use Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. I'll try to find out how to get removed from the history of this article. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at the article's history. I note that you added a lot of text here, for which you might have been accorded more appreciation. However, you did seem to edit war over the fact that on Wikipedia, curly quotes and apostrophes are deprecated; and it's not unusual for editors to find fault with such enormous contributions, unless their content and style are cleared beforehand on the talk page. During their recent copy edit, User:ZyphorianNexus removed much material; apparently that led to the citations being now more vague as to what they support. I can appreciate the problem there, but haven't studied the article closely enough to determine where the fault lies. You should not worry about being held responsible for additions that are not yours; and as Wracking has indicated, it would be nigh impossible to remove your account from the edit history. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Jan Backlog Cleared?

Hi, if I'm not mistaken, there are no more articles from Jan 2023 needing copy editing. Since I'm not sure how (or if I can/am supposed to), can someone change "Help improve our oldest backlogged articles (January 2023)" in the "How you can help" section to the link to the Feb 2023 articles? Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for noticing. I've made a change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Left panel, a more-or-less "hidden" page where such a change is made, being then transcluded to the page above. That's the tricky part. Any alert editor who knows how to do that can make the change. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

due to... reasons

I have recently replaced, using AWB, hundreds of tautological instances of "due to health reasons" with "for heath reasons", and similarly for uses of "due to medical reasons" and "due to legal reasons". Naturally, I have excluded cases in quotations or the titles of sources.

Please consider this in your work.

Are there other, similar, phrases that need attention? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I can't think of anything else offhand, but will let you know if I do. All the best, Miniapolis 12:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andy, thank you for your work. A few misused phrases and words I often find are:

• "Due to the fact (that)" --> "Because / Because of / Due to";
• unnecessary uses of "that"... "Dave Brown told reporters that the fire was deliberately lit";
• "Impact" and "impacted (by)" where the meaning is "effect" or "affected (by)"; "The train strike has impacted thousands of travellers today".

There's probably loads more but those may keep you busy for a while. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Unfortunately, most of them cannot be handled as simple find/ replace operations in AWB. I will add those that can to my to-do list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Jonny Bairstow

Hi. Although my availability is limited, I'm keen to get into GOCE again. I enjoyed it last year when I had plenty of spare time. I've selected three articles from the list and two look as if they'll be easy enough to improve. Jonny Bairstow, however, could be a nightmare. It is BLP and seriously unsourced. I suspect it contains original research.

I need advice about how much I can do under the GOCE banner. I think large amounts of unsourced content should be removed, assuming I won't be able to find sources, but that would probably halve the size of the article. What do you think? Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I see that there are many "citation needed" templates at the Bairstow article, but, with 73 citations, I wouldn't call it "unsourced". It is a BLP, which requires strict adherence to being properly sourced, but I'm looking at things such as:

Bairstow played in all six England matches at the 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, though he finished with just 47 runs and a top score of 16.[citation needed][58] (while his involvement in the tournament is supported, his personal score isn't).

From 2016 to 2018, he played for Peshawar Zalmi in the Pakistan Super League.[citation needed] (his playing for the league is mentioned online, but I couldn't find the particular date range; however, this is likely to be something for which sources could be found).

You would be within your right to remove unsourced text, but I myself would rather leave in such text, as long as concerned simple scoring and didn't involve extraordinary claims, such as of scandalous behavior or being the greatest player ever. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Dhtwiki. Thanks for your advice. I'll work my way through it and see what I can do. The main problem is the 2013 to 2014 section which has no citations at all. I've been looking at a couple of sites, mainly ESPNcricinfo, which might provide some of the missing references. PearlyGigs (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Dhtwiki. Nearly two weeks later, I've finally finished this. Fortunately, it's relatively easy to find sources for someone who is currently a top sportsperson. I decided to completely rewrite it, and I've revamped the structure so as to keep all relevant material together. I think it meets B-class now but it would be good to have a thorough review done, so I've added it to WP:GAN. This is the second cricket article I've tried to improve and they were both a collection of unrelated incidents following on from each other without any structure or cohesion. I think I'll stick to football! Thanks again for your advice. PearlyGigs (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)