How is it that you are such a good copy editor?Edit

How do you do it so well? Regards from the guild’s newest copy editor. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) (Origin of the username) 18:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Total Eclipse 2017, lots of experience, lots of critical reading, and the open-mindedness to learn about different cultures (I added this last point because it does affect the way people write).
While copyediting is a lot of technical fixes like grammar and spelling, a big part of it is being able to understand what the primary editors are trying to say and the best way to convey it in formal English. There are some times where the English is spelt correctly and grammatically correct, but is used strangely and is unfit for an encyclopedia. When I take a request, I go through a process (you can take a look at said process here) because there's an active editor with whom I can converse with. My general rule is to go through (at least) three revisions:
  1. Read the article for the first time and correct any obvious errors; this usually takes the longest. If something is unclear, use invisible comments and remember them for later. When the first revision is done, go to the article's talk page, ping the active editor, and use the invisible comments as questions to ask. I generally like using the {{tq}} template to quote sentences to refer to them.
  2. After at least half a day (and hopefully with answers), go back to the article and fix up the problem spots that the questions came from while catching any stray errors. Update the active editor on the questions that have been answered and those that need further clarification.
  3. After at least another half day, read any new answers the active editor gave me and incorporate them; they should usually be clear enough such that I don't need to ask for more clarity. Carefully reread the article from top to bottom. If satisfied, let the active editor know their copyedit is complete.
A good example of my process is over at Talk:Via Giulia.
With backlogged articles it's a little different. They are not requested, and because of that, there usually isn't an editor who is particularly keen on striking a dialogue compared to one who requests a copyedit. If they're small enough one short quick revision is usually enough. For a longer article, I generally skip the question phase with these and finish a big first revision, then wait a few hours before returning to it to look at it a second time.
Here are some things that I think make a good copyeditor:
  • Know and learn about the subject as much as you can. Even if it is something you have never heard of before (which is usually the case for us copyeditors) do some research on the topic. If you don't know, ask another editor or look up other Wikipedia articles for more information. This also includes the variant of English used in the article.
  • Read the article out loud. Sometimes errors aren't apparent until you read them aloud, particularly with pauses like commas, semicolons, and periods.
  • Do multiple revisions and space out breaktime in-between. This is probably the most important thing. Just like teachers tell you in school, never assume that you can do the best job that you can on your first draft. With long articles copyediting can be tiring, which causes us to overlook some errors that would have been obvious. I can't count the number of times where I re-checked my work and needed to fix up some errors. Space revisions apart by hours and do something else, so that when you come back you are not fatigued from checking it and subconsciously deeming everything correct.
I hope that helps! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I will use your advice. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) (Origin of the username) 19:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Just one question, how do you do invisible comments? Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) (Origin of the username) 19:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Total Eclipse 2017, two methods:
  • If you are using the VisualEditor: go to the toolbar and click on Insert. The dropdown menu will have an item called "Comment". Click on that to add it to where your cursor is and fill in the text field with the comment you want to leave.
  • If you are manually typing it in (this also works in VisualEditor): enclose your comment with <!-- and -->.
Look for my invisible comment somewhere in this reply. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Found it. Thanks again! Also, I only use the Visual editor for things I can’t figure out in the source editor BTW. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) (Origin of the username) 19:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

In this case, I think the definition of “long article” is somewhere around 1K words. What do you think? (I usually only do one copyedit on say, a 100 word article because you can see the whole thing at a glance...) Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) (Origin of the username) 23:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Total Eclipse 2017, it's really arbitrary. Length is a big factor, but how much reworking needs to be done is also important. Too many things to fix gets really tiresome while too few things means you're less likely to have a critical eye to evaluate the article as you're lulled into a false sense of security. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Review of my CE for Wikiproject Human RightsEdit

Hi @Tenryuu:, I don't know no-one better than you who could review my stupid CE trial at Kailash_Satyarthi (not part of the drive). If you could spend some minutes I would hardly appreciate it. Thanks in advance! CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, I'll be glad to give it a look soon. Been busy doing my own copyedits and Teahouse hosting. Probably in the next day or so? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey CommanderWaterford, I took a look at Kailash Satyarthi. A few Some thoughts:

  • Kailash Satyarthi has been a member of a UNESCO body [...] Since when? "Has been" puts some emphasis on when a person started being something. If context is provided beforehand it's fine, but since a new concept is being introduced ("a UNESCO body"; emphasis added), that doesn't apply.
  • Satyarthi led a nationwide march [...] in demand for legislation against child rape, child sexual abuse and trafficking. I would suggest replacing "in demand for" with "to demand"; the sentence could use a more active voice.
  • Satyarthi was born in Vidisha, a small town in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh in a middle-class family. Emphasis added. Parenthetical thought "a small town in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh" isn't closed off with a comma after "Pradesh"; right now the sentence would read to pedants like "Vidisha is a small town that is inside a middle-class family in a state". Furthermore, the emphasised "in" would be better off replaced by "to" or "into"; there's still some debate over which to use, as demonstrated in this WordReference forum thread and this UsingEnglish forum thread. The weak consensus appears to be to use "into" in that instance.
  • Satyarthi was the second child and had an older brother. Since he is the subject of the previous sentence, you can get away with using his pronoun. (stylistic choice)
  • His father was a police constable (he retired as a Head Constable) and his mother was uneducated; she was a housewife with high morals. As per Satyarthi, this exceptionally idealistic and helpful nature of his mother had a big impact on him. I would incorporate the parenthetical thoughts into the first sentence: "His father was a retired police head constable and his mother was an uneducated housewife with high morals". Using "as per" is tricky (I still have trouble deciding when to use it versus "per") and it sounds unnatural when used here; "according to" may work better (though personally I hate that phrase when I see it being used again after 3 or 4 sentences).
    As a topic not related to copy editing, how does "high morals" equal an "exceptionally idealistic and helpful nature"? It seems like it would be better off quoted from the source instead of paraphrased; "had a big impact" sounds too casual for an encyclopedic tone.
  • He grew in a locality (mohalla) which had Hindus and Muslims living with each other. Per MOS:ITALICS, "mohalla" should be italicised as a non-English term. I would use "was raised" instead of "grew" (one of the few times where passive voice is better), and rewrite everything after "mohalla" with "where Hindus and Muslims lived with each other".
  • Satyarthi's experiences when young with poverty and lack of school access for all children had a significant effect on him. I would reverse the sentence as the important point was he was significantly affected: "Satyarthi was significantly affected by the lack of school access for all children and his experiences with poverty in his youth".
    Non-copyedit topic: all children didn't have access to school?
  • He attended Government Boys Higher Secondary School in Vidisha, and completed a degree in electrical engineering at Samrat Ashok Technological Institute in Vidisha (then affiliated to the University of Bhopal, which was renamed in 1988 as Barkatullah University) and a post-graduate degree in high-voltage engineering. Getting into run-on sentence territory. Assuming that he completed his entire education in Vidisha, the entire sentence could be prefaced with "Satyarthi completed his education in Vidisha". I would also add "undergraduate" right before "degree in electrical engineering" to contrast the two degrees more. Regarding the parenthetical thought, does "affiliated to" mean "transferring to"? "Which was renamed in 1988 as" can be substituted with "Now", as it is currently taking up a third of the sentence.
  • In 1980, Sathyarthi gave up his career as an electrical engineer and founded the Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save Childhood Movement) that year. No need for "that year" at the end; the year at the beginning makes the phrase redundant.
  • He has served as the President of the Global Campaign for Education, from its inception in 1999 to 2011, having been one of its four founders alongside ActionAid, Oxfam and Education International. The first clause should be in past perfect tense ("had served") as he is no longer the president. I would remove the comma before "from its inception" and separate the sentence into two smaller sentences at "1999 to 2011". The new second sentence would read something like "He is one of its four founders..."
  • In 1998 Satyarthi conceived and led the Global March against Child[5] Labour traversing across 103 countries covering 80,000 km with a demand for an International Law on Worst Forms of Child Labour. This eventually led to the adoption of ILO Convention No. 182 on the worst forms of child labour. The existence of this paragraph means that the previous mention of the Global March isn't necessary. I would add in, as a parenthetical thought, "(and by extension, the International Center of Child Labor and Education (ICCLE))". Traversing across that distance could be simplified to "traversed 80,000 km across 103 countries" and its objective could be reduced to "to demand an International Law..."
    I usually don't like using "this" in the beginning of sentences for encyclopedic writing, and would refer to it as "the march". (stylistic choice)
  • This first of its kind social labeling initiative in the late 1980s and early 1990s undertook focused campaigns on [...] Emphasis added. You can get away with saying "focused its campaigns" and mean the same thing.
  • Satyarthi has served on the board and committee of several international organisations [...] Again, not wrong, but Satyarthi being the subject of the previous sentence allows his pronoun to be used clearly with context. (stylistic choice)
  • The movement has engaged itself in identifying, liberating, rehabilitating and educating children in servitude through direct intervention; community participation, partnerships, and coalitions; promoting ethics in trade'; unionizing workers; running campaigns on issues such he was so education, trafficking, forced brilliant labour, ethical trade, and by building child-friendly villages. Bolded semicolons added. Is the movement not engaging itself anymore? If not, present tense should be used. I'm not sure what "running campaigns on issues such he was so education" means; my guess is it was supposed to read "running campaigns on issues such as education [...]".
    I am not a big fan of gerund overuse (too many -ings going on), and many of the verbs in there could take its own past or perfect tense to give the movement more of an active role; for example,
    "has engaged itself in identifying, liberating, rehabilitating and educating children in servitude [...]"
    to
    "identifies, liberates, rehabilitates, and educates children in servitude [...]"
    "Builds [my edit] child-friendly villages" shouldn't be the last item in the list in order to avoid verb awkwardness. The verb "engage" can be used before "communitity participation".
    Finally, I replaced some commas with semicolons as there are smaller lists in the big list. Smaller items in sub-lists are separated with commas, while the bigger items (e.g., "children in servitude" versus "ethics in trade") should be separated by semicolons.
  • Satyarthi established GoodWeave International [...] I would follow it up with a parenthetical thought like "(formerly Rugmark)" so that the following mention of renaming is less jarring.
  • This latter organization operated a campaign [...] Only one organisation is mentioned in this paragraph, so "latter" does not help as a distinguishing word. "The organization" is fine.
  • The international network comprises producing country offices [...] "Comprise" is a tricky word; I like the phrase "is composed of" more.
    Non-copyedit question: What are "producing country offices"?
  • The Kailash Satyarthi Children's Foundation (KSCF), was established in 2004 by Satyarthi. Unnecessary comma does not need to be there.
  • It is a grassroots organization to spread awareness about child issues and be a policy advocate. Sounds awkward. I suggest "It is a grassroots organization that spreads awareness and advocates for beneficial policies for children's rights".
  • Satyarthi formed the Global Campaign for Education and was made the organization's president at its inception in 1999. "was made the organization's" can be simplified to "became its".
  • It was formed in 1999 as a partnership between NGOs that were separately active in the area, including Action Aid, Oxfam, Education International, Global March Against Child Labour and national organizations in Bangladesh, Brazil and South Africa. Has a minor conflict with Satyarthi mentioned before. The first sentence in this list item places a lot more emphasis on Satyarthi as the one who created the organisation, while this sentence puts the agency on the individual NGOs instead.
  • Launched in Kanyakumari on 11 September 2017 by Kailash Satyarthi, this campaign [...] The first clause can be merged with the second: "The campaign started in Kanyakumari by Satyarthi on 11 September 2017, and marched [...]"
  • either to taboo issues in India [...] Not sure why "either" is in that fragment.
  • Bharat Yatra saw the participation of more than 1,200,000 marchers over 35 days [...] Saying this personifies the march. I would say something more along the lines of "More than 1,200,000 people marched for 35 days [...]" while reminding readers in the first sentence that Bharat Yatra was a march. I would mention the Criminal Law Amendment and Anti-Human Trafficking Bill in the same sentence.

Let me know if you have any comments or questions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh wow ... I am overwhelmed, to be honest. THANK YOU so much!! I am not the original author but I will boldly check your points and will improve it as best as I can. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 NewsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
 

Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.

                 Current and upcoming events

September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!

Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

Drive and Blitz reports

June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.

August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Other news

June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated!

Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above).

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, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020 GOCE drive blingEdit

  The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star
This barnstar is awarded to Tenryuu for copy edits totaling over 100,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Tenryuu for copyediting 30 articles during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Tenryuu for copyediting 62,335 total words during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Tenryuu for copyediting 6 long articles during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Tenryuu for copyediting 28 old articles during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Tenryuu for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 18,383 words – during the GOCE September 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ANI recusal – now mootEdit

Hi, Tenryuu,

Thanks for your reply at the ANI thread. The thread was closed within 15' after that, so the issue is now moot, but I still wanted to let you know I appreciated both your reply to me, as well as your involvement generally. Has anyone nominated you as an admin, and would you like to be? I know for a fact that they need good candidates, and I think you could be a valuable addition to the corps. Mathglot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. I'm flattered, but I don't think I'm quite admin material yet (as you could see with some of the policy misinterpretation). I generally hang around in the realm of copyediting (though I prod WP spaces occasionally), but who knows what the future brings? Again, thanks so much for your kind words.  Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I thank you for attempting to explain that my two comments refer to behavior on two different talk pages. I do not posses the never ending patients of Robert. I wish I did- but the ridiculousness of the past week has been unbelievable. My first ani case against me. Nearly ten years of editing, one year as a drn volunteer and this one is the one that I’ll remember. Unbelievable. But.... for now at least, it’s over. Thanks for the support. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

sorry one talk page and one ani board. To clarify in case someone comes back to quote this later. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle:, I totally know what you mean. I feel like we need to print up "I was there" or, "I survived the ANI thread from Hell" T-shirts, or something. Drop by my Talk page, anytime you want to rant, let off steam, or klatsch. Tenryuu's invited; we'll make it a three-some. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thank you! Lol always good to have some place to vent!! Nightenbelle (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle: You are most welcome. I was surprised to see it went as far as an EW claim levied against you, but thankfully everything seems resolved.
Haha, Mathglot, I might take you up on that offer sometime! Also, thanks for demonstrating the use of that divbox on the talk page. I might never use it, but it looks like it could come in handy.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle, Mathglot, and Tenryuu: I know the situation you all encountered at the ANI, recently, was emotionally and mentally draining but I thought you all handled it well, considering what you faced. I just stopped by to encourage you and compliment you on trying to resolve it and maintaining civility. Others do notice your contributions. :) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
well thank you Nightenbelle (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Tsistunagiska, thanks for your kind words.  Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: American Revolutionary WarEdit

 
  Resumed
 – Working on article again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
(1) The American Revolutionary War (ARW), was de-listed from GA-status 13-years, 19-days ago. It has 6,000 visitors a day, spiking at 30,000 July 4, 2019, and 60,000 July 4 2020.
(2) The top-hat purpose is, "This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution." That is, military strategy as (a) the armed conflict goals for political outcomes, and (b) operational maneuver and engagements, directly related to military effort for and against American independence.
(3) This morning, the length now stands at 100kB prose size (text only) of the wp:TOOBIG ‘limit’. Or to look at it another way it’s 15,885 words, or 80% of the ‘limit’ that would suggest ‘split-the-article’. I would like the opportunity to work with you, I am here to learn. --- Thanks in advance for any consideration, oversight or suggestions you may have. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian:, I'm only a "guest" here at Tenryuu's page, but at first blush, I'd say this is a lot of article-related info, maybe too much, for a user talk page. Wouldn't your comments maybe be more useful at the article talk page itself? The last part, about the invitation to Tenryuu to collaborate, is of course relevant here; but I wonder if you wouldn't want to include the rest of it at the article TP? Just my 2 cents; Tenryuu might not agree. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Done here for the ask. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: I was drafting a response to this revision, so some parts of my reply may appear to be out of context.
Hi, TheVirginiaHistorian, I'm honoured that you extended an invitation to me for a big article like American Revolutionary War. I generally don't have an interest in WP:MILITARY-related articles, so I trust that images and the like have been agreed upon by the group of regular editors the article has. I would be willing to copy edit the article to fix any ambiguities that there may be, make it sound better, and attempt to sculpt the article through motions passed by consensus, if any. My copy editing process generally involves asking questions (which may involve requesters going into source material) to ensure that what is being said is being conveyed properly.
However, before I accept, I will ask that the article is, for all intents and purposes, stable and agreed upon through consensus. I recently came off of an ANI thread that had conflict spill over to three different noticeboards, and a participant there mentioned off-handedly that Talk:American Revolutionary War (had?) faced similar issues. Issue #2 in your pre-edited request appears to be what I'm most concerned about; I am against becoming a part of a debate that, for example, requires an RfC or involves source disputes. In regards to WP:TOOBIG and splitting off article content, I suggest looking at which portions of the text should be trimmed and mark them or excise and place them on the talk page for further discussion. While you stated that [t]hose efforts have subsided over the path month, I would like to remain distant from the article for a minimum of 2 weeks to ensure that (non-constructive) conflicts between my edits/suggestions and disagreements are virtually nonexistent before I consider accepting or declining.
If you're just looking for a standard copyedit of the article for any interested copy editor to look over, you may be interested in submitting a request at the Guild of Copy Editors' requests page, though the article may take at least a month before being looked at due to the backlog on there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. A two-week wait-and-see seems more than reasonable, and there is still more to do.
I've just added two images at 'Aftermath-Territory', to balance the two differing Americans with two war-chiefs with very different visions for the future, 'Northwest Territory' v. American 'Old Southwest' ... Also in 'Aftermath', a work-in-progress: a paragraph for 'Post-war social groups' who were military veterans on both sides in post-war American society, especially returning Hessian veterans and their families, Tories and their families with and without confiscated property restored, unpropertied enlisted men with land grants from Congress and states, Free-blacks with land grants likewise, and also, in a wp:neutral treatment, the fate of Native tribes who had been military allies of the Congress. For instance the Cherokee were divided. The American military allies were then set adrift without Washington's protection as president. Even though the tribe was united allies of the US in the War of 1812, under 19th century "states rights" with the Georgia gold rush, they lost their territory even though their claim was upheld in the US Supreme Court, etc.
But immediately, I hope to better link terms throughout the article, trying to link places to the historical article versus the current metropolis, for instance. That requires a little seek-and-find on my part for 1607-1609 Santa Fe, Quebec, and Jamestown, for instance. Previously I know there may be three ways to back into basic background for Jamestown alone ...
Then, I want to try to figure out how to properly link ARW to the various iterations of related article and subsections among "[STATE] in the American Revolution[ary War]", "History of [STATE]#American Revolution", and best of all for map images not found in other articles, "Province of [STATE]" - a series generated for the 'original thirteen' prior to 1776 about 3 ? years ago, but still all Start-class articles. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
TheVirginiaHistorian, thanks for the wait. Most of the recent edits appear to be in the "Bibliography" section, so the article seems pretty stable. To make sure I'm understanding your request correctly, you would like my assistance to determine how to split sections off into the article, with copy editing being a secondary objective? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
ahhhhhh... thanks for double-checking.
Part I. Please run a line-by-line copyediting in two parts: most importantly the narrative without Notes; Notes are a secondary consideration. I've completed a line-by-line edit myself of both narrative and Notes, but I would like your help make sure that the article narrative of military field evolutions in battle can actually be (a) understood by the general reader who may be unfamiliar with military terminology for battles and combat, and (b) understood by the international reader with English as a second language. Specialty terminology (military argot) might be either addressed by a term-by-term Note for the definition and usage, or perhaps innovate a 'Glossary' section below the 'See also' section?
- The Notes edits is a nice-to-have that might be wrapped into the next, later phase, part.
Part II. After the article secures a B-class rating at the 'Military history Project' --- where the article is not yet taken up by a 'reviewer' at the second B-class review submittal --- I propose to dare roil the editorial waters again at ARW Talk, with (our collaborative) recommendations on how to split several article sections off for transfer to other Talk pages. Elsewhere, those page editors might integrate the information, footnotes, and HarvRef source citations presented as a total package --- at their own discretion, without ARW editors needing to negotiate various section wp:merges. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Ah okay, so a two-parter: copyediting for clarity for the general reader and coming back to discuss and suggest page splits after another B-class article assessment. I'll start scanning the article tomorrow. I might not be entirely able to cater to an ESL reader (especially if the subject is complex enough that a few words aren't sufficient to describe it), but I'll see what I can do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Please be aware that one of the 29 contributors plus one good-faith error, one caustically threw out an unhappy critique in an edit summary, that the narrative already looks like it was written by a seventh-grader. For me, that is the "point of the exercise". I only mean to caution you that there will be some adverse reaction to follow, though you are simply trying to follow my request in wp:good faith. Buckle up.
Nevertheless, we can aspire to a conciseness, facility and clarity in our expression of the King's English ala the exemplary and unparalleled Strunk and White in their masterful and universally acclaimed Elements of Style, but we can implement them in various and sundry ways that will be otherwise unattainable by any colonial seventh grader of spurious, dilettante and faux educational attainment whose example may be militated upon, or otherwise set before, us here. We can solemnly abjure the entire aggregated universe of four-and-five-syllable words that can be found in both vestigial English and among its countlessly acquired foreign derivatives, as well as renounce and remove any eight-or-nine-word prepositional phrases that we might happen upon in the first and early drafts of our essays at the proposed erudite composition set before us to copyedit. I am, now and forever, a most humble and obedient servant. - Yours truly, esquire, et alia, - you see, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

---

@Tenryuu:, Good start! I'll post each suggested change on Talk for discussion,shall I? Please see my start of it, I'll discontinue if you would like to follow another format.
Query: What does 'AE' in "AE, TBD" refer to? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
TheVirginiaHistorian, I'm thinking of looking at sentences (or parts of them) before the comment. I'll start structuring my thoughts on the talk page tomorrow. The "AE" is a personal note for myself so that I remember I've "already edited" the sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Just for reference, here is what I had worked up as of this hour. I will 'cease and desist' until further notice. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

- SAMPLE ONLY - start

At the line-by-line edit by Tenryuu, the following items should be addressed going forward. PAGE EDITORS: Please respond with comments or counter-edits in italics following each bulleted item:

agree. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • capitalize Congress
agree. Capitalize and link to ‘Continental Congress’ Congress - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • change ‘twelve colonies responded with’ to ‘twelve colonies attended’
amend change to: ‘twelve colonial legislatures sent delegates to the First Continental Congress… - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Add term definition between dashes. When the Parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts—punitive laws for defying Great Britain—upon Massachusetts
disagree. The definition for the Intolerable Acts is available to the reader immediately at hovering their pointer over the link. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • shorten run-on sentence at introductory clause, descriptive verb, subject-verb agreement. FROM ‘Fighting broke out on 19 April 1775 when the British garrison were sent at Boston to destroy colonial Assembly powder stores and were harassed…’ TO “Fighting broke out on 19 April 1775 when the British garrison were sent at Boston to destroy colonial Assembly powder stores and were harassed…”
Agree. Short sentences, generally; ‘ordered’ improves ‘sent’; a ‘garrison’ is singular in modern American English. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • change ‘but were repulsed’ to ‘repelled’.
disagree. I prefer this usage: a regional invasion is ‘repulsed’ versus a city attack is ‘repelled’. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
agree and disagree: agree to verb agreement, ‘launched’ and ‘captured’; disagree: keep comma: ‘commander-in-chief, General’ to separate duty assignment from rank; agree to omitting second comma. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • copy-editor query: technical answer, ‘harassing attacks’ are removed from the enemy, your troops do not “close with and destroy” them. They are meant to be distracted and effectively slowed in their progress; it is generally exhausting and demoralizing to the enemy, and the practice may cause additional wounded to further add to the delay and demoralization of the stationary position or marching column. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • copy-editor query: “Consider maybe just linking "Saratoga campaign"?”
The evident concern is ‘blue out’ with too many adjacent links. ie: “Howe's 1777–1778 Philadelphia campaign captured the city, but the British were defeated at Saratoga in October 1777. At Valley Forge during the winter of 1777–1778, Washington built a professional army…“
Agree, a good idea at first, but the result (from multiple editors?) is too much blue. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • copy-editor query: at ‘with the important assistance of soldier-of-fortune General von Steuben’, “Unsure of "soldier-of-fortune" qualifier; "important" could be "shown, not told" more”.
Agree to this as a self-edit. It should read, ‘implimented by the Prussian émigré General von Steuben’. My rationale for 'émigré' is that he later became a resident and citizen of New York. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

- SAMPLE ONLY - end. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

update on ARWEdit

(1) I've restored the "under construction" template under my own signature.

(2) At my post for ARW article review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, I wrote the following:

Copyeditor Tenryuu has been invited to make a comprehensive copyedit review of the article American Revolutionary War. It has an Under Construction template box at its top as a notice to visiting editors. While under construction, the Talk page has a section for editor to add their suggestions. This procedure has been followed for article improvement with success across several Wikipedia projects.
- At the Talk:American Revolutionary War section Copyedit request, each section that is has been copyedited in an agreed upon comprehensive review has its own subsection. Immediately below each "resolved" collapsed box. The “Pending” editable section just below that gives an opportunity for interested editors to note any additional interests and concerns they may have for each section.
- In the most recently article main-space disrupted, that is found for the American Revolutionary War#Strategy and commanders section here for editor comment.
- All here are collegially invited to participate at ARW Talk in this two-week-long, on-going process, as noted for you in the large box at the top of the article for your information and use at the article Talk page. Thank you for your patience and cooperation for this limited time. [tildes]

(3) I made a reply to your notice at ARW Talk, asking for reconsideration, to go forward on the stable sections, American Revolutionary War#Revolution as civil war, American Revolutionary War#Aftermath, and American Revolutionary War#Commemorations of the Revolutionary War

(4) I have suggested to Gwillhickers (talk · contribs), for further discussion at Talk, that the offending disruption of your work flow be reverted with an informational note to the disrupting editor, to please, for this limited time, limit posting his concerns at the appropriate Talk section.

(5) I will now post the same collegial, informative note I did at the article review assessment request to Robin's Talk.

(6) Is there an alternative notice box language that prominently directs editors to direct their copyedit suggestions to Talk, rather than directly edit the page, for this limited time?

I hope you can view these steps as supportive of your efforts and 'progress' in the copyedit process. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)