Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/Old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page lists requests older than three months, sorted chronologically. These requests should be prioritized.

[edit] Old requests

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Currently at FAC. Copyedit request was posted on April 3, but received no feedback. - Pandacomics 04:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Article moved to this section as it is no longer an FAC. Epbr123 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Article is once again at FAC. Happymelon 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Copy edited first couple of sections - until (not incl.) Musical career. Will come back to do more if it still needs it. Skumarla (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Reorganized the article, copy-edited the lead. Further copy-editing in the re-ordered section is still necessary to optimize the flow and logic of the text. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • has been on FAC for about two months and the only remaining objections appear to be that it needs a copy edit. Any help would be appreciated. ptkfgs 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Article is no longer an FAC. --Epbr123 16:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I recently passed this as a GA. The main contributor would like to make it an FA, needs some work on the prose. Quadzilla99 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • GA/FA hopeful, but written by a non-native speaker and copyedited by non-native speakers only. It certainly needs a thorough and in-depth copyedit by a native speaker of English, preferably more than one (after all, we're eventually going for FA status). TodorBozhinov 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has failed four GA nominations and featured article candidacy. Please take a look at it and fix up the copyediting. (Ibaranoff24 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • this article is about a Turkish city in north central Turkey. It will be nominated for a GA review very soon and people advised it to be copyedited for syntax, grammar and flow.Ugur Olgun 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Per suggestion on peer review. The article needs copy editing in "MANY places" and English is not my first language. Thanks for all your efforts on Wikipedia.--Serte Talk · Contrib ] 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Currently an FAC. Some general copy-editing has already occurred, although more in-depth copy-editing is needed. Mostly prose that needs work - • The Giant Puffin • 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No longer an FAC. Epbr123 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I got some pointers from peer review but nothing involving prose and grammar. Thanks for your help. CJ 13:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I wrote/cleaned up the bulk of the article by myself and it has become a GA, but English isn't my motherlanguage so the article needs to be proofread and copyedited by more editors. Thanks. Kariteh 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current GA (and in fact A class by WP:AUTOMOBILE's standard). Has been nominated for FA several times and failed most recently solely due to my objection on grounds of prose. The reaction to failure at the wikiproject was "Yeah - but it seems to have been rejected with just one comment...the dreaded "I don't like the quality of your prose" thing...which nobody ever knows what to do about.". I'm being bold therefore and listing it here on behalf of user:Karrmann and WP:AUTOMOBILES. Cheers. 4u1e 09:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I've worked on expanding the article greatly, but writing isn't my greatest skill, so I'd very much appreciate if an experienced copyeditor took a look. It's currently a GAC. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-24 13:22
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Former FAC, failed because of concerns regarding the fair use image (now removed) and need for copyediting. I would like to bring this back up to FAC shortly, so I appreciate any copyediting/advice that can given. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Review of the use of passive voice when discussing historic events. Review of lead section. Review of non-English words for consistency. Patrick Ѻ 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This is an FAC and has recently passed GA. Can you please help copyedit it by addressing tweaks in the style to make it flow better, and general word use? Prose flow is the only remaining concern, the only problem which was introduced so far. According to one editor, there is necessarity in minor style tweaks to make it flow brilliantly, particularly in the personal life section. Thanks and best regards, ShahidTalk2me 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current Featured article candidate. I'd like to make sure that the article is correctly formatted and that there is no significant writing problems. Ibaranoff24 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • It has been tagged for cleanup for a few months now, so any help on the prose in all sections would be of great help. Eventually, we want to make this go to Good Article candidates. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This isn't a major job compared to others I don't think. Has passed GA without any problems and had a very thorough peer-review. However just needs the prose tweaked to be ready for FAC. Thanks. - Shudde talk 10:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article was copyedited before but it failed being a featured article. The only reason was because the article's prose was not written properly and needed copyediting. Therefore, I am requesting help to improve this article to become a featured article. Thanks. σмgнgσмg 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I want to request this article to be copy edited so as to help it reach Featured Article status bingo99 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happymelon 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This is currently a GA, and an FAC. A copyedit has been requested at FAC. There may be other issues with getting it to FA, which is why I've listed it here.--BelovedFreak 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Now a featured article, but could still use a copy edit. --BelovedFreak 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
- Parts of the articles seem to be roughly translated from German
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Harry and the Potters has succesfully gone through the GA process. It has also gone through the Peer Review process but with little feedback. The article is up for FAC. I'm going through it with a fine tooth comb. However, the article needs to be copy edited by a new set of eyes and by someone with the talent to do so. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Everyone at WikiProject:CSI have put a lot of time on this article, and now it's failing at it's FAC because it doesn't have a brilliant prose. Oh kind members of the league! please help us! -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Good Article since almost a year. I want to get this article to FA status, but a good part of it is written by me, and I'm not a native speaker, so it might need CE. Thanks =) No-Bullet (TalkContribs) 02:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article is now nominated for WP:GAC. Though the GAC reviewers have not commented about copyediting, the issue is sooner or latter going to be raised. At the Peer review of Matrikas, a reviewer commented "The prose on this needs some work." Thus, the request.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like this to be copyedited because there is a lot of text and some of it may be worded wrong. It is currenntly a GAC.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article recently passed GAN and the peer review bot has suggested a copyedit prior to FAC. I think the prose is OK but it obviously needs expert attention to make it "brilliant". Brad (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I've listed this because I have increased the content of this article. It had a peer-review and the peer-review suggested a copy-edit. --MicroX 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • While there were originally quite a few objections, the only actionable ones left now are the prose, especially in the "Route" section. While I've tried to improve it, I'm not entirely sure that it's improved to the standard of an FA.
  • Now an FA. Will (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happymelon 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing in progress.--Lilipatina (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happymelon 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Several editors have raised the need for copyediting, with one objection due to MoS problems - dashes and punctuation. I am not a native English speaker and dashes and punctuation are my weak points; please help :) --User:Piotrus 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Article is 96k. Have you considered the guidelines at WP:SIZE? Perhaps sub-articles are appropriate. This is not denying the request, would just like to know if the guideline has been considered. Regards, Unimaginative Username 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I consider it obsolete; many FAs get promoted despite similar size. That said I am all in favor of creating subarticles, and I have created many for this article.--User:Piotrus 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am the sole contributor of much of the text of the article, which has expanded hugely since passing GA criteria (dif). To achieve GA standard, the article needed a lot of copy-editting by other editors, and as I'm hoping to have this reach featured status soon, I would appreciate the League's help very much. Skomorokh incite 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I will take the assignment. Expect me to start in a day or two. atakdoug (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, I was beginning to worry that no-one would. Skomorokh incite 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like this article to be scrutinized by a larger number of editors, as it's currently suffering from the editorial biases of its primary editor (me). I wish to eventually nominate this article to GA (and FA) status and as a first step, I've submitted it for peer review. An automated script suggested that this article should fully comply with Criterion 1A, so I've put it before the League to seek the opinion of qualified Wikipedia copyeditors. I appreciate your time and consideration. Cumulus Clouds 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of content issues that should be addressed before the article would be ready for copy-edit. Left them on the Talk page. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look. --Lukobe 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have twice tried to put this article forward for FA status and have failed. Copyediting was one of the issues that came up. I just want the article to be given a good copyedit so it can be put forward again for FA status again. ISD (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has been GA since the film's American release, I've been taking care of the article since the movie was shooting, and I've incorporated as much as I can now from the DVD, so it's stable. I'd like to nominate this for FA soon. Alientraveller (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happymelon 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am looking for someone to do a good copy edit on this article, I've managed to get it to GA on my own (not totally of course I had a lot of help) but I am not a native English speaker/writer and I'm not able to personally improve much on the article on my own, but I want someone good and experienced to read it over and edit it for language, grammer etc before I even think about submitting it for FA. Also, the article is about professional wrestling and I've worked really hard to make it accessible to everyone and more encyclopedic that most wrestling articles, I need someone with little or no pro wrestling knowledge to read it and tell me if it's understandable, slang free and "out of universe" enough. Thanks in advance MPJ-DK (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Basic paragraph-forming is required at the GAC reviewer's recommendation. WBOSITG (talk)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The remaining complaints are largely copy-editing requests that have gone largely beyond my ability to address, and an additional pair of eyes (or several) is necessary to rectify this. Specific complaints can be found at the article's nomination. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article has failed and failed again, mostly for in-universe context. However, a recent GA reviewer stated that the article did not meet criteria 1a (meaning that the article must be well-written). When I heard this, I figured I need an expert to fix this as I am clearly unqualified. I would really like somebody to just read through the article and see what they could do. I would appreciate it. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has succeeded it fourth GA nomination, but the main opposition on its FAC was that its prose is horrible. It needs to be copyedited soon if it is to progress. Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Lack of copy-editing was a major objection in two subsequent GACs; help needed from native English speaker in improving the language's quality.--User:Piotrus 17:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • After digging, reviewer found "choppy paragraphs" and hinted that the prose needs "massaging."
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I'm the principal contributor of this article, and so far I have two failed FA nominations. Since a common complaint was about the prose, I would be grateful to receive some help in copy-editing. Thanks. igordebraga 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Looking for general editing to bring this article up to A-class, organize information better for those unfamiliar with the topic, etc.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article needs a copyedit for it to become a featured article. ISD (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article needs work on prose and MOS. There are limited references for this article, due to the information only being contained in one place. The history section is called into question for its references.Storkpkp (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • It has been pointed out in peer reviews that the article requires a copy-edit. Along with these and the fact that I am one of the main contributors of the article's current content I feel I should have the article looked at from somebody who isn't involved in the article, that and the fact I'm not the best of writers. Rezter (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just did Tool; guess I'll give this a shot. Give me a couple days, please. atakdoug (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It has been over 6 weeks since you said you would copyedit the article and still there hasn't been any response. Could another user please give it a go? REZTER TALK ø 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Needs cutting down of synopsis, non-neutral POV issues (e.g. laudatory references to Michael Ball), incorrectly formatted disambiguations, repair misuse of homophones (one/won), etc.Lawikitejana (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Tony: "Nearly every sentence needs fiddling… find someone to run through the whole article." It is only 8 kb of readable prose. Thanks, –thedemonhog talkedits 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article used to be better than it is now — it read better, had slightly better documentation (especially in the section on the funeral), and had fewer "peacock terms" and non-NPOV remarks. It failed as a good article candidate in March, though it would have helped if "fact" tags had been added where citations were most needed; I've gone back and added such tags here and there, but there are more needs than the few that jumped out at me, I'm sure. There should be substantial reference material available, given that he's one of the dominant non-government figures in Latin American history of the last 50 years. I worked on the article several times previously and added a lot of documentation that seems to be gone now; try the history.Lawikitejana (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happymelon 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article is in good condition, but I don't feel it is ready for GA nomination. I want to invite a fresh set of eyes outside of the John Mayer fanclub (myself included) to give it a good looksee.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article was recently subject to GA review, which it passed with a few tweaks. I hope to take it to FAC and copy editing support would be much appreciated. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I've been working on this since May 2007, implementing every bit of useful information I can find. Now that I've finished with the stuff from the DVD, I'd like to try an FAC soon. The prose throughout the article could use some work, with no particular section in any more need than another. Thanks. Gran2 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article is nearly ready for FA nomination. We need a copyedit to correct common grammatical, punctuation, and stylistic errors. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I wish to push this article to a featured status. It was recommended by an editor to request for a copyedit here to correct some 'awkward phrasing' and 'incorrect grammar'. kawaputratorque 06:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Edited Intro & History - will do more as I can. Skumarla (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article is being prepared for FAC, which it failed in 2007. Content has been altered significantly recently, needs a copyedit to improve grammar, punctuation etc. Lurker (said · done) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I've been advised to request a copyedit, as I've currently edited to my hearts content, reaching GA status and now I'd like to aim for FA before a peer review. It'd be great if it could be copyedited. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 12:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Basically the articles going through an FAC and the grammar and punctuations a bit rubbish, so could you guys help clear it up. Cheers
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has to be checked for grammatical consistency and its overall integrity.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • User:Tony1 said that there is a "need for a thorough copy-edit throughout"--Miyokan (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article needs a copyediting to get ready for a future GAN. Thanks!Mitch32contribs 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Failed FAC. Many comments made advising copyediting, referring amongst other matters to choppy prose.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has repeatedly failed GAC because of the grammar, as it was written by non-native English speakers. I feel the article would benefit greatly from a copyedit. Bogdan що? 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ukraine just passed GAC, but a copyedit would still be necessary for it to reach the desired FA level. Bogdan що? 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article is currently a GA and needs a thorough copy-editing to proceed for FAC. Thank you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The main reason this article did not become an FA was because it needed a "serious" copyedit. Please give this article one. ISD (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article needs to be checked for POV. Content could be shortened a bit. Thanks in advance,-xC- 13:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article is at peer review and ready for FAC. However, I feel a copyedit is needed before it makes the full push towards towards FA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Hi. My goal would be to re-promote this article to FA. Basic things need to be done including checking style, punctuation, references, links and consistency of translation of titles for example. Also, any comment would be appreciated. Randomblue (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article seems to be full of great information, but needs the steady hand of a talented copy editor to aid readability and bring up to GA. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Walt Whitman -Hopefully not major concerns, not a long article either (32k, I think?). Recent GA review said it would need a copy edit and I tend to be not so good at noticing my own mistakes. With any luck, this will be a quickie. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have edited this list alot in the last few weeks, but know my grammar is at times extremely bad. Hopefully you could go through and make my writing a bit more readable to everybody else. I would like to get this lists to featured status.CStubbies 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
    • Requesting a general copyedit to create consistency in the article and to better it. --Charleenmerced Talk 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This is curently a featured article candidate. On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christian metal someone suggested that the article needs copyediting and grammar correction as well as better choise of words so that the article does not seem to written by a non-English-speaker. It meets the rest of the criteria.--Azure Shrieker (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like to nominate this article for Featured Article status. I would appreciate it if someone could look over the article and help fix any writing problems. In addition, I would really appreciate help taking the article "out of universe", although I'm not sure that copyeditors normally help with that sort of thing. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Hey folks, I think this article isn't too shabby but am in dire search for some more pairs of eyes to come and take a look at it. Specifically, prose/redundancy/style/grammar would be helpful. Much obliged, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The main issue is prose, as cited by a couple of users during this article's FAC. It narrowly failed, with three supports and four opposes (a supporting user decided to switch because of a perceived lack of stability). The article just needs minor additional fixes and adjustments to prose before it is truly FA quality. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article has recently been vastly expanded and improved. It is currently concluding a peer review and I would like to nominate this article for GA or FA stutus soon. I was recommended to come here by a member of the LOCE. We need copyediting for flow, tone of voice, grammar, spelling, paragraph structure (stub paragraphs), and whatever else services you could provide. We also need major help with our citations and sources as they are not all properly formatted and I have been unable to find someone who is able of willing to cita sources in the correct format.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have edited the article Valdivia, Chile for more than one year now, but I have focused on adding material to the article more than anything else. With such much content it requires too much work (for one editor) to reach the Good article criteria witch is the current goal.
  • Some work to do include:
  • 1 Citations and sources - try to find sources for the information that is in the article. I havent still found a good citable source for the citys population.
  • 2 Spelling and grammar - some sentences sounds very strange, maybe you could help
  • 3 Organize information - some information is repeated in different sections it can be unnesesary
  • 4 Expand article - I see it as the less nessesary improvement, but it is still the most attractive work
  • There are also some repeated information for example:===

In the Valdivia, Chile article i feel that some information is unneserarily repeated becuse Im not sure in whitch section it should be. I dont mean that all informetion can only be said once, I just want to make the article nice to read and keep everything on its topic. Maybe some of the sections of the article is unnesesary. It would be useful to have your opinion about:

  • The economy section vs the last part of recent history - in whitch section should the recent history of the economy be?
  • The economy section vs the last part of Independence and growt - in whitch section should tourism be?
  • Prehispanic times vs Independe and growth - a cite of Charles Darwin is repeated because it is important to contrast his description of the landskape with early Spaniars one, but in whicht section should this comparison be made?
  • Independence and growt vs German influences vs Education - Information about the German school apears in each of these sections.
  • Independence and growt vs German influences - where goes the limit between culture and history, the things that are said in the history section could be said under German influnces and viceversa.
  • Government and politics vs Ecological action - The CELCO case is named in both parts.
  • Government and politics vs Culture vs Great Chilean Earthquake and Valdivia in Los Lagos Region - Where should the information about the creation of Los Ríos Region be placed? Dentren
  • Jane Zhang (edit|talk|history)Added 12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article was copyedited before but it failed being a featured article. The only reason was because the article's prose was not written properly and needed copyediting. Therefore, I am requesting help to improve this article to become a featured article. Thanks. σмgнgσмg 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Former FAC. One complaint was over-use of in-universe style prose. "Critical and editorial commentary" section was also noted in the review.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current FAC. Please take a look at it, and work on the copyediting. If anyone has any specific questions or comments about the article as it is, feel free to bring them up on the talk page, and we'll discuss it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article written by a non-native English speaker. Failed last FA nomination partly on the grounds of criterion 1a. Quality of prose remains, I believe, the last issue to be solved before renominating the article to FAC. — Kpalion(talk) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have recently expanded this article and created a sister article of Nuova Cronica; so far the only main issue of concern by FAC reviewers is that this article needs a general clean up of possible grammatical mistakes, poor wording, or poor organizational style, such as somewhat excessive use of proseline in the beginning section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The primary issue with this article is the need to have an editor unfamiliar with American football point out areas that are unclear. The article has been looked over by several editors familiar with American football, but an edit for clarity is needed from someone unfamiliar with the subject. It's a long article, but if you're unwilling or unable to make changes, please contact me and I will make them as soon as possible. Thank you for your review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article has been cleaned up and trimmed down in the last few months. It is up for a peer review with the view to nomination for GA or FA status. The article could be improved with copyediting for flow, NPOV, grammar, spelling, paragraph structure. It also needs help cleaning up redundancies and contractions.--Nreive (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has been recently promoted to GA class and would benefit from a copyedit so it can be nominated for FA status. -- Nreive (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments

I edited the name of the man who first brought the grapes from Bordeaux. Also, Don Maximo Errazuriz is the man who founded Errazuriz winery and began the first commercial winery in Chile. The author merged two different names into one. You may clean up the article as you wish, but I wanted to clarify this point.

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am looking to take this article to FAC eventually. The article needs a general copy-edit, prose improvement and a focus on removing or explaining cricket-related jargon. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments

I am resubmitting this article because FAC feedback has suggested that it needs another copyedit to bring its quality up to pass to FA-status. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am looking for the prose of this article to be improved, which will hopefully lead to a WP:FA nomination. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Reasonable Doubt is a well-structured and factually accurate article, but I would like the grammar and prose to be a little tighter. A solid copyedit should make it a featured article.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Users demanded the article to be copyedited after it appeared on the Main Page on February 12th, 2008. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like the reviewer to thoroughly copy-edit the article, changing or removing any prose that may sound confusing to the reader.
  • Change wording on sentence structure should it sound confusing.
  • I would like the prose improved as a whole, so I can renominate it for FA-status.
  • Should the reviewer encounter any difficulties or problems, they may leave a message at WT:PW (which is very active), and a member of the project will be over to the article to help them. D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this is taking so long, just get rid of it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
The GA reviewer commented that "There are a lot of problems with the prose in this article. In most places, it simply does not flow well." Since I am not a native speaker, I don't think I can fix that.
Thanks to User:Tyrangiel, it has been copyedited up to Etymology section [1]
Copyediting is done by the same user :) --Be happy!! (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article recently failed a FAC nom, though the only constructive comment it received was a need for cleaning up. I can't see where the problem is myself, and I'm hoping some fresh eyes will be able to spot the deficiencies. Note that someone else has nominated the article for GA, but there is no feedback as yet to suggest that a copyedit is required in order to succeed at this. My motive is to get the article ready for one last stab at FAC. I would appreciate any feedback. --FactotEm (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Trying to get this up to Featured Article quality. Use of jargon seems to be major objection. Dlong (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current Featured List candidate. A copyedit is the only thing needed to get the list promoted. ISD (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The list has been successfuly promoted to FL, but a copyedit would still be useful. ISD (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • General copyediting needs to be done to this article for it to pass WP:FAC. Please help! Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Would like another set of eyes to take a look at this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Battle of Vimy Ridge was a GA candidate, but unfortunately it failed to meet the criteria at the time. I am requesting a copyedit for several reasons. For one, it will only help the article if a fresh eye checks it over. For another, there may be several spelling or grammatical errors that have been missed during editing, and a copyedit would surely help to rectify those. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I started working on this article recently, but it still suffers from awkward phrasing. Hoping to push to FA. David Fuchs (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • General copyediting requested. It has gone through peer review, but would like more eyes to take a look in order to assure safe passage through FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have edited this to a standstill. Here is the comment I got after submitting for GA: This article is pretty well referenced and comprehensive. Its two main problems are that many of its images have no free use rationale (this is a quick killer of GA noms). Also, it needs a copyedit from someone not familiar with the subject. I'd suggest going to the WP:LOCE before renominating just to be sure everything is covered. I think I fixed the free use rationale. So what is left is that copyediting....Jacqke (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What I really need is help finding Original Research. Jacqke (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happymelon 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Although i am a member of LoCE, i am requesting someone to go thru the article and fix prose issues which might have escaped my eye. A few months ago, I copyedited the whole article b4 its GA nomination. A week back i listed this article for FAC and it was opposed due to prose issues. Since i am one of the main contributors to the article, it has been suggested that i let a fresh pair of eyes go thru it so that any prose issues left unaddressed might be corrected. The FAC nomination is here and the peer review is here.I hope copyediting the article wont take much time.... I am pushing for a FA status soon...so pls bear this in mind...thanx Gprince007 (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like nominate this for GA soon and I wanted to get it read through for redundancies and checked per WP:MOS Harland1 (t/c) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happymelon 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The lead, Biography, and commemorations sections read choppy according to GA review. Article is on hold for seven days. Wrad (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I will work on this article.Jacqke (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have recently added a bunch of info, rearranged and reformated a lot of this article to try and make it acceptable for GA (or even FA) review, and as a result, it is a little patchy. It could do with an expert copyeditor going through it and ditching redundant text, making the sentence structure and flow much better, and making the whole article read comprehensively for a non-expert.~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 05:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a tough one, but I like a challenge... I'm on it. Livitup (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This page is in real need of a copy edit. It is just horrible and really needs to be reviewed. Thanks you SO much! Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The only problem here, at least according to its FAC page is that it is choppily written. --Howard the Duck 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • After considerable rewriting we need copy-editing before asking for a GA review. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Fix places using colloquial phrases and where the flow is awkward. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 04:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
In the WP:MILHIST and WP:BIO peer reviews, it was suggested the article needs a copyedit. There is probably a phrase or two that needs to be reworded, for instance, "He did not dispute he ran hard for his seat". MrPrada (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article was previously a featured article candidate and was not passed, and I have now submitted it as a good article candidate. It was suggested in the FAC to submit a request for a copyedit to the LOCE and I have decided to do so. Thanks for any help. Hello32020 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: This was made a good article. Hello32020 (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Copyedit needed on prose, which needs to be tweaked after failing FAC NapHit (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article needs copyediting of some sources. Inappropriate links need to be removed. I'm not sure the lists in the article comply with Wikipedia standards required of a music article. Some external links seem to be violating policy.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please copy edit this article for style, prose, grammar and presentation. A reviewer felt that the above could improve in this well cited and stable article.Thanks and regards.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please copyedit this article for prose. In the FAC, prose has proven to be the main issue. The article is not a lengthy one, and MoS issues have been checked. There is a problem with 2 or 3 references (reliability) that is being taken care of. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article failed its FA nomination due to its prose. While I believe that there only seems to be minor errors, I would like editors to go over the article and edit where necessary. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • A reviewer on GA sweep suggested a service from you guys. A general copyedit would be appreciated as it is about ready for FAC. The JPStalk to me 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's ready for FAC so a copyed would be really appreciated. The JPStalk to me 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • In a recent Good Article Review, this article was failing for the following reason; "The article needs copyediting by someone with strong punctuation skills. There are comma errors throughout the article that distract from the text.".
    • Y Done Rudget. 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article needs a simple grammer and prose check before renominated for FA status.  The Windler talk  09:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Currently at FAC. While I have addressed all objections (there are also some suggestions in the review that can be examined after the review), the only objection that I have not been able to satisfy on my own relate to the prose. 52 Pickup (deal) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promoted to FA, but it still wouldn't hurt for someone to go over the prose. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I need a general copyedit with this article, especially the prose. It's nominated for GA right now. Thanks in advance for your help. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The GA Reviewer who passed this article recommended that someone take a look at this article and do some copyediting, so it still needs one even though it's passed its GA nomination. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)