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

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi coords, it looks like there's a problem with the archiving bot YiFeiBot, which hasn't archived completed requests since 10 January. I'm not sure what's causing this so I've been tidying up unusual bits of code like asterisk bullets, poor threading, etc but that doesn't seem to have worked. I've also gone through the 2023 archive page to check there, fixed an unusual 'and' but didn't find any other oddities. Perhaps the bot needs a holiday... I'll see what happens next before I bother the bot-runner. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed another two asterisks. Life is fun. :) Baffle☿gab 02:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Baffle, and Zhuyifei1999 hasn't edited on enwp since October 2021. It was nice while it lasted </sigh>. All the best, Miniapolis 15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And the designated contact @Bobbychan193: (courtesy ping) hasn't edited here since October 2023. There's nothing on the bot's talk to indicate it's been deactivated though... let's see if it archives my latest one. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to get Zhuyifei1999 to take a look. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Root cause was an automatic pywikibot upgrade pulled in phab:T340640 fix, which added https://pypi.org/project/packaging/ as a mandatory dependency of pywikibot, but I did not have that installed. Anyways, feel free to shoot me an email if I don't see your ping. I rarely log on nowadays. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both, that's great, the bot really saves us lots of chores. I'd rather be copy-editing than archiving requests! :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 11:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(←) Thank you all! Miniapolis 16:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi all; I've placed the request for the above draft on hold; it hasn't yet been accepted into the mainspace. I suggest we decline this for now; @PreethaK2023: (courtesy ping) is welcome to re-submit the request once it's been accepted. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 17:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Baffle☿gab Thank you PreethaK2023 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, Baffle. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 05:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Guild of copy editors, Could I please have help to edit this draft to be ready to publish on Wikipedia? Thank you!! Leave the tildes in place so that your signature is appended to the request. PreethaK2023 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Working Nsbfrank (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Partly done Nsbfrank (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(←)  On hold per GOCE guidelines; @PreethaK2023:, please wait until this article has been accepted into the mainspace before requesting a full c/e. Discuss at REQ talk. Baffle☿gab 17:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm working on this article for one year. Is there anyone at Wikipedia team, who could help me to move this article to mainspace? I would appreciate the help. PreethaK2023 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PreethaK2023:, there is guidance on the draft's talk page here. Basically, you need to show the subject in notable and warrants an article. You can do this by showing significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 17:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Declined per talk page discussion; discuss there. Baffle☿gab 05:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed a third request here and have informed the requester on their talk here. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Leventio: As you noted on your request, Military History of Canada is rather lengthy, perhaps too long for a copyedit, GAN or FAC. It's 20k words, and Wikipedia:Article size states that articles of 9k words should probably be shortened and articles of 15k words should almost certainly be shortened. The equivalent US article is about 9k words, which is achieved as almost all sections have main articles, allowing the sections to be kept to summaries of 1–3 paragraphs in most cases. Can something like that be done here? – Reidgreg (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

There has been a paring down/trimming down effort on most of the sections already. That said, I've actually been debating splitting the article into two for a while now in my head (was sort of just trying to figure at where). I can withdraw the request if that is what the people here would like. Leventio (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Leventio. It would make more sense (and be easier on us) to copyedit both articles after the split. As it is, it probably wouldn't be promoted to GA because of its length and it took a long time to load in my browser. All the best, Miniapolis 15:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't take the summary route (like the US article) I suppose the natural place for a split would be at Confederation (1867), since Canada didn't exist as a country before then. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; I copied text in this section from the Requests page here. See that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Some parts of the Career section make no sense. DareshMohan (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan:, copy-editing isn't WP:CLEANUP and copy-editors we shouldn't have to fix up messes made by past incompetent editors. This article has serious BLP violations, which I've noted with a template – BLPs must be properly referenced. That section is on notice; I suggest either properly referencing the article or removing the uncited text and stubifying the rest. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I removed the unsourced content. Can the request be removed too? DareshMohan (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DareshMohan: thank you for that, yes, just put {{Withdrawn}} below my post and the bot will remove it in 24 hours or so, and I'll archive this section a bit later. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 16:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn DareshMohan (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; I copied text in this section from the Requests page here. See that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 06:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

For a future FAC. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The future is apparently here; I'm reviewing the FAC now. I'm struggling with

Both male and female Alpine ibexes have large, backwards-curving horns with numerous transverse ridges along their length. At 69–98 cm (27–39 in), those of the males are substantially longer than those of females, which reach only 18–35 cm (7.1–13.8 in) in length.[3]

In my mind, it's not clear what "which reach only 18-35 cm" refers to. .It looks like it refers to "females", but obviously that's silly and it must refer to "those (i.e. the horns) of females". Am I just being overly pedantic, or does this need to be rephrased? RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @RoySmith:, this content matter should really be discussed with the requester, at the FAC review or at the article's talk page. FWIW, I agree that passage should be rephrased to clarify what the measurements refer to; suggest replacing "those of females" with "horns of females" (or whatever "those" refers to) or similar construction. If you want to discuss the request or the copy-edit, you can use REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. My bad for posting in the wrong place. RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(←)  Working Baffle☿gab 23:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Baffle☿gab 06:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

this article isnt necessarily *hard* its moreso i've struggled with knowing what to chop (history section). ive asked in the talk page 4 a bit and i havent gotten anything, dk if anyone here has any ideas. >:3 -Astral~(he/him/his) 12:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm, AstralAlley. Since you seem to be a new copyeditor, however, this article (a good article) may not be the right fit for you at this time. Copyediting is a specialized skill, and IMO going off into the weeds of content is a HTH. Please see WP:CE, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to has a bunch of useful links. All the best, Miniapolis 14:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

ive worked a slight bit on it, but yeah it might not be the best fit. all it really is a weeding fest. tysm for the links, ill see what i can try to with what you've provided, but i might need some other help. tysm >:3 -Astral~(he/him/his) 15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I listed 2022 Optus data breach in January this year for copyediting, as I wish to submit it for WP:FAC. Mox Eden accepted the article, but marked it as done three hours later, with no edits being made to the article. I still wish for the article to be copyedited ASAP for FAC, would I be allowed to reinsert it in the January 2024 section, or in May? It would be annoying to have to wait a while longer for it to be copyedited. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the edit where it was marked as done. Upon scanning the article, I saw no obvious mistakes. It's possible that an article, especially one that already has good article status, doesn't need further copy editing, although notice to that effect would be helpful, if none was given. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

non-coordinator comment I would expect at least some copy-edits to have taken place during a c/e... perhaps @Mox Eden: could comment here; judging by this recent edit summary, they may be under some real-life stress right now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Mox Eden made some copy-edits there, which are here. Since I noticed several errors (post-quotation punctuation, unnecessary "that"s, etc.), I'll support this being relisted in the Jan section with a Partly done. Baffle☿gab 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and relisted the article as suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Thanks for relisting it. As to how I missed the edits Mox Eden made, I don't know, but they were very much tinkering around the edges anyway. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The tags here suggest research is needed rather than copy editing, so I'd suggest this is taken out of the queue. I've suggested peer review to @GolsaGolsa on the project page. Jim Killock (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

GolsaGolsa is a fairly new editor who hasn't edited since 13 March this year. It's a short article so I'll take the request. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fair! Maybe he can take the article to peer review after for wider feedback. Jim Killock (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

PR would be one route to improving the article but this seems to have been a drive-by request; GolsaGolsa has made only one edit to the article. Anyway, the c/e is done and I've no intention of dealing with the multitude of woes in the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed two excess requests from one editor here (diff). The requester already has two extant requests on the page. I've notified them on their talk page here (permalink). Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The plot section lacks citations, so I've suggested the requester adds them before a copy edit. Altho perhaps plot summaries don't require this. Jim Killock (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JimKillock:, pure plot summaries of what we see and hear in the film, like "Dave goes into the woods and is followed by an axe murderer; thirty second later, Dave screams.", usually don't need citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE; the film itself is regarded as a primary source. If the plot section contains any analysis, opinions or commentary, such as "Dave doesn't hear the axe murderer because he foolishly has chewing gum in his ears", that would need a citation. I usually either mark any commentary with {{cn}}, move it to another section or remove it per WP:OR. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I was asked why I wasn't "completing" copy edits and it was suggested I should "finish" these, so I thought it would be helpful to leave a note about this. I have worked as an editor and done editing plenty of times but I don't feel that I am familiar enough with WP's style and requirements to do a full copy edit without a check. Moreover, a double pass probably makes for a better copyedit. If it isn't helpful for me to work this way though please do say. Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Some background, and the requests page is getting longer. All the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My hope is to be as helpful as I feel able. I'm in the queue for requests myself, so I understand the desire to clear the queue, but I don't feel it's a good idea for me to mark what I've done as "complete" as it may be doing requesters a disservice. Jim Killock (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your copy-editing work Jim, it is appreciated. A well-done first-pass c/e does make the job easier for the second editor, and I'd rather see a partly done template on an incomplete c/e than have to unarchive and relist requests that need more work after complaints from unhappy requesters, which has happened in the past. That said, working on short articles may help increase your confidence and knowledge of Wikipedia editing; also, while we allow some commentary at the Requests page that may help other editors, extensive discussions should be brought here (I know I'm guilty of that too!). Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

For a while, I made a first pass at many of the requests, tidying up MOS-related errors and fixing citation problems so that the eventual copy editor would have an easier time focusing on the prose. I never bothered with a "partly done" template, though, since it creates traffic on the requests page without clearing any requests. I satisfied myself with knowing that I had made small improvements to Wikipedia. I second the recommendation to work on articles from the backlog in order to gain familiarity with Wikipedia's house style(s). Also, JimKillock, if you are interested in seeing what changes are made during a "second pass", you can add pages to your watchlist. All good copy edits are valuable! – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I've been doing :) Seeing what I am missing is definitely very helpful. I've used the "partly done" template because I've usually made pretty large changes to the articles and wanted to signal that the job should be lighter for someone picking it up, eg Charlemagne is a pretty hefty article but should now be a bit easier to finish. There is some self interest in helping in this queue, I plan to put a few articles forward to GA and FA, so I felt it would help to keep the queue moving (even tho it of course distracts from my other tasks regarding those articles). A bit of give back, if you like. Jim Killock (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian from Italy, I rewrote the article, but almost surely it needs to be checked by someone who speaks English as native, thanks! -- Blackcat 19:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Working JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blackcat:  Partly done I've copyedited up to the end of the '1960 Olympics' section, but I am expecting to be busy next week and be without access to the Internet the next, so I find it unlikely that I will finish this within a reasonable timeframe. I'm leaving this to another copyeditor who can finish this ASAP. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Did a little bit more copy editing early on. The Stadio dei Centomila section in particular seems to give two different explanations of where the ownership went to: first it says it went to the Italian National Olympics Committee, then it says to Commissariato della Gioventù Italiana (Commission for the Italian Youth) Mrfoogles (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Working Miniapolis 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Miniapolis 17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be great to get an experience copy editor on this request I received from an it.wiki pal User:LukeWiller. I don’t think there is a MOS:OVERLINK policy on it.wiki and this article definitely suffers from that in addition to tightening the prose to reduce its size and increase its readability. Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Working Dhtwiki (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Ok, thanks... :-) Could you also reduce the size in such a way as to remove the {{Very long}} tag that is present at the top of the article? --LukeWiller (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC).

I'm not one who thinks that trimming article size is a job for the guild, excepting getting rid of obvious irrelevancies, uncited and duplicate text, etc. The subject-matter editors are better able to judge what should go in the article, as they should have a better sense of the amount of detail appropriate for its subject (e.g. what level of detail belongs to the country article versus subordinate, Italy-related articles). Dhtwiki (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Didn't Learnerktm work on this before? Mox Eden (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find that name in the article history, on its talk page, or here, in the Requests archive. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? They started copyediting it on 5 March and ended on 7 March, and there is a talk page section (Talk:Italy#Copy editing with good intentions) that they were involved in. Mox Eden (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Learnerktm did do some copy-edits on 4 to 7 March; their first attempts were reverted, their second attempt was a bit stickier but it seems they gave up quite early. See the article's history for details. I'm not sure whether their edits warrant a co-credit in our archive. I'm not sure the "too long" template is warranted here; articles on countries are expected to be large. Baffle☿gab 20:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't thorough enough. However, your Didn't Learnerktm work on this before? implied to me that a previous major copy edit had been achieved. I then expected to see their name in page statistics (I often wind up on the top ten list of even a much-read article that I copy edit), or a {{GOCE}} template on the talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki, do not forget to mark this as done after completing the article. Mox Eden (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have some comments to formulate before I close this out. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Done I might not have done all that was requested, but I put a fair amount of work into making this long article clear and coherent. I probably added more links than were there at the start, but I thought that was necessary. One flaw that I did not address was the extensive listing of important Italians (all of whom had articles to link to). I could have reduced the article by eliminating such lists but at the risk of losing information that was not at supporting articles. That sort of reduction I leave to subject-matter editors, who should be more informed as to what is at the articles where such detail is appropriate. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that Evan Roden has been deleted per Articles for deletion/Evan Roden. What are we supposed to do when a requested article is deleted? Mox Eden (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mox Eden: Thanks for flagging this. I've declined the request. Wracking ^talk! 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Mox Eden, thanks for noticing this; that article was on thin ice when I reviewed its suitability for c/e; see my comments below. Thanks Wracking, btw it's usual to copy any request-related discussion or significant commentary here before archiving; that way it can be reviewed without trawling through archives. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Good evening! There is an autobiography tag on an article I’ve contributed to and I’d love for someone to make sure it’s not biased or written in an inappropriate way, and for someone to remove the tag when the article meets the standards applicable. I’ve declared the CoI already, but I’d like to go a step further and make sure fresh eyes check it. Evanroden1 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Evanroden1:, I've checked the article; the autobiog template is appropriate. I've failed verification of some of the sources used here; the ones I've marked {{not in source}} don't say what you say they say, and some are not reliable, third-party sources; I've tagged appropriately. Some of the text is off-topic and may best be moved to talk or Youth Coalition for Organ Donation. The rest should probably be stubified. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha! I’ll check what I can to fix those. I brought this up not because the autobiog tag isn’t appropriate — it clearly is — but because I’m interested in a fresh set of eyes to see if it can ever be removed, assuming others end up editing it.

The first source does mention Evan (me); I’m included at 0:52 seconds in the video.

I changed the wording just now for the 42% claim to match the 37% mentioned in the source.

The sixth source should be fine I hope; the sentence says that I’m working to address concerns that people have had with opt-out donation, and it links to a page written by myself and Joel Giambra trying to do that (maybe not successfully, but that’s neither here nor there).

Source 10 should also be fine; it describes how 27 European nations have become opt-out, unless the issue is the lack of source for the Nova Scotia claim? Evanroden1 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Just went through and made some edits. I left a few of the “unreliable source” tags for if you or someone else can fix it, but I removed tags from things I fixed, and included my reasoning in the description of the change. Obviously I’ll defer to you if you think a tag still needs to be addressed and shouldn’t have been removed. Evanroden1 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Evanroden1:, thanks for your reply. I am busy with another c/e at the moment up-list but I'll check this later today (UTC). I work without JavaScript and I can't be expected to check videos unless they are properly cited; use {{cite video}} for that. I suggest we use the article talk page to discuss the actual article and REQ talk (this page's talk, where I'll copy this eventually) to discuss the copy-edit. Meanwhile, please read our page on sourcing, particularly that which pertains to biographies of living persons (BLPs). My concern here is that this article is new and unstable, and may not be suitable for a full c/e at the moment, and I may later suggest we decline your c/e request for now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(←) I've tidied the article and removed much of the off-topic text so it can now be copy-edited as usual. Baffle☿gab 22:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 Declined per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Roden Wracking ^talk! 13:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

YiFeiBot (talk · contribs) last archived the requests page on 20 April. Wracking ^talk! 14:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Zhuyifei1999. All the best, Miniapolis 20:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've emailed Zhuyifei1999 and asked him to take a look at the bot; hopefully he'll get back to you soon. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The bot has been fixed; the problem was caused by a bug in the MediaWiki software. Still, I got to practise my manual archiving skills. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PR. A early copyedit was done in November 2023 and a PR was created since then, but I think this article could use another round of copyediting especially in the economy and gentrification section. The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: I copy edited this article in November. I recommended that Cadillac Ranger seek a peer review (which they did), then another GOCE pass-over after implementing changes. Diff of changes since last review Wracking ^talk! 20:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wracking:, this is the link to the peer review. I have done changes including the addition of the gentrification section and started to expand the economy section by having a paragraph talk about unemployment and brewery (it is mentioned in this guide), and I will likely find more necessary information for that section. The Cadillac Ranger (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Working Miniapolis 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Miniapolis 15:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

(←) Is YiFeiBot still not working? Why is this here? All the best, Miniapolis 22:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: 1. Yes :( 2. To make it easier to find discussion/commentary, someone (usually @Baffle gab1978) will archive those conversations here. Wracking ^talk! 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry YiFeiBot is still down, since manual archiving is time-consuming. However, the request is done so I still don't know why this is here . All the best, Miniapolis 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Miniapolis:, I copied the request here from REQ because there's a back-and-forth conversation between the requester and another editor (Wracking), as is usual. It means we don't need to trawl through page histories to find things later and it can be easily accessed by future editors. If you'd prefer this didn't happen, I'm happy to discuss the matter. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What happens when I finish a request for a GAN, where I copyedited it, but it is clear that the article is not ready for a GAN yet, due to sourcing issues? Mox Eden (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The Guild makes no guarantees about article success at GA review or otherwise (we are not cleanup or peer review). In cases where the requestor's stated goals seem unlikely, I usually leave a note on the talk page and ping the requestor. If peer review might be successful, you can suggest that. Wracking ^talk! 19:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution. Wracking ^talk! 19:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Small character article with potential for GAN.Tintor2 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 Working Mox Eden (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done(?) I finished copyediting it, but unfortunately, this article cannot be a GAN yet because part of it relies on a blacklisted source (which made me trigger a filter, so I replaced it with a "citation needed" tag). If you want to make this a GAN, please find a better source. Mox Eden (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Sadly, Inoue wasn't interviewed by other sites that much. Still, thanks for the work Tintor2 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, you can request individual pages to be whitelisted over at WT:WHITELIST. The concerns about the website is that it was inconsistent in quality but this is an interview and you're quoting the creator, so it should be fine (ie. primary source on creative origins). Although it might not meet the higher standards of GAN. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

went ahead and requested. About.com is even a dead site so I am only relying on the archive Tintor2 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)