Wikipedia:How to copy-edit

Poll without page-refresh

Article on other languages:

	del.icio.us
	Digg
	Furl
	Reddit
	Rojo
	Add to OnlyWire

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.

Shortcut: WP:COPYEDIT

For general help with editing articles, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page.

For the WikiProject collaboration, see Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors

The discovery of pages in need of editing often surprises new visitors to Wikipedia. This is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" — and they do! This challenge is easily addressed via the process of ongoing proofreading, copy-editing, fact-checking, and rewriting by the community of Wikipedia users. Here are some quick and easy ways to improve less-than-perfect Wikipedia pages.

1 Spelling
2 Common edits
3 Edit summaries
4 Etiquette
5 Technical and stylistic questions
6 More advice
7 External links

Spelling

Further information: American and British English spelling differences

Please correct spelling mistakes and typos; rectifying them contributes greatly in the maintenance of Wikipedia as a professional-quality resource. You are free to use spell-checking software; however, please remember that no spell-checker is completely accurate. Also, be extremely careful when editing pages written in languages in which you are not fluent.

When there is no strong national or regional relationship to a topic, Wikipedia has no preference for American, British, or any other variety of English. It is important, however, for usage to remain consistent within an article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for guidelines. Make sure to review the entire article before deciding that an author has mistakenly written flavour, colour, centre or defence (or flavor, color, center, or defense). "Recognize" is the right spelling in all varieties of English, but many words spelled with -ize in Canadian and US English are usually spelled with -ise in Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Again, check for consistency within an article. As always, when in doubt, look it up!

Common edits

See also sections should be long-form if relevant to most of the article, but short-form if relevant only to a specific section.

Words that are being defined, described, or referenced as words should be italicized. Example: The term style also refers to the layout of an article.

Headings should generally be noun phrases (History of...), and not prepositional phrases (About the history of ...).

Headings begin with a single capital letter. The only other capital letters in headings are in proper nouns and acronyms: Differences in defining art, Critical response to Moby Dick, Landscape architecture and urban planning in the United Kingdom, UNESCO.

Titles of works of art, literature, etc should be italicized rather than in quotation marks, e.g., Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Notable exceptions are titles of songs or brief poems, e.g., "Can't Buy Me Love" or "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening". Italics are required, though, for a song cycle such as Winterreise or the title of a longer poem such as Four Quartets. The name of an individual episode of a TV series should also be in quotation marks, while the series name itself is italicized: "Welcome to the Hellmouth" is the premiere episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Unless forming part of a quotation, shortened word forms (don't, can't, etc.) should be changed to non-contracted forms (do not, cannot, etc.).

Confusing Its and it's is a very common mistake. It's, a contraction of it is or it has, should not be used unless it occurs in a quotation, as with other contracted forms (see the previous rule). Its, the possessive of it, should be used in the same way as my, his, her, our, etc.

When not at the end of a sentence, constructions such as London, England, call for a comma after the second element. (Examples: He was born in London, England, during the Great Fire. Or: She was working in Atlanta, Georgia, while the city was making its long and expensive preparations for the Olympic Games.) Similarly, dates written in the American style demand a comma after the year unless the date falls at the end of the sentence. (Example: On January 15, 1947, she decided to send her landmark paper to the British journal, The Lancet.)

External links generally belong at the end of an article, under the heading External links. References are an exception and should match the link in the reference section; these are then handled automatically.

With a few exceptions, terms conventionally considered unnecessarily formal should be eliminated. Words and phrases such as whereas, due to the fact that, and utilize are unnecessary in an encyclopedia; instead, use while, because, and use, respectively. (Exceptions exist primarily when there are variations in usage that are geographically based. Example: In American English, "whilst" is considered archaic or formal, while, in England, "whilst" is used nearly as often, in written and spoken form, as "while." If you're unsure about an incidence of a word in question, just leave it, as someone will undoubtedly come along and fix it if it is incorrect.)

Vague terms of size, such as a number of and a vast majority of, are usually redundant; consider several and most as alternatives, or request/insert specific numbers.

Some articles are verbose, repetitive, and excessively wordy. Vigorous, effective writing is clear and concise. See Plain English.

The name of a decade has no apostrophe before the s, unless it is possessive, in which case it is not a decade, but a specific, single year: She was born some time in the 1980s. (If referring to a decade without its century, remember to add an apostrophe in its place: She was born some time in the '80s.)

Edit summaries

When you make a copy-edit, leave a note in the Edit-summary field detailing your changes. Summary notes for copy-edits should be concise, and ought to mention whether the edit is a correction or an enhancement. Spelling and grammar corrections generally count as minor edits, which you can denote by checking the box labeled "This is a minor edit"; stylistic corrections are generally major and call for written summaries.

Some examples of acceptable edit summaries:

copy-edit: Fact-checked names of ships
copy-edit: Reworded introductory paragraph for clarity
copy-edit: Reworked history section for encyclopedic style

Generally speaking, detailed information in edit summaries is not necessary. If they are curious, users can always consult an article's history (see the history tab at the top of the article) and compare all of the differences between edits since the article first appeared.

Always avoid the following kinds of edit summaries (ranked from least to most egregious):

Reworked awful English, corrected author's bad language skills
The last copy-edit was horrible; making much better followups (see Etiquette below)
Reworked pitiful excuse for English. Is the author retarded or something? My five-year-old child can spell better than that!

If you are doing a follow-up copy-edit, it is usually best to stay silent about previous copy-edits; instead, you may want to refer to your work as follow-up edits or additional improvements.

For common Edit summary abbreviations, see Wikipedia:Edit summary legend.

Etiquette

If you are taking the trouble to copy-edit an article, please remember that the original author took similar trouble in writing the article from scratch in the first place. No matter how good or bad the article might seem to you, it is probably still a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia community. Your summary note should respect these efforts by being brief and polite.

If you are the author of a page that has been copy-edited, please try not to take corrections personally. This can be especially hard when there are multiple views regarding stylistic differences, and when both the original author and subsequent editors have spent long hours in the creation/editing processes. It is important (and fair) to try and remember that copy-editors are usually trying to make an article better, and this should reflect well on both the article's original author and its copy-editors. It is best to think about the creation of an article and the ongoing editing as the combined work of a dedicated team -- because that is what it is.

In the improvement process of some specialized or controversial articles, caution is sometimes advisable. Proofreading addresses technical aspects of spelling, grammar, and punctuation, but some topics may require specific, more detailed copy-editing for accuracy, clarity, fact-checking, and NPOV. One solution is to solicit a re-write from an editor with expertise in the subject. Another good alternative is to post potential edits on the talk page for discussion and/or approval by experts on the topic, to avoid the risk of causing or prolonging a content dispute.

Just as some writers are better than others, some proofreaders and copy-editors are better than others. Too, an editor may be extremely proficient and lucid in one language, but less so in his/her secondary or tertiary tongue, compelling an impartial Wikipedian to question the editor's spelling, punctuation, or syntax. In other cases, an editor's facts may be flawless, but his/her narrative rambling, stilted, or filled with technical jargon with which the average reader is not familiar. If various editors revert your copy-edits to several articles, then it's reasonable to assume that your changes have not been productive for one of any number of reasons similar to those listed above. Remember that proofreading, copy-editing, and editing in general are specific talents, and many very intelligent people are better at other things.

Refrain from copy-editing talk pages for articles. Talk pages let users ask questions or make comments about article content, and are best thought of as imperfect, but highly important logs relating to the ongoing history and background of the articles' creation. Although it is acceptable to copy-edit your own contributions to a talk page, please resist the temptation to modify other Wikipedians' entries. Generally speaking, the style rules that apply to Wikipedia articles do not apply to the talk pages.

Technical and stylistic questions

If you have a question about English grammar, punctuation, or style, you may wish to seek advice at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grammar.

More advice

External links

Writing guides

Writing better articles	Layout	Article development	The perfect article	Manual of Style

A collection of advice	How to structure articles	Suggested stages of an article	A checklist of components	Comprehensive style guide