This is true for a number of reasons. In fixing errors, you sometimes commit new ones. New facts may arise that challenge what you’ve written. And there’s no one true rubric for the English language. Someone with a different style guide can always find fault.
Thus, proofreading and fact-checking are a question of satisfaction. What are you, as editor, happy with? If your writers check their own work, that’ll get it to 50 percent good. If you edit them, perhaps you’ll add a few percent. But potentially, you’ll also commit new errors and grow too close to the material to catch them.
How do you get to 90 percent good? That’s what we at Fenwick aspire to, and why we delegate all our copyediting to one professional, Caroline Vella.
Caroline is a legend here. We contracted with her after she replied to an early issue of this newsletter with, “You want the good news or the bad?” with suggested edits. Since then, all our writing flows across her desk. And the fact that she runs her own business and is not full time with us is an advantage. We call this the rule of avoidance: Outsiders excel at spotting defects.
How does she do what she does? I didn't even know, so I asked.
Chris at Fenwick: What’s your approach to editing?
Caroline Vella: For me, editing is a linear process (which is different from writing) so it helps to generally follow the same order. If it’s a new client or one I haven’t worked on in a while, I’ll always first check for a style guide. I like to keep it handy for the inevitable questions … like is it percent or %? Title case or sentence case? Then I’ll read through the piece for general context and understanding. I’ll try not to address any issues I spot, as tempting as that may be.
From there, I’ll start combing. I search each word, each line for misspellings, inconsistencies, and any other grammatical foul play. I find great pleasure in uncovering something the writer missed. It feels like a treasure hunt.
I’ll go through that process more than once (depending on the length and density) making sure to double-check all links, names, and references.
Probably the most important step is to sleep on it. When I return to it the next day, I increase the font size and I give it a final pass. I’ve never not found something to fix. Even the keenest eye will play tricks so I always recommend allowing for overnight turnaround.
Q: What are the Fenwick team’s top errors/quirks?
The Fenwick team’s level of craft is especially high, so they don’t need much editing. But I love that they recognize the need for a quality proofread—and they appreciate the feedback.
It’s not so much a quirk but with part of the team from Canada, there’s always some English variations that seep in (behaviour, centre, honour) that need to be changed for a U.S. audience.
We did go through a phase where I was repeatedly deleting the erroneous “that.” The rule is if you could read the sentence without it and it still makes sense, then it’s not needed. It became such a pattern, I almost instated a “swear jar” for each infraction (Chris being the biggest offender). But I think we’ve moved past it now.
Aside from that, most of what I see is your typical typo stuff that comes from the brain working faster than the fingers. It happens to the best of them.
Q: Do you tailor your editing to the writer, and if so, how?
I would say I don’t tailor to the writer, but to the client. It goes back to the style guide and tone. One might be more casual and allow for more poetic license or humor while another must adhere to official terminology. The Fenwick writers are already on top of it so it’s my job to ensure those standards and consistencies are maintained throughout. For other writers though, I may take a different approach.
If helpful, here’s a checklist
Even with Caroline’s eye, we both still sometimes miss things. She and I had been editing this newsletter for embarrassingly long before we, in Issue 70, realized that the “twice-monthly” tagline at the very top needed a hyphen.
But that's the flip side to being 90 percent good: You accept that you'll also be 10 percent bad. Such is the cost to getting our work out there. And such is the choice you'll have to make with your writers.
It's also why we’re big on documentation and checklists. Below is the one I’m building for our upcoming course.
Facts
- Do the ideas flow logically? E.g. Reviewer inserted a non-sequitur
- Are there logical fallacies? E.g. Straw man, false dilemma
- Excess premises or evidence?
- Names—people, places, and products
- Links—correct and working
- Ordered lists
- Page numbers
- Dates
Style
- Overly complex constructions and run-ons
- Excessive passive voice
- Using the above to hide blame—“There was a reduction in force”
- Unintentional repetition—“When I heard it, it made me …”
- Unnecessary commas
- Unnecessary “that”s
- Off-brand contractions
- Unfittingly anachronistic or warlike idioms
- Ornate language
- Containering— “Screw-removal device” instead of “screwdriver”
- Hyping—“Best-in-class innovation” instead of “product”
- Nouning— “Improve estimation precision” instead of “estimate”
Grammar
- Uncapitalized proper nouns
- Capitalized regular nouns
- Homophones
- Misplaced commas
- Dangling modifiers
- Its vs it’s
Design
- Are things meant to appear together now split up?
- Do page breaks interrupt the flow?
- Strange line breaks
- Overset text
- Too many clashing elements
- Missing links
