Archive for the ‘Proofreading’ Category

It’s turned into proofing week here at the Emphasis blog. In this final part, we aim to finish turning you into mistake-spotting machines.

How

Stocking up on red pens is just the beginning. Follow these tips to ensure you always prove your proofreading prowess.

• Proofread in the morning if you can – if you’re tired, you’re more likely to miss things.

• Print documents off to proofread – it’s much more effective than trying to do it onscreen.

• Proofread at least twice – once for sense, once for technical accuracy.

• Read backwards for typos so you’re not distracted by the meaning of the words.

• Use a blank sheet of paper to cover material not yet proofed and point to each word as you go.

What

Look out for:

• clusters of mistakes: the elation of spotting one may lead you to miss the one right next to it

• repetition of words – particularly split over two lines

• commonly mixed up words, eg there and their, or principle and principal

• little words – big words draw the eye

• brackets and speech marks – is the second one in the right place?

And finally

Here are a few clarifying pointers – inspired by the challenge – worth raising:

• It’s very easy to overlook titles, subtitles and headings, or subject lines in email (particularly as they won’t be spellchecked). Don’t! There was a howler in this one.

• Depending on your company’s style, you may not need to put a comma after the salutation and sign off in letters and emails. If you do use them, be consistent – ie use them after both

• ‘Its’ only needs an apostrophe when it’s short for ‘it is’ or ‘it has’. When it shows possession, it doesn’t have one.

• If you’re having trouble placing an apostrophe in a less-than-familiar construction (eg each other’s work), just reverse it like so: the work of each other (not others). So here it needs to go after the r.

• You’d only put a full stop – or any other punctuation – inside a bracket if the brackets contain a full sentence. If they contain an aside, the punctuation will be outside. For example:

From now on, let’s make sure that nothing is sent out without first being proofread (this includes email).

Happy proofing!

Once again, thanks to everyone who took on the challenge. You’ve made us so proud (*dabs tear*).

And, in a dramatic photo finish, we’ve ended up with seven – rather than five – winners.

Congratulations to:

Darren Castle
Fiona Miles
Steve Jones
Paul
Alex King
Louise
Colette Bernhardt.

To each receive your copy of The Write Stuff, please email me your postal address: I’m at the other end of catie.holdridge@writing-skills.com.

To the rest of you lovely people who took part, if you’d like to know your score, demand a recount or challenge a point, post a comment or drop an email to help@writing-skills.com.

And here’s the solution:

From: Anna Gooding
To: All office staff
Subject: The need for proofreading

Hi everybody

As you’re probably aware, it’s become apparent that we’ve recently been sending out a lot of letters and emails with a number of typo’s typos in them. There is no excuse for this this and it really can’t go on, as it makes us look utterley utterly unprofessional.

From now on, let’s make sure that nothing is sent out without first being proofread (this includes email). To begin with, I’d like to see how we get on checking each other’s work. If neccessary necessary, we may look into some training.

If anyone has any questions about this, please bring them up at the staff on meeting on Tuesday.

Many thanks

Anna

It’s worth noting that, even without the typos, the fictitious Ms Gooding is not a paragon of perfect communication. She could stand a bit of sub-editing (which those of you who had a go at rewriting clearly felt too).

Be sure to come back tomorrow for some quick tips on the art of proofreading.

Blimey! Great to see such a fantastic response to our proofreading challenge. Thank you to everyone who entered. Best of all, it’s proof positive that there’s a ready platoon of gung-ho proofreaders out there who love the smell of Tipp-Ex in the morning.

At ease, soldiers.

Be sure to come back on Monday, though: we’ll be announcing the winners.

Taking the time to proofread your writing – whether it’s a letter, report, proposal or even just an email – shouldn’t be an optional extra. After all, it can mean the difference between sending ‘I’ll definitely be done by five’ and ‘I’ll defiantly be gone by five’.

But proofreading is a skill and it can take a bit of practice. So why not test your ability on our example? Simply copy and paste the text into the comment box below, and correct all of the mistakes. We’ll mark them on Friday 7 October, and send the five people who spot the most mistakes a free copy of our style guide, The Write Stuff.

From: Anna Gooding
To: All office staff
Subject: The need for poofreading

Hi eveyrbody

As your probably aware, it’s become apparant that weve recently been sending out a lot of letters and emails wih an umber of typo’s in them Their is no excuse for this this and it really can’t goon, as it makes us look utterley unprofessional. From now on, lets make sure that nothing is snet out with out first being proof read (this includes email.) To begin with, Id like to see how we get on checking each others work. If neccessary, we may look into some traning . If anyone has any question about this, please bring them up at the staff on meeting tuesday.

Many Tanks

Anna

The proofreading competition is now closed. Thanks to all those who took part. The winners and the corrected email can be found here and our tips for better proofreading are here.

Hello, I’m Cathy, and I’m a sub-editor (scourge of the newsroom, pedant and dictionary botherer). As such, my job is to spot inaccuracies, correct typos, clean up grammar and write headlines.

I spend most of my time working at the broadsheets, where the copy is of very high quality. Even so, there are still plenty of opportunities for words to go crazy and cause mayhem, as they have a way of doing.

I’ll be keeping an eye out while I’m on my rounds, and reporting in to Emphasis from time to time on the mistakes I find. After all, what better way to learn than from the mistakes of others? (Far less painful than one’s own!)

This week

From triplets to tautology, the wrong Teresa to the wrong Labour politician, here’s a round-up of a few corkers I spotted this week.

You’ve probably heard the nursery rhyme ‘As I was going to St Ives, I met a man with seven wives; each wife held seven sacks, each sack had seven cats …’ Well, I was reminded of that when I spotted this sentence, which features a common tautology (tautology: using multiple words to describe the same thing).

Farhana Shaukat, a mother of three triplets, gave a clue as to why the pupils were queuing up outside. “They get bored with the holidays,” she said.

Three triplets? So how many were going to St Ives – three or nine? ‘Triplets’ only has one meaning: three children born at the same time. The addition of ‘three’ is unnecessary, but surprisingly common (along with the other favourite ‘two twins’). It’s not a big mistake, by any means. But it’s worth avoiding even if only for the reason that some stickler will always pick you up on it otherwise (erm, yes, that’s me).

Health risk

Moving on swiftly, we go from an extraneous word to a missing word – and this time, an important one. This is a good example of how one word can completely change the meaning of a sentence. And it’s so easy to do, especially when you’re in full flow and thinking faster than you can write. The following was very nearly published as the headline to a piece on the 10-year anniversary of 9/11. Spot the missing word.

World Trade Centre attacks left rescuers and bystanders with raised risk of physical and mental health, Lancet reveals

It’s not only missing words that can cause mischief – letters can be equally troublesome. The following sentence has a letter missing. Can you spot it?

The inquiry, ordered by Teresa May, is being carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.

It’s an ‘h’. The home secretary is a Theresa, not a Teresa. ‘Pah!’ you say. ‘That’s just a typo, nothing to sweat over.’ And yes, that’s fair. But a ‘Teresa May’ does exist, and she has a profession that our Theresa probably wouldn’t appreciate being associated with. Ahem. (She’s a porn star.)

Let’s play spot the letter again, in a similarly scandalous vein. This time, though, you’re looking for an extra one, not a missing one. Ready?

This month a 51-year-old officer will answer police bail after being arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public officer over alleged unauthorised leaks from the Operation Weeting phone-hacking inquiry.

Misconduct in a whaaat? Madre mia! That should, needless to say, read ‘misconduct in a public office’.

Brown, in the farmhouse, with the …

Okay, that’s more than enough smut. Back to serious things. This final example is one of those mistakes that is terrifyingly easy to make when you’ve been working on something at length and suddenly your brain turns bad and attacks you. This came at the end of a very long and detailed story on Alistair Darling’s new book, in which the words ‘Brown’ and ‘Darling’ occurred many times over, and always in the right place until …

That weekend, Brown reveals that he held a secret meeting with Miliband at a farmhouse in Essex.

Grammatically, it’s fine. No typos, no dodgy apostrophes. So what’s the problem? Simply that it’s wrong. It was Darling, not Brown, who revealed and attended the secret meeting – and the scary truth is that no spellcheck can pick up that kind of (potentially libellous) mistake.

The moral of the story? Proofread, proofread and proofread. Ideally, ask someone else to proofread for you – and don’t feel bad if they pick up errors. None of the mistakes I’ve mentioned above were made through ignorance or stupidity – simply through human error. We all make ‘em. The best protection is knowing it.

This is a guest blog post by Cathy Relf, a freelance sub-editor.