Comments on: Proofreading Tips?

By: Mark Pennington

Mark Pennington — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:39:06 +0000

All good ones. Here are 10 tips for proofreading and some really fun exercises that will help writers catch their own mistakes-even spelling errors! See if you can catch all of the errors at Top 10 Proofreading Tips without using these tips. I'll wager that you can't. These proofreading tips will make a difference in your own writing and in that of your students.

By: Mark Walusimbi

Mark Walusimbi — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:27:42 +0000

This is a wonderful post. My advise is not to count on MS Word spell checker or any software. Just get someone else to look at your work.

By: Eran Kahana

Eran Kahana — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:43:56 +0000

By: John Gillies

John Gillies — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:27:56 +0000

Ken, one aspect of this issue that can perhaps be overlooked is that lawyers often (usually?) engage in two types of proofreading at the same time, namely copyediting and substantive editing.

The first is “looking for nits,” for example, ensuring the a defined term is used consisently throughout the text, proper opening and closing of parentheses, etc. That is work that any trained editor who is not a lawyer can perform.

The second is the substantive task that falls to a lawyer to perform: do these words accomplish what they are intended to accomplish, no more, no less. So, for example, is the definition of “Purchased Assets” accurate and complete? Where certain clauses survive termination, have all of them been properly identified? Does the earn-out clause work the way the parties intended? These are all legal, not editing, questions.

I believe that most lawyers attempt to engage in these two quite different activities simultaneously, but they are quite different in nature. Despite the alleged virtues of multitasking, I would recommend that one engage in at least two separate passes of the document, the first to engage in copyediting pure and simple, the second to engage in substantive editing. This allows one to focus in a way that increases the efficacy of both acitivities.

By: Tammi Bennett

Tammi Bennett — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:44:48 +0000

Art, I couldn’t agree more with your technique. I should elaborate in more detail. I assumed from the advise above Kathleen would already proof in the way suggested. Not to mention an audit on hard copy should be conducted no matter how good you are. However, in addition to that, due to the time constraints explained in the question I recommend when you proof the hard copy and you stumble across a few mistakes why not make those changes on the soft copy that instants rather than marking them on the hard copy and then going back to the soft copy after. I have found that this cuts my review time down significantly.

By: Art

Art — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:35:41 +0000

I think a lot comes down to preference – for example, I like to do exactly the opposite of what Tammi suggests – I turn off my screen entirely when I am proofing and mark it up in pen. I do use the wordsearch as well though.

Generally I have nothing to add to Ken’s list. The most important for me are (i) printing it off and (ii) actively thinking about what you are reading – it can be too easy to slip over the words waiting to be snagged by something that jars, but you won’t catch everything that way.

By: Tammi Bennett

Tammi Bennett — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:16:12 +0000

It is helpful to have the contract on screen and ready for changes as you scroll through and proof read the hard copy. That way you can make and save your changes as you go along.