Finding an Editing Checklist


I’m just dropping in to share another quick editing tool. As many of you may have already seen, Grammar Girl recently put out a great checklist for editing. Though the list isn’t comprehensive, it provides a wonderful start for anyone editing his or her work.

If you want to check it out, you can access the printable PDF of the list at the Grammar Girl website. I’m half tempted to print it out and laminate it so that I can use a single copy over and over again.

Happy editing!


7 thoughts on “Finding an Editing Checklist

  1. What do you think of spell checking programs like grammarly?
    I’ve tried it out for a bit, and I think it’s mostly accurate. It’s lazy for sure – not perfect, but it cuts time and does a better job than the average person.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have mixed feelings about programs like Grammarly. They catch a lot of problems, which is great, but sometimes they can suggest incorrect substitutions that people then mistakenly use. They certainly aren’t replacements for human proofreaders or for knowledge of grammar, but they can get people started on language clean up.

      If you are interested, Grammarist did a very thorough review of Grammarly that I found fascinating. (I am a numbers girl at heart after all.) You can read it here: http://grammarist.com/articles/grammarly-review/

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I feel like the world is changing and there’s some very difficult questions about our future to ask.
        What about when programming eventually eclipses our own ability to proof read?
        How would you adapt to that as an editor yourself?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Honestly, I’m less concerned about a program replacing proofreading and more concerned about people thinking that a proofreading program is the same thing as in depth editing. At some point, no matter how good a program is, a writer has to make creative decisions about plotting, characterization, structure, etc. If we have a program that eliminates grammar issues, all the better; then writers can focus on the bigger editorial problems.

        One issue that I do see with grammar programs is that they can’t handle it when authors purposefully write outside of ‘correct’ grammar structures. Anyone who is using a dialect or anything other than standard American English will have a lot of odd suggestions pop up. I’m thinking about books like Paul Kingsnorth’s ‘The Wake’, Eimear McBride’s ‘A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing’, and Toni Morrison’s ‘Song of Solomon’. Even something like James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’ would have had problems!

        But I suspect that I’m getting away from the meat of your question. For people writing in standard English, the programs may be a decent tool for handling grammar. If a writer begins to use them to make major artistic choices though, then I think he’ll have to list the program as a work’s coauthor. 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      3. That was a great response. I hadn’t thought about the conflict between the author and the editor if automated grammar editors interfered. I’m going to go to sleep thinking about that.
        Thank you for your indepth response!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s