|
Editorium Update 2008/08/08: What Is Proofreading? Part 2
|
The Editorium
|
Aug 07, 2008 22:09 PDT
|
Thanks for reading Editorium Update! The Editorium does not send
unsolicited email messages. You've received this newsletter because you
subscribed to it or a friend has forwarded it to you. To subscribe or
unsubscribe, see the instructions at the end of this message.
Editorium Update is published by the Editorium, which provides Microsoft
Word macros and other resources for publishing professionals. For more
information, visit us at http://www.editorium.com.
______________________________________________________
EDITORIUM UPDATE
Tips for Publishing Professionals Using Microsoft Word
August 8, 2008
______________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Feature Article: What Is Proofreading? Part 2
Resources:
Microsoft Word for Publishing Professionals
FreeRice
_____________________________________________________
WOW! It's a book! *My* book!
Microsoft Word for Publishing Professionals: Power-Packed Tips for
Editors, Typesetters, Proofreaders, and Indexers, by Jack M. Lyon.
I can't believe it's finally done!
http://tinyurl.com/6djk5r
7 by 10 inches, 632 pages, perfect bound--this baby is *huge,* and just
packed with good stuff, nicely organized for easy reference. Please
check it out--and tell your friends. Yes, really! Thanks!
_____________________________________________________
And there's more! I'll be giving the keynote speech--and teaching a
four-hour workshop on Word--at Communication Central's conference in
Rochester, New York, on September 26 and 27. You can learn more and sign
up here:
http://www.communication-central.com/
I'd *love* to see you there!
_____________________________________________________
What Is Proofreading? Part 2
By Jack M. Lyon
First, I apologize for my error in the previous article. The link for
the photos of proofreaders at work should have been this:
http://www.editorium.com/proofreading.pdf
I appreciate the heads-up from several readers, and in particular Judy
Stein, who wrote:
"You knew there was going to be a bad typo *somewhere* in an article
about proofreading, right?"
I wrote her back that this was henceforth to be known as "Stein's Law."
So let it be written, so let it be done.
In addition, in the previous article, I wrote this:
"With the advent of the personal computer . . . the author's electronic
manuscript is now imported into a word processor for editing and then
into a composition program for typesetting, which means that the
typesetter's work has changed drastically. Previously, typesetting meant
*placing the letters* in order to form a page; now, typesetting means
*formatting* previously placed letters in order to form a page. That's
an enormous difference, and I believe it's largely been ignored in the
publishing process, particularly in regard to what proofreaders ought to
be doing. Should they be comparing typeset galleys to the edited
manuscript? That seems a bit silly, since the typeset galleys basically
*are* the edited manuscript but with different formatting. What, then,
should proofreaders be checking?
"That's the question I'm interested in, and I would really like to hear
about your publishing process and how you are using 'proofreaders' in
that process."
Several readers were kind enough to send their responses, which are well
worth reading. I'll include them here and then give a brief comment
afterward.
-------------------------------------------
Beth Burke wrote:
I've done proofreading for clients for over 10 years now. It's true that
what constitutes proofreading varies from publisher to publisher. For
the most part, I'm looking for the same spelling mistakes, grammatical
errors, or typos that I'd look for in an earlier editing pass. But add
to that bad line breaks, laddered lines, orphans and widows, headers,
page numbers, table of contents, or graphic embellishments--anything
that gets added to the page or manuscript at the layout step. Most
publishers include the text that the copy I'm reading was prepared from
on the off chance that lines or paragraphs or pages were dropped.
Sometimes I also have to use that previous version to determine whether
any mistake I find was an editing error or a typesetting error. But I
haven't ever had to do a line-by-line comparison.
-------------------------------------------
Cherese Cartlidge wrote:
I am a writer, editor, and proofreader. Sometimes when I proofread a
revised edition, the author and/or editor have made handwritten
insertions, deletions, and corrections to tear sheets from the previous
edition. In those cases, the proofreader is still checking the "galleys"
to make sure that all changes have been input. As for books that have
been edited electronically, or online, sometimes global issues will come
up, such as all the italics dropped out, or a particular symbol or piece
of punctuation got garbled throughout the book. There are also layout
issues the proofreader still checks, such folios and running
heads/footers, widows and orphans, word stacks and hyphen stacks, bad
word breaks, and so on.
-------------------------------------------
Lyn Imeson wrote:
I proofread maths, IT and science books. I'm a freelancer: my clients
are publishers. Here is a list of what is usually involved.
1. Check that all styles have been applied correctly (fonts, heading
levels, boxes, margin material etc)
2. If the copy-editing has been done on paper (and it still is
sometimes), check that all the copy-editor's changes have been made
correctly.
3. Check that italic, bold and special characters appear correctly.
Often there are problems when the material is converted from the
author's word-processing package to the type-setting package, especially
with unusual maths characters.
4. Check that artwork, photos and tables appear in the correct places.
5. Check the layout of the pages, including bad page or line breaks,
sizing artwork.
6. Read through for sense, picking up anything that the copy-editor
might have missed and checking for consistency.
7. If required, collate any changes from the author(s) or other
advisors.
-------------------------------------------
John Cavin wrote:
As a writer/editor who has been a full-time proofreader in the past, I
found your recent question about proofreading startling. With the advent
of electronic importing of text into a layout program, you wonder what
the proofreader's place is.
First, problems in the original text sometimes are more visible after
typesetting than before. Second, semi-automated processes such as
importing text and formatting it are not flawless, though often it's
hard to figure out how mistakes happened. And the errors that occur
often do not show up unless the text is proofread.
You ask what proofreaders should be comparing. Well, perhaps nothing.
Even to proofread only typeset live copy (i.e., page proofs) will reveal
obvious problems. Proofreading should occur at least at the page proofs
stage. Any corrections are expensive once you get into bluelines, or the
digital equivalent.
Note that imported content isn't always plain text. It can often be
footnoted material or figures and tables. The latter involve a lot of
formatting and so must be converted. Software conversions must be
proofread carefully.
As a financial proofreader I dealt mostly with tabular matter, and
scientific publishing involves graphs and charts as well as tables.
Since these things involve a lot of graphical detail and numbers, they
may have to be comparison proofread using the dead copy (e.g., the
equivalent of the authorial MS). Proofreaders usually learn the weak
spots of a conversion process and focus on those.
These observations reflect a common publishing scenario. Much more
intensive proofreading is required in a critical edition, which places a
premium on accuracy.
-------------------------------------------
Michael Coleman wrote:
We have three stages of proofreading. We proofread manuscripts, which
starts by running FileCleaner. After that, we check for compliance with
Chicago and our in-house style manual, proper grammar usage, and correct
spelling. It's basically a very, very light copy edit. (A substantive
edit and a heavy copy edit happen much earlier in the process, in
between vetting issues with some subject matter experts.)
After the manuscript is finalized, we run QuarkConverter, send it off to
Lynn (I think everybody should have a "Lynn"), and she sets the pages in
QuarkXPress. Then we proofread again, looking for things that might have
gone wrong. We proofread illustrations, callouts, tag lines, running
heads, page numbers, and plenty more. We've got a checklist of about 100
items. One key thing is to read through the text to ensure that any
special characters, such as en dashes, umlauts, fractions, etc., were
converted correctly. For this task, I use the manuscript electronic file
to search for anything that's not a letter, number, space, or standard
punctuation. That makes life much easier.
After everything is fixed, Lynn creates an output file, which is now a
PDF (instead of a .prn just a few years ago). We get a proof copy, and
then the third proofreading begins. This is a very light quality-control
review to ensure that everything that should be there, is there, that
rectos are rectos and versos are versos, that the illustrations didn't
get swapped or dropped along the way, and so on. We also scan the text
for those special characters again. And we also use this final
proofreading to start a reprint folder.
There you go; that's a description of how we proofread, complete with
shameless plugs for TWO of your products. :) I look forward to other
people's responses.
----------------------
NOTE: Michael was kind enough to provide his proofreading checklists as
an Excel spreadsheet, which you can download here for an example to look
at as you build your own:
http://www.editorium.com/checklists.zip
Michael wrote, "For copyediting and proofreading, checklists 8, 9, 13,
15, and 16 apply."
Also, Michael says, "I use the manuscript electronic file to search for
anything that's not a letter, number, space, or standard punctuation."
That can be done in Word with a wildcard string something like the
following (adjust to suit your own needs):
For PC:
[!A-z ,.;:\?\!\(\)\[\]0-9^013^0145-^0148^0150^0151]
For Macintosh:
[!A-z ,.;:\?\!\(\)\[\]0-9^013^0208-^0213]
For more information, you can download my paper "Advanced Find and
Replace in Microsoft Word" here:
http://www.editorium.com/ftp/advancedfind.zip
-------------------------------------------
Cynthia Ahlquist wrote:
It's true that proofreading is not what it used to be. However,
proofreaders are invaluable. They are the "last eyes" on a manuscript
before it is published--no small responsibility. In many circumstances
they still have a lot to do with checking the way type appears on the
page, rather than just looking at content for spelling and grammar
errors, which seems to be what most people think proofreading is these
days.
Sometimes the line between proofreading and copy editing is fuzzy. Some
publishers assign some of the tasks below to a copy editor instead of a
proofreader, and some assign them to both. Oftentimes the copy editor is
supposed to do many of these things, but the proofreader is asked to
double-check the copy editor's work. In my experience as an editor,
writer, page designer, and proofreader, proofreaders do some or all of
the following. (These examples are book-centric; tasks for periodicals
and Web pages can be quite different.)
· Check folios (page numbers) for accuracy.
· Check headers and footers for accuracy and spelling, and that they are
on the correct page in a spread.
· Check that recto and verso pages are correct.
· Ensure heading and subheading hierarchy is accurately applied and
consistent space falls before and after a heading.
· Check runaround (space around) graphics and illustrations in text for
consistency.
· Check leading and kerning throughout for consistency and to make sure
there are no "crunched" words, including space around drop caps.
· Ensure that the correct font(s) at the correct sizes are used
throughout.
· Check for "stacks" (a word repeated in several lines so that the
instances line up in a stack).
· Check for widows (single line at the top of a page) and orphans
(single word on a line at the top of the page or at the end of a
paragraph).
· Check copyright information and CIP data (if applicable; CIP data is
all that library gibberish on the copyright page of a book).
· Make sure page numbers and chapter titles are accurate in the table of
contents.
· Read entire manuscript for grammar and punctuation (if the editor has
done his or her job, this shouldn't be too bad).
· Fact-check anything that looks "iffy" (this should be done by the
editor, but sometimes something slips through and the proofreader
catches it).
· Make sure styles from editorial style sheet are properly applied (for
example, the words that the editor decided to cap are all capped).
· Check for bad word breaks (words that don't break between syllables or
break so that they are confusing to read).
· Check to make sure URLs actually work and are broken across lines
properly (if applicable; there are rules for breaking URLs across
lines).
· Ensure that all quotations are cited, and that reference lists are
accurately formatted, with correct spelling and punctuation.
· Ensure that all photos have captions, if that is the style for the
publication, and that photographers are properly credited.
· Check index for format (there are specific rules for formatting an
index) and accuracy; if there's a list of words that were supposed to go
in the index, make sure all of the words made it in.
· Check to make sure appendices are properly numbered.
· Make sure all of the glossary terms are in the glossary, and that it
is alphabetized.
· Check front and back cover and flaps (if any) for accuracy, grammar,
and spelling.
· And if you do nothing else, make sure the author's name is spelled
correctly.
I'm leaving some things out, but you get the idea. Long live the
meticulous, nit-picky proofreaders. They've saved my bacon more than
once.
-------------------------------------------
Diane Serafin wrote:
We proofread and edit books, mostly from the mining and water
industries. Most of our books come from the authors in Microsoft Word
and then are edited in Word before they are sent to the compositor to
transform into (usually) FrameMaker (sometimes QuarkXPress).
The first thing the proofreader does is compare the Word file sent to
the compositor with the file that the compositor generates (which we
call page proof 1 pages, or PP1). Many of our documents come from
international authors and, even when they do not, we find that Greek
characters and special characters can drop out or transform to an
incorrect character. It might seem silly to some to compare these pages,
but funny things occur often enough that we find it necessary to do so.
From time to time we find that a whole paragraph or several paragraphs
just "disappear" or the last two sentences in a paragraph totally switch
places (go figure). So proofreaders start by comparing documents not
word by word (anymore) but a little closer than paragraph by paragraph,
sometimes skimming through the paragraph, sometimes comparing sentence
by sentence, and especially watching for special characters.
Next they read the entire document for sense and watch for typos,
correct acronym usage, grammar and spelling errors, as well as any
"fatal flaws" that would embarrass the author. They will make another
pass to verify that all references cited in the document are sourced in
the reference list. Every pass one makes through the document turns up
something new, it seems. Then they will check headers, footers,
pagination, table of contents, and so forth.
Each job has a different budget depending on the client, so the level of
proof varies according to the funds available for the job. Actually, the
proofreader is a bit of a mini-editor in the end. The most difficult
issue that comes up with us is discerning what is truly an error versus
changing something because the proofreader would "say it differently"
(i.e., editorial style or word choice). Which might be a good topic for
your next Editorium Update . . .
So, toward that end, some editors use *once* and others insist on
changing it to *when* or *after* (unless it really means "one time").
Some change *following* to *after* and others change *like* to *similar
to.* What about *since/because* and *over/more than* and
*while/although.* And how about starting a sentence with *however*? Some
editors/ proofreaders say "no way." Aren't all of these issues editorial
style? And what about changing *that* and *that* in the same sentence to
*that* and *which*? (And the Brits do the opposite to start with--*that*
for *which* and *which* for *that.* . . . Ah, it gets interesting.)
-------------------------------------------
Interesting indeed. The items in that last paragraph I would classify as
editing rather than proofreading. There's nothing *wrong* with the
procedure, of course, but I'd be inclined to call that part a "light
second edit," an "editorial review," or something similar, although I
also suspect that most people nowadays would call it proofreading. I
also understand Diane's need to compare page proofs with manuscript if
text is disappearing or getting mixed up. (I do have a possible fix for
that, however: In my experience, FrameMaker does a better job of
importing RTF [Rich Text Format] documents than Word documents.)
One common theme in all of these comments is the need to check for
problems with the typesetting--lost formatting, characters rendered
incorrectly, and so on. In my opinion, all such matters definitely fall
under the purview of proofreading rather than editing. Come to think of
it, such problems are probably far more common in type set on a computer
than in type set by hand for a printing press, so they probably need
more attention than ever.
So what is proofreading? I'm going to say that proofreading is checking
someone else's work, in whatever form that happens to take. In
particular, I'd say that proofreading means checking the typeset text
for the correct formatting, catching stuff lost in translation between
Word and whatever typesetting program you happen to be using, and fixing
widows, orphans, bad breaks, and other typographical problems. In most
cases, we're no longer checking type against manuscript, but there's no
question that type still needs to be checked. So I'm happy to see
that--in a new, modern guise--proofreading is still alive and well.
Many thanks to Beth, Cherese, Lyn, John, Michael, Cynthia, and Diane for
so generously sharing their proofreading procedures and advice.
___________________________________________
RESOURCES
Microsoft Word for Publishing Professionals: Power-Packed Tips for
Editors, Typesetters, Proofreaders, and Indexers, by Jack M. Lyon.
http://tinyurl.com/6djk5r
Still working the hard way? Make your life easier with this compilation
of articles from Editorium Update, a nitty-gritty electronic newsletter
for publishing professionals. Here's the scoop on Microsoft Word's
macros, styles, templates, wildcards, customization features, and much,
much more. Full of specific, step-by-step examples that will take you
far beyond the basics, this is a rich and detailed guide for anyone who
wants to master Microsoft Word.
"Some of the sharpest, most useful tidbits about Microsoft Word I've
ever seen. Jack Lyon does a superb job of presenting expert-level
instruction at a level almost any Word user can manage." --Dan A.
Wilson, The Editor's Desktop
"This is not your usual 'Ctrl+B will make characters bold' stuff. This
is serious information for people who regularly use Word to edit serious
material." --Tom Anderson, "Word Help for Professional Editors," Sacra
Blue.
"Jack Lyon is quite simply the Microsoft Word Jedi Master: Obi-Jack. He
automates tasks in Word that would be hard to do 'by hand'--and in some
cases, just flat out wouldn't be possible to do. If you use Word to do
your job, like me, and have wished that Word 'could only do this or only
do that' . . . check it out." --Doug Clapp, PocketPCPress
http://tinyurl.com/6djk5r
____________________________________________________
Feed the hungry and test your vocabulary--everybody wins! My high score
is 47. What's yours?
http://www.freerice.org
If you'd like to share a resource that others might find useful:
mailto:resou-@editorium.com
____________________________________________________
HELP WANTED
If you need help with Word, there are actually lots of places to go.
Some of the best include:
Allen Wyatt's WordTips:
http://WordTips.VitalNews.com
The Word-PC List:
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/word-pc.html
The McEdit list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/McEdit/
Microsoft's Word discussion groups:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx#13
(Look in the lower right of the page.)
The Word MVP site:
http://word.mvps.org/
Woody's Lounge:
http://www.wopr.com/cgi-bin/w3t/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wrd
But if you can't find what you need in those places, send your question
here:
mailto:he-@editorium.com
I'll put your question in the newsletter to see if some astute reader
knows the answer.
_____________________________________________________
I *love* SpamArrest. After unsuccessfully trying to fight the battle
against junk email with a couple of top-notch programs, I decided to try
SpamArrest, and I'm thrilled to say it's actually won the war. Boy, has
my email been quiet! When people send me an email message, they receive
a message in return asking them to click a link to register themselves
(a one-time operation) as someone who can send me email. Spammers, of
course, won't bother to do this, which basically means no more spam!
It's easy to preregister family, friends, associates, and email
newsletters. The online program (no software installed on your computer)
provides complete control over how spam is handled, and it's very easy
to use. You can try SpamArrest for 30 days at no charge. To learn more,
click here:
http://spamarrest.com/affl?1403707
And if you decide to sign up, please do so through that affiliate link.
Your support will help keep Editorium Update alive and kicking. Thanks!
_____________________________________________________
TELL A FRIEND ABOUT EDITORIUM UPDATE
Thanks for subscribing to Editorium Update. We publish the newsletter
free of charge, asking only that you forward it to friends and
associates who might find it useful. (Please get their approval before
you send it.) We'd also appreciate your suggestions for newsletter
articles and improvements. Please email your comments here:
mailto:edi-@editorium.com.
You can read past issues of the newsletter here:
http://www.editorium.com/euindex.htm
_____________________________________________________
THE FINE PRINT
Editorium Update (ISSN 1534-1283) is published by:
The EDITORIUM, LLC
Microsoft Word Add-Ins for Publishing Professionals
http://www.editorium.com
Copyright © 2008 by the Editorium. All rights reserved. Editorium Update
and Editorium are trademarks of the Editorium.
You may manually forward Editorium Update in its entirety to others (but
not charge for it) and print or store it for your own use. Any other
broadcast, publication, retransmission, copying, or storage, without
written permission from the Editorium, is strictly prohibited. If you're
interested in reprinting one of our articles, please send an email
message here: mailto:repr-@editorium.com
Editorium Update is provided for informational purposes only and without
a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not
limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose, and freedom from infringement. The user assumes the
entire risk as to the accuracy and use of this document.
The Editorium is not affiliated with Microsoft Corporation.
_____________________________________________________
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE OR UNSUBSCRIBE
If you haven't subscribed to Editorium Update but would like to, send a
blank email message here: mailto:editorium--@topica.com.
To unsubscribe, send a blank email message here:
mailto:editorium-u-@topica.com.
We do not sell, rent, or give our subscriber list to anyone.
____________________________________________________
|
|
 |
|
