Proofreader

“ Pages should NOT have been proofread without running headers, and certainly not validated. That's why I asked User:Mpaa to provide me with a list of proofread (and validated) pages without running headers of PSM to correct my earlier mistakes. And, this is where you came in and took some of the list off my hands, and for which I am thankful. Essentially, validating is another set of eyes doing the same proofreading and catching oversights by the first proofreader. I don't think that special instructions are needed for the concept of two sets of eyes being better than one. ”

“ Certain galleys mysteriously disappeared, and yet the numbers were correct, and did not show a missing galley where one really was. The sense of particular passages was subtly changed by minor errors which were hard to catch by any proofreader not entirely familiar with the Mystery because they seemed to make proper sense and continuity. Thus, all proofreading had to be done by your editor himself, and by Mr. Hamling, the only other man in this office who could detect such a subtle change. ”

“ I don't worry too much about it, since that is the whole point of validation. Heck, I get bored if I'm validating a work and the proofreader has done too good of a job. --T. Mazzei (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC) I think that we are asking for a little more investment of time per page. The rate of proofreading has an impact on accuracy, and some users should slow their rate. I believe that we are only trying to apply the same rigour that we apply to ourselves. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Sidenotes (Nominally on break) but querying something... ”

“ I don't recall doing these in a POTM before. I suggest that a note on the Index page (maybe in the Volumes field) on how to do these would be a good idea. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I say pick one of the more 'complicated' pages w/ sidenotes, etc.,—proofread it & have someone else validate it, then link to it on the Index:page to serve as an example for proofreaders. The same can be done for any other of the more complicated pages...? Raising the bar, I think, tends to inspire ingenuity... ”

“ The true proof-reader should not only be a practical printer, but he should be a lover of literature, familiar with the classics of all languages, with the results accomplished by science, and indeed with every subject that concerns his fellow-men. When an author prepares a work for the press, he often uses many abbreviations, his capitalization is frequently incorrect, his spelling occasionally not in accordance either with Worcester or Webster, his punctuation inaccurate, his historical and biographical statements careless, and his chirography frequently very bad. ”

“ Proof-reading.—In technical books especially, good proof-reading is essential. We use every effort to submit proofs which follow closely the original copy, but the experienced author knows that he himself cannot exercise too much care in proof-reading. The amount of damage which has been done to the reputation and sales of many otherwise excellent technical books, by carelessness in proof-reading, would astound the inexperienced author.
One set of galley and one set of page proofs which the author receives are marked with the printer's corrections, generally in green or red ink. ”

“ Jeremy Belknap, in his Papers, says that there are four things necessary to constitute a man: “first, he should build a house; second, he should write a book; third, he should get a child; fourth, he should plant a tree.”
Now, let us not only do all these things prescribed, but let us supplement them by four others, which the proof-reader thinks are just as, if not more, important; namely: let our chirography be readable, our spelling correct, our punctuation faultless, and our rhetoric such that “he who runs may read.” ”

“ The proof-reader is, however, or should be, perfectly callous to all captious criticisms and foolish comments; he need care nothing for “harshness” or other nonsense, provided his work is well and thoroughly done. Let no nervous or touchy man meddle with proof-reading.
For the especial benefit of our non-professional readers, we will here point out the usual routine in regard to proofs. The editor or publisher of a book or periodical sends to the printer such portions of reading-matter or manuscript as he can, from time to time, conveniently supply. ”

“ Each proof-reader is assisted by a copy-holder who reads in a monotone everything in the copy including punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing, so that the proof-reader may see whether or not the printed form corresponds exactly to the copy. In smaller offices editors and reporters read proof, comparing the printed form with the copy only when it is necessary. Every one who writes for publication should know how to correct proof, so that he may be able to do this work quickly and accurately when occasion demands it. ”

“ Therefore the proof-reader must be qualified at all points for correcting not only the compositor’s work, but also that of the author.
The particular matter that we are considering is not likely to come into question before it is taken up in the composing-room, where the foreman may notice the arrangement if it is wrong, and consult some one for authority to change it. Many foremen would be likely to make it right without consultation, and then the question would arise only if the customer directed a change on the proofs. ”

“ If any one is fortunate enough to have a first-class proof-reader in his employ, he will be foolish to let that reader go, if money—within reasonable bounds—will keep him. Fifty men may try to fill the place and fail before another really competent man is found.
10 A large proof-room should have its own foreman—not merely a head reader, but one actually in authority, just as any foreman should be, and with higher pay than the other readers have, and also with the chief responsibility. ”

“ I say that too much is expected of the proof-reader. He is expected to take the babe of the author and put it in a suitable dress for the public. The author should do it. Now and then you get an idea of how badly copy is prepared when out of revenge some newspaper editor prints it as the author sends it in. The reader, when he reads that copy, printed as it is written, with a misuse of italics, a violation of the rules of composition, lack of punctuation, etc., is astonished that a man of education can be so careless. ”

“ Nearly all manuscript copy is indebted to the compositor and proof-reader for the proper punctuation; and many errors in spelling, made by men who probably know better, but write hastily, are silently corrected in the printing-office. Contradictions, errors of fact, anachronisms, imperfect sentences, solecisms, barbarisms, are modestly pointed out to the author by the proof-reader’s “quære,” or by a carefully worded suggestion; and, most usually, the proof is returned without comment,—and none is needed,—corrected according to the proof-reader’s intimations. ”

“ The “third proof” is now sent to the author, editor, or publisher, with so much copy as may cover it, the copy-holder being careful, however, to retain the “mark-off”; i. e., the sheet on which is marked off the place where the next “first proof” is to begin. But when the work is of such sort as not to require extraordinary care, the second proof is sent out, a single reading by copy being deemed sufficient. If the work is read twice by copy, only one reader should attend to the punctuation. ”

“ Compositors should take every precaution to prevent the soiling of proof sheets, as it is necessary for the reviser to see clearly every mark on the margin of a proof after it has been corrected.
Do not try to cover up or hide an accident. After a proof is read the first time, if a word or line is pied, or if a “dropout” occurs, or any accident happens to the type, it is the duty of the workman to call attention to it in writing on the latest proof sheet, whether it be a galley revise, page revise, stone revise, press revise, or foundry revise. ”

“ A proof-reader, on the contrary, can not choose his subjects. He must undertake what is ready for him, whether it be some ordinary work, using common words only, or a scientific book filled with unfamiliar words.59 Authors of scientific works often make abominable copy. They do not realize that the terminology so well known by them is not equally well known to the workers in printing-offices, and the most particular words are frequently written more carelessly than the common words in their manuscript. ”

“ The imperfection is in the mind of the writer, not in the language—unless he can give a better example. If this author had omitted this section of his work, he would have shortened his book to the extent of half a page, and he would not have afforded a text for preaching against imperfection of mental training. If a thoroughly qualified proof-reader had suggested proper corrections, in the proper way, it must be that the matter would have been bettered; and every proof-reader should know how to make such suggestions. ”

“ Close attention should be given to this process of “revising”; it is not enough to see that a wrong letter has been taken out, and a right one put in; in the line where a change has been made, all the words should be compared, and also the line above and the line below a correction,—since in correcting an error among movable types, some of the types may move when they ought not, and get misplaced.
As what escapes the notice of one observer may be perceived by another, this second proof is again “read by copy” by another proof-reader and assistant, and a second time corrected and revised. ”

“ The best proof-reader must confess to some unguarded moments; and it would be very awkward, after having had two hundred and forty chapters stereotyped, to find that two chapter V.’s have been cast, that every subsequent chapter is numbered one less than it should have been, and that compositor and proof-reader have exactly followed copy.
Examine your manuscript carefully with reference to the points. Avoid the dash when any other point will answer your purpose. A manuscript that is over-punctuated occasions more perplexity than one that is scarcely pointed at all. ”

“ Well, the careful proof-reader will look after all details and endeavor to get everything right. If authors wrote exactly as they should write—so that every letter and every point in their manuscript could be reproduced in print without a change—proof-readers need be nothing more than they are commonly paid for being. They would then have little to do beyond comparison of proof and copy, for the purpose of correcting compositors’ errors. Authors do not and will not prepare manuscripts as carefully as they should ”

“ The time to be spent in reading a proof should be governed, in a great measure, by its importance. While in certain classes of ordinary work the reader is not expected to detect more than the plainer errors and make his proof correct to copy, in work of value he should read critically and try to discover more serious blunders than spelling, capitalization, punctuation, etc. But speed should never be greater than is consistent with practical correctness.
A single reading of figures, either in columns or lines, should be sufficient. ”

“ It has always been common for volunteers to share proofing work among themselves—you take the first five chapters, I'll take the next, and so on.
When you're just starting as a PG volunteer, you should go to one of the Distributed Proofing sites [B.4] and do some work there to get a grounding in the basics and a feel for whether you would like to continue working in PG. In distributed proofing, you get a very short section, as little as a page of text at a time, and usually an image file of the page as it scanned. You then make the text match the image. ”

“ On a certain large work published many years ago a man was employed as proof-reader at what was then excellent pay. When that work was revised he was still known as the principal proof-reader, but his work included final editing of the copy, as well as reading the proofs, which latter he did in a critical way, making such changes in the matter as he knew were necessary. For this work he received $75 a week, and the only men known to the present writer who were paid as much as the sum first mentioned did the same kind of work. ”

“ In the cases cited, and in very many others, the proof-reader has shown himself to be “a power behind the throne;” for, without his aid, innumerable errors would have occurred.
A writer on Punctuation, many years ago, said that, “Perhaps there never existed on any subject, among men of learning, a greater difference of opinion than on the true mode of punctuation, and scarcely can any two persons be brought to agree on the same method; some making the pause of a semicolon where the sense will only bear a comma ”

“ As many blunders were made by the monks in transcribing and re-transcribing the ancient MSS., the assistance of the [21] corrector, or proof-reader, was as much needed then as now; the wrong words were erased with a sponge or with a knife, and the corrected words inserted. Solomon, three thousand years ago, said, “Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” This was uttered at a time when few read or studied, and when all books were in manuscript, the printer’s art being then unknown. To-day everybody reads, studies, and writes ”

“ If proof-sheets present peculiarities of spelling and language, such for instance as appear in ancient works, and which are affected or indulged in by some moderns, every word whose correctness he doubts and is unable to verify, should be referred by the proof-reader to author or editor. ”

“ All proofs are taken on hand presses and are read by the proof-readers before they are submitted to the authors. The work of these proof-readers is of great importance, and only men and women of high intelligence can properly perform this work, which requires patience, care, and long educational and technical training. They are responsible for the correction of all misspelling, grammatical errors, mistakes in punctuation, the misuse of type, and other details. In fact, the prestige and success of any press is in no small measure due to the high efficiency of its proof-readers. ”