Copy editing and fact-checking problems with practical fixes

What to take away

Accuracy failures rarely start as typos. They enter when an editor tightens a line for pace, when a source's claim goes unchecked, or when display text lands after the checking is done. Each of the nine below has a fix you can put in a claim sheet today.

Problem: the editor improves certainty

Compare modifiers and verbs against the source. "May contribute" becoming "causes" is a new claim. "One of the largest" becoming "the largest" is another. Query uncertainty instead of deleting it for pace.

The Journalist's Resource tip sheet on helping journalists avoid errors notes that many reporters have not studied research methods and cannot always tell when causal language is warranted. If you cannot answer that question about a sentence, query it rather than tighten it.

Problem: attribution is treated as verification

Ask how the source knows, whether the information sits inside that person's role, what interest or limitation they carry, and what record corroborates it. "According to" tells readers who spoke. It does not establish that the statement is true.

Problem: a quote is cleaned into a different voice

Check exact words and context. Remove harmless repetition only where the publication's policy allows it. When spoken wording would confuse readers or expose someone to needless ridicule, use faithful paraphrase outside quotation marks. Never improve the source's argument.

Problem: percentages lose their baseline

Write the old value, new value, unit, period and denominator, and say whether the change is relative or in percentage points. Recalculate from the source table. Ask whether revisions, inflation, seasonality or changed definitions affect the comparison.

Problem: the copy is read only on screen in normal order

Poynter's list of ways to clean copy and reduce errors recommends reading aloud to catch dropped words and transpositions, and going back to original source material rather than a copied version.

Problem: tracked changes hide a factual shift

Sort changes by risk. Style can move through normal review. Anything touching facts, quotations, chronology or legal meaning goes back to the writer, checker or assigning editor. A clean accepted version should not erase who approved the decision.

Problem: headline and caption arrive after checking

Add package fields to the claim sheet. Require a short accuracy review once the final headline, deck, caption, pull quote, chart label and social text are entered. Display copy compresses language, and compression invites overstatement.

Problem: nobody knows which file is final

Keep one authoritative version with named owners and timestamps. Lock superseded proofs, log late changes, and compare the released package against the approved proof. Where platforms publish from different systems, write down how corrections propagate.

A worked check on one sentence

Take: "The pilot cut waiting times by 40%." Before it runs, the checker records four things.

If any line is blank, the sentence waits.

Common questions

Can a copy editor challenge a reporter's fact?

Yes. Keep the challenge specific, neutral and tied to the wording or the evidence. "Which line in the source supports 'causes'?" moves faster than a general doubt.

Is reading aloud worth the time?

Yes. It surfaces missing words, repeats and misplaced phrases that silent reading skips, and it takes about the length of the piece.

May a quote's grammar be corrected?

Follow publication policy and preserve meaning and voice. Where correction would amount to rewriting, paraphrase outside quotation marks instead.

What happens after a factual change lands late?

Recheck the new wording and every element that depends on it, then re-approve the package before release.