Proofing Worksheet

Now that we’ve soft-launched the issue, the race is on to catch any and all
errors before we invite the general public to enjoy the new issue of the
journal. I have invited the contributors to review their work in the site and
many have responded with small changes (some of them in response to
mishaps on our part and some of them in response to mishaps or
preferences on their part). This process will continue through our launch
date. Here’s how to play your part:
Review the cover of the issue. If you note any errors, please note them
here:
N/A
Review the table of contents on the “soft-proofing” page. Do you notice any
errors in alphabetical order (each category is arranged in alpha order
according to the contributor’s last name and each piece is arranged in
alpha order below the contributor’s name) or any missing items?
N/A

Also check the spelling of the names of the writers whose work you top-
edited. Go back to Submittable to make sure this is correct. Finally, check
the links to your writer’s pieces. Are they functional? Do they go where
they’re supposed to go?
N/A

Now review each piece that you top-edited according to the following “hit”
list:
Are the titles correct? Yes
Are pieces arranged in alpha order? N/A
Have extraneous pieces been removed? N/A
Read through the piece and note any errors (typos, spacing issues,
problems with line breaks, etc.) here: Looks good
Check the bio box. Is the code working properly? Is the writer’s name
capitalized? Have the titles of books and journals been italicized? Is there a
period at the end of the bio? (An exception to this rule is the bio that ends
with a social media tag.) Looks good

If you finish your work early, do the same for the piece of your choice in the
issue.
For my review, would the possessive form of Farris be Farris’s (that’s what
it says now) or Farris’ ?