The great challenge of Substack is to manage without editors or other proofreaders. However, an author should be able to catch most errors by taking time to read through the piece carefully before posting.
It would be nice if Persuasion had a copy-editor. Some of the pieces have proper apostrophes on dates (like "the ’90s") while this piece has it backwards (April ‘68) because the author was never taught to do this on their own.
(To be clear: this is not a fault of the author— it's what an editor is for, and an editor doing their job frees up the author to do theirs!)
Another good step towards establishing a legitimate liberal mag would be an editor who could help hold up quality standards AND YET not squash alternate viewpoints. I was unimpressed by this piece claiming a content warning was "for adults at risk of meltdown", and it contained a few other cheap shots that I think do not befit this publication, but the piece was overall interesting!
I cannot stress enough: I don't want to havr people beaten out of the industry for disagreeing, but it seems a false dilemma to choose between "every piece taken as-is without even typographic correction" and "monoculture". If Persuasion pioneered a solution to this issue I'd double my evangelism and up my subscription fee
Proofreading, please.
"any indeed anyone"
"university businesses associations"
"hurdling toward"
The great challenge of Substack is to manage without editors or other proofreaders. However, an author should be able to catch most errors by taking time to read through the piece carefully before posting.
It would be nice if Persuasion had a copy-editor. Some of the pieces have proper apostrophes on dates (like "the ’90s") while this piece has it backwards (April ‘68) because the author was never taught to do this on their own.
(To be clear: this is not a fault of the author— it's what an editor is for, and an editor doing their job frees up the author to do theirs!)
Another good step towards establishing a legitimate liberal mag would be an editor who could help hold up quality standards AND YET not squash alternate viewpoints. I was unimpressed by this piece claiming a content warning was "for adults at risk of meltdown", and it contained a few other cheap shots that I think do not befit this publication, but the piece was overall interesting!
I cannot stress enough: I don't want to havr people beaten out of the industry for disagreeing, but it seems a false dilemma to choose between "every piece taken as-is without even typographic correction" and "monoculture". If Persuasion pioneered a solution to this issue I'd double my evangelism and up my subscription fee
ok
translate
TRANSLATE?