Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Painfully" data-source="post: 942759" data-attributes="member: 601">Copy editors do proofreading for grammar.&nbsp; They are usually separate from a peer review, which is usually how it it done in academic journals.&nbsp; I certainly hope that they will have had enough peer review to catch any mistakes before they go to print.If you ever get a chance to proofread articles submitted by college professors or politicians, you'll know they make stupid mistakes too.&nbsp; And it's SOOOOO satisfying to put red ink on THEIR papers!&nbsp; Hehehehe!The writers should be a step ahead of any errors in 3.5 simply because a majority of it is from the 3.0 books, the completed errata, and the complete sage advice articles.&nbsp; With all that already done for them, all that is left is whatever NEW material or changes they made.I'll give 10 to 1 odds that WotC still finds a way to mess it up.&nbsp; Their editors are good at what they don't do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Painfully, post: 942759, member: 601"] Copy editors do proofreading for grammar. They are usually separate from a peer review, which is usually how it it done in academic journals. I certainly hope that they will have had enough peer review to catch any mistakes before they go to print. If you ever get a chance to proofread articles submitted by college professors or politicians, you'll know they make stupid mistakes too. And it's SOOOOO satisfying to put red ink on THEIR papers! Hehehehe! The writers should be a step ahead of any errors in 3.5 simply because a majority of it is from the 3.0 books, the completed errata, and the complete sage advice articles. With all that already done for them, all that is left is whatever NEW material or changes they made. I'll give 10 to 1 odds that WotC still finds a way to mess it up. Their editors are good at what they don't do. [/QUOTE]

Verification