Course Highlights
This proofreading and editing workshop will:
- Clarify the difference between editing and proofreading and explain why the distinction matters in practice.
- Introduce the three levels of editing and help participants identify which level a document requires.
- Build a practical toolkit for reviewing documents, including manual techniques, symbols, and electronic aids.
- Establish how style guides and style sheets function as the authoritative standard for editorial decisions.
- Address what AI tools catch reliably, where they fall short, and how to recognize AI-generated text that has not been adequately reviewed.
- Examine the author and editor relationship and give participants language for setting scope, managing expectations, and delivering feedback.
- Provide extended hands-on practice reviewing real documents against a defined standard.
Program Overview
Editing and proofreading are not the same thing. Most people use the terms interchangeably, which means they often do the wrong one at the wrong time and miss problems that a more deliberate process would catch. Editing addresses structure, logic, clarity, and flow. Proofreading addresses surface errors: spelling, punctuation, grammar, and formatting. Both matter. Neither substitutes for the other. And neither can be replaced by a grammar checker, no matter how sophisticated.
“On Your Mark: Professional Proofreading and Editing” is a full-day onsite workshop that gives participants a clear framework for both activities and the practical skills to apply them. The day opens by drawing a firm line between editing and proofreading and introducing the three levels of editing so participants know what they are looking for and when. From there, the workshop builds out the full review toolkit, including manual techniques that slow reading down in productive ways, the symbols used in professional document review, and the electronic aids worth adding to a standard process.
A dedicated section addresses the rules that should govern editorial decisions. Style guides and style sheets exist precisely to take personal taste out of the equation, and this workshop treats them as working documents rather than reference curiosities. Participants will practice using a standard as the basis for corrections and learn to make the same decisions consistently across a document and across a team.
Two discussions address AI directly. The first examines what AI-assisted grammar and writing tools catch reliably and where they consistently miss. The second focuses on AI-generated text as a specific editorial challenge. Content produced by AI tools tends to be grammatically clean but tonally flat, structurally repetitive, and subtly inconsistent with the voice of the surrounding document. Participants will develop the eye for spotting those patterns and the habits for correcting them.
The workshop also addresses the human side of the review process. The relationship between the person who wrote a document and the person reviewing it shapes whether feedback improves the work or creates friction. Participants will examine how to set scope expectations before a review begins, how to frame corrections as rule-based rather than preference-based, and how to give feedback that strengthens the writer rather than just fixing the document.
The day closes with extended structured practice on real documents so participants leave with more than principles.
The following outline highlights some of the course’s learning points. As part of your training program, we will modify content as needed to meet your business objectives. Upon request, we will provide you with a copy of the participant materials prior to the session(s).
Program Objectives
At the program’s conclusion, participants should be able to:
- Explain the difference between editing and proofreading and describe when each is appropriate.
- Identify the three levels of editing and apply the correct level to a given document.
- Recognize and use the proofreading and editing symbols used most frequently in professional review.
- Distinguish between must-fix errors, should-fix improvements, and may-fix style preferences.
- Apply a style guide or style sheet as the authoritative standard for editorial decisions.
- Identify what AI tools catch reliably and where human review remains essential.
- Recognize the patterns that signal AI-generated text that has not been adequately reviewed.
- Set clear scope expectations before beginning a review of someone else’s work.
- Deliver feedback on written work in a way that is specific, rule-based, and constructive.
- Build a personal review process that holds up under deadline pressure.
Workshop Modules
Two Different Jobs: Understanding the Difference Between Editing and Proofreading
The workshop opens by drawing a clear line between two activities that most people conflate. Editing is structural work: it addresses whether a document says what it needs to say, in the right order, with the right emphasis, and in the right tone. Proofreading is surface work: it catches the errors that remain after editing is complete. The room will examine what happens when these activities get mixed up, why editing an already-proofread document wastes effort, and why proofreading a document that still needs editing sends readers a polished version of a broken argument. The group will work through the three levels of editing, structural, line, and copy, and practice identifying which level a given document actually requires before anyone picks up a pen.
The Review Toolkit: Symbols, Manual Techniques, and Electronic Aids
Every professional reviewer needs a toolkit, and this part of the day builds one. The group will work through the proofreading and editing symbols used most frequently in professional document review and practice applying them to marked-up text. The workshop then examines the manual techniques that slow reading down in productive ways, approaches that create the kind of deliberate attention that silent, screen-based reading rarely produces. The discussion also covers the electronic aids worth adding to a standard review process, including grammar and readability checkers, and the circumstances where each is most and least useful. Participants will examine the Must/Should/May Changes framework as a way to prioritize what gets fixed, what gets improved, and what gets left to the writer’s discretion.
Rules, Not Preferences: Style Guides, Style Sheets, and Editorial Standards
The single most important principle in professional editing is that corrections should be grounded in a standard, not in personal taste. This discussion examines what style guides and style sheets are, how they differ from each other, and how to use them as the authoritative basis for editorial decisions. The group will work through common situations where the guide resolves a question clearly, cases where it leaves room for judgment, and the ones it does not address at all. Attendees will also examine how to document decisions consistently so that the same choice gets made the same way throughout a document and across a team. For organizations that do not yet have a style guide in place, this discussion addresses what it takes to build one and where to start.
What AI Tools Catch and What They Miss
Grammar checkers and AI writing tools have changed the editing and proofreading process, but not in the way most people assume. These tools are reliable for a narrow category of errors and genuinely unreliable for a much broader one. This part of the workshop examines what AI-assisted tools catch consistently, where they produce false positives and false negatives, and what categories of error they are structurally incapable of identifying. The group will work through examples that illustrate the gap between what these tools flag and what a careful human reader would catch, and participants will practice making the judgment calls that no tool can make for them. The goal is a clear-eyed, practical relationship with these tools rather than either over-reliance or avoidance.
Reviewing AI-Generated Text: Recognizing the Patterns and Correcting Them
AI-generated content presents a distinct set of editorial challenges that differ from those of human-produced documents. Text produced or heavily edited by AI tends to be grammatically clean but tonally flat, structurally repetitive across paragraphs, and subtly inconsistent with the voice of the surrounding document. It often hedges in predictable ways, organizes information in formulaic sequences, and produces a kind of smooth genericness that is difficult to name but easy to feel. This discussion gives participants the vocabulary to describe those patterns, the eye to spot them in documents they are reviewing, and the editorial habits to correct them efficiently. The group will work through examples and practice revising AI-influenced text to restore voice, precision, and appropriateness for its intended audience.
The Author and Editor Relationship: Setting Expectations and Giving Feedback
Reviewing someone else’s writing is an interpersonal act as much as a technical one, and this part of the workshop addresses the human side of that work. The discussion opens with scope: before a review begins, both the writer and the reviewer need to agree on what kind of feedback is being given and at what level. Without that agreement, editors over-reach, writers feel blindsided, and the feedback loop produces friction rather than improvement. Participants will examine how to establish that agreement clearly and efficiently and what to do when the scope shifts mid-review. The group will then work through how to deliver feedback that is specific, rule-based, and genuinely useful, including the language that separates editorial judgment from personal preference and the approaches that help writers receive correction without becoming defensive. The discussion also addresses situations where the reviewer will never speak with the author at all, such as reviewing executive communications, content produced by a team, or documents submitted through a formal approval process.
Applying the Skills: Extended Practice with Real Documents
The workshop closes with substantial working time. Participants will apply the full review process to documents drawn from the day’s materials and, where possible, from their own organizations. The group will work through editing and proofreading as distinct activities, apply the appropriate level of review to each document, use the tools and frameworks introduced during the day, and give and receive feedback on the choices they make. This is not a summary or a recap exercise. It is uninterrupted working time, and the emphasis stays on building the habits and the confidence that will hold up when the session ends and the documents are real.
Target Audience
This workshop is designed for groups that want to:
- Improve the accuracy and professionalism of their written communication.
- Build a more deliberate and structured approach to reviewing their own work and the work of others.
- Develop practical skills for working with AI tools without sacrificing editorial judgment.
- Establish a consistent editorial standard across a team or organization.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is this workshop designed for?
This workshop is well-suited for anyone who regularly reviews written work, whether their own or others’. That includes writers who need a more structured review process, editors and communications professionals who want to sharpen their skills, managers who review team documents before they go out, and organizations that want to build a shared editorial standard across a group.
Does the course cover AI tools?
Yes, and in significant depth. The workshop dedicates two separate discussions to AI: one that examines what grammar and writing tools catch reliably and where they fall short, and one focused specifically on reviewing AI-generated text. Participants will practice recognizing the patterns that appear when content has been produced or heavily edited by AI and learn how to correct them efficiently.
How is this different from a general business writing course?
A business writing course focuses on producing documents. This workshop focuses on reviewing them. The skills are related but distinct. Participants will not spend the day drafting new content. They will spend it learning to evaluate, correct, and improve content that already exists, and to do that work with a defined process rather than instinct.
Will participants practice on their own documents?
Yes. Where clients share documents in advance, we build practice exercises around those materials. Participants are also encouraged to bring documents they currently review so the work stays connected to their real responsibilities.
Does the workshop address giving feedback to other writers?
Yes. A dedicated portion of the day examines the author and editor relationship, including how to set scope expectations before a review begins, how to frame corrections as rule-based rather than personal, and how to deliver feedback in a way that improves the writer as well as the document. The discussion also covers situations where the reviewer has no direct relationship with the author.
Our organization doesn’t have a style guide. Is the style guide discussion still relevant?
Very much so. The workshop addresses organizations that already have a style guide and need to use it more consistently, teams that are working from informal conventions and want to formalize them, and groups that are starting from nothing. If you are in that last category, the discussion will give you a practical sense of where to begin.