Journalism Basics: Revising, Editing, and Polishing for Publication

Editing as a Sequence (So You Don’t Fix Commas in a Broken Story)

Revising is not the same as proofreading. Revising changes meaning and structure; editing improves clarity and style; proofreading catches mechanical errors. The most efficient approach is to work from “big” to “small,” because early changes (angle, order, missing evidence) will create new sentences that make later line edits pointless.

Use this sequence every time:

• 1) Structure: Does the story deliver on the angle and prioritize what matters?
• 2) Evidence: Are claims supported and properly attributed?
• 3) Clarity: Is the writing plain, specific, and non-redundant?
• 4) Style: Are verbs tight, voice appropriate, and sentences varied?
• 5) Mechanics: Grammar, punctuation, numbers, names, titles, dates, locations, and consistency.

Step 1 — Structure First: Does the Story Deliver on the Angle?

What to check

• Promise vs. delivery: Does the lead set up the same story the rest of the piece delivers?
• Priority: Are the most important facts and stakes early? Are minor details pushed down?
• Throughline: Does each section advance the central point, or does it drift?
• Scene-setting vs. delay: Are you making readers wait too long for the “what happened / what’s changing / why it matters”?
• Transitions: Do paragraphs connect logically (cause → effect, problem → response, claim → evidence)?

Practical structure pass (10–15 minutes)

1. Write the angle in one sentence at the top of your draft (not for publication). Example: “The city’s new parking policy will raise costs for downtown workers and is facing legal challenges.”
2. Label each paragraph with a 3–6 word purpose in the margin (e.g., “policy details,” “who pays,” “city rationale,” “legal risk”).
3. Cut or move anything that doesn’t serve the angle. If a paragraph is interesting but off-angle, park it in a “maybe” file.
4. Check the lead-to-nut connection: Within the first few paragraphs, can a reader answer: What happened? Who is affected? Why now? What’s at stake?
5. Re-order for reader logic: Put definitions before debate, data before reactions, and outcomes before process (unless process is the point).

Quick diagnostic questions

• If you removed the middle third, would the story still make sense? If yes, the middle may be repetitive or unfocused.
• Does the ending introduce a new major fact? If yes, you likely buried something important.
• Are you mixing timelines? If yes, consider a clearer chronology or explicit time markers.

Step 2 — Evidence Pass: Are Claims Supported?

This pass asks: How do we know this? Every meaningful claim should be supported by one or more of the following: a document, a dataset, direct observation, or an on-the-record source (with clear attribution). If you can’t support it, you either report more, reframe as uncertainty, or remove it.

Evidence checklist

• Claim-to-support match: Strong claims require strong support (not vague “officials said”).
• Attribution clarity: Readers should know who is speaking and what they know firsthand.
• Quantities and comparisons: If you say “more,” “less,” “record,” “sharp,” or “rare,” show the numbers or specify the timeframe.
• Cause and effect: Avoid implying causation unless you can support it. Consider “coincided with,” “followed,” or “experts attribute.”
• Fair representation: Quotes and paraphrases should reflect what was actually said, in context.

Practical evidence pass (highlight method)

1. Highlight every sentence that contains a claim (anything a reasonable reader might challenge).
2. For each highlighted sentence, add a note: Source? (document, dataset, interview, observation).
3. Fix weak spots:
   • Add a specific source and attribution.
   • Add the missing number, date, or document reference.
   • Downgrade certainty (e.g., “will” → “is expected to”).
   • Remove the sentence if it can’t be supported.

Common evidence problems to catch

• Floating statistics: Numbers with no origin, timeframe, or comparison point.
• Unanchored superlatives: “Largest,” “worst,” “unprecedented” without data.
• Anonymous “critics” or “supporters”: If you can’t specify who, describe the group precisely or attribute to a named organization/document.

Step 3 — Clarity Pass: Plain Language and No Redundancy

Clarity editing makes the story easier to read without changing meaning. Aim for specific nouns, plain verbs, and one idea per sentence when possible.

Clarity checklist

• Replace vague words: “issues,” “things,” “concerns,” “some,” “many” → specify what and how many.
• Remove redundancy: If two sentences do the same job, keep the stronger one.
• Define terms once: Explain jargon briefly and early; don’t re-explain later.
• Shorten long sentences: Break at natural joints (after a key fact, before a quote, before a list).
• Make references unambiguous: Replace “this,” “that,” “it,” “they” with the actual noun when needed.

Practical clarity pass (read-aloud + reverse outline)

1. Read the draft aloud (or use text-to-speech). Mark where you stumble or run out of breath.
2. Create a reverse outline: write one sentence per paragraph summarizing what it says. If two consecutive summaries are nearly identical, combine or cut.
3. Do a “pronoun audit”: circle “it/this/they/which.” If the referent is unclear, replace with a noun.

Step 4 — Style Pass: Tight Verbs and Appropriate Voice

Style editing is about energy and precision. The goal is not to sound fancy; it’s to sound clear, confident, and accurate.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Style checklist

• Prefer strong verbs: “use,” “cut,” “raise,” “reject” instead of “make use of,” “implement,” “increase.”
• Reduce “to be” chains: Replace “is/are” + abstract noun with a verb when it improves clarity.
• Active voice where it clarifies responsibility: Use active when the actor matters; use passive when the actor is unknown or irrelevant.
• Trim prepositional clutter: “in terms of,” “with regard to,” “in the process of” usually can go.
• Vary sentence openings: Too many sentences starting with the same word can feel monotonous.

Active vs. passive (when to choose)

Step 5 — Mechanics Pass: Grammar, Numbers, Names, and Consistency

This is the final polish. Do it last, after major revisions, so you don’t waste time perfecting sentences you’ll delete.

Mechanics checklist

• Grammar and punctuation: Subject-verb agreement, comma splices, missing words, consistent tense.
• Numbers: Consistent formatting (percent vs. percentage, decimals, ranges), correct math, correct units.
• Names and titles: Spelling, capitalization, diacritics, middle initials, job titles, organization names.
• Dates and times: Day/date alignment, time zones if relevant, “last Friday” vs. a specific date.
• Locations: Correct place names, neighborhood vs. city vs. county, consistent specificity.
• Consistency: Same term for the same thing (don’t alternate “program,” “initiative,” “plan” unless they differ).

The Final Fact-Check Pass: Verify the Details Readers Will Repeat

A fact-check pass is a deliberate verification step, not a quick skim. You are checking the items most likely to be quoted, shared, or challenged: names, numbers, dates, and claims of record.

What to verify (minimum set)

• Names: First/last spelling, preferred form, diacritics, and whether two people share similar names.
• Titles and roles: Current job title, department, and whether “former” or “interim” applies.
• Organizations: Exact legal or public-facing name (e.g., “Department of Public Works” vs. “Public Works Department”).
• Dates and timeline: Meeting dates, effective dates, filing dates, and sequence of events.
• Locations: Address, venue name, city/county, and correct spelling.
• Figures: Totals, percentages, rates, comparisons, and whether numbers refer to the same timeframe.

Fact-check workflow (table method)

Create a simple fact-check table and fill it as you verify:

High-risk spots to double-check

• Leads and headlines: The most visible lines must be the most defensible.
• Numbers in isolation: Any number not immediately attributed or explained.
• Comparisons: “up from last year,” “double,” “half,” “largest since” (verify baseline and timeframe).
• Proper nouns: People, agencies, programs, laws, and place names.

Verification tips for names, titles, and roles

• Use at least two independent confirmations for key identifiers when possible (e.g., official directory + direct confirmation).
• Match the time: A title may have changed since an older document. Verify it is current as of publication.
• Be precise with honorifics and credentials: Don’t add “Dr.” or professional designations unless verified.

Peer/Self-Edit Rubric (Use for Every Draft)

Score each category 1–5 (1 = needs major work, 5 = publication-ready). Add one specific note per category.

How to use the rubric in a peer edit

1. First pass: Peer writes the angle they think the story is delivering (one sentence). Compare to the writer’s intended angle.
2. Second pass: Peer marks any sentence that raises a question: “How do we know?” “Who says?” “Compared to what?”
3. Third pass: Peer suggests three cuts that reduce length without losing meaning.
4. Fourth pass: Peer identifies the single most confusing paragraph and explains why.

Before-and-After Edits (Readability and Precision)

1) Remove redundancy and tighten the lead

Before: The city council met on Tuesday night and discussed a number of issues, including the new parking policy, which will impact many people in the downtown area.

After: The city council approved a new parking policy Tuesday that will raise costs for many downtown workers.

What improved: Specific action (“approved”), specific subject (“parking policy”), concrete impact (“raise costs”), fewer filler phrases.

2) Replace vague attribution with specific sourcing

Before: Officials said the program has been successful.

After: The health department said the program reduced average appointment wait times from 18 days to 11 days between March and August, according to internal monthly reports.

What improved: Who, what metric, timeframe, and source document.

3) Fix an implied causal claim

Before: The new curfew caused crime to drop across the neighborhood.

After: Reported robberies fell 12% in the two months after the curfew began, according to police data; criminologists cautioned that seasonal patterns and enforcement changes could also affect the numbers.

What improved: Avoids unproven causation; adds data and appropriate context.

4) Make responsibility clear with active voice

Before: Mistakes were made in the processing of the applications.

After: The agency misfiled at least 43 applications, delaying approvals by up to six weeks, according to an internal audit.

What improved: Identifies actor, specifies what happened, quantifies impact, cites source.

5) Cut prepositional clutter and strengthen verbs

Before: The committee is in the process of conducting an evaluation of the proposal.

After: The committee is evaluating the proposal.

What improved: Fewer words, same meaning, clearer action.

6) Precision with numbers and comparisons

Before: The budget increased significantly this year.

After: The budget rose 6.2% to $48.7 million this fiscal year, up from $45.8 million last year, according to the adopted budget.

What improved: Adds exact change, totals, baseline, timeframe, and source.

One-Pass Editing Plan You Can Repeat Under Deadline

If time is short, do a controlled sprint rather than random tinkering:

1. 5 minutes: Write the angle sentence; confirm the lead delivers it.
2. 10 minutes: Reverse outline; move/cut off-angle paragraphs.
3. 10 minutes: Evidence highlight; add attribution/data or downgrade/remove claims.
4. 10 minutes: Clarity sweep; cut redundancy; simplify jargon; fix pronouns.
5. 10 minutes: Style sweep; tighten verbs; choose active voice where responsibility matters.
6. 10 minutes: Mechanics + fact-check table for names, titles, dates, locations, figures.