My editing pet peeve - what's yours?

i've read a couple of columnists who made that "style" work. but it does read like shit 98 percent of the time.

 

I prefer RBIs and 2-for-4.

Another pet peeve is "is comprised of."

 

Little Davidson is referred to as "its" and Curry as "their" guard. Inconsistent. Other than that, I have no problem with it relative to my own issues.

 

How about Johnny Jones was 2-for-4 from the line. It's 2-of-4.

 

you didn't read this thread at all before posting, did you?

 

Admittedly, I looked at the first page, posted, then went back and scanned what had been posted. But most of that, Tom, involves 3 of 4 and 3-of-4.

 

and admittedly on my end, 2-of-4 is different.

 

I have never had a problem with the desk editing the hell out of my copy.

Change the lede, chop it up, do whatever the hell you want to do with it. Hell, I'd have to be a whiny little shit to complain about someone trying to make me look better.

But, for God's sake, please don't add typos to my copy. I'll create my own typos, thank you very much. I don't need any help looking like a moron.

 

No.

 

Always use noon.

Remove any possible confusion if you can.

 

Of course not.

 

a third-and-7 is modifying an implied noun "situation" or "play"

I don't see any such modification that justifies the 3-for-4