Plan manuscript revision from a reverse outline and timed editing samples, track decisions, and proof the final format with a reusable checklist.
Save a named copy of the draft and record the intended reader, purpose, format and any actual submission requirements. Read through with those criteria in mind and keep a problem list. Separate structural issues from sentence-level edits so an attractive paragraph does not distract from a missing argument or scene.
Make a reverse outline: describe what each section does and how it advances the whole. For fiction, a scene-purpose map can play a similar planning role. Mark gaps, repetition and ordering problems, then decide what to move, add or remove. If word allocation helps, compare chapter counts against your chosen target.
Choose one pass and edit representative material while recording words covered and elapsed time. Use the timed-sample mode or enter your measured words-per-hour rate. Estimate only the words still to edit and choose hours available per session. Put those sessions on your own schedule and revise the estimate as the work changes.
Work through clarity, voice, continuity and sentence-level issues appropriate to the pass. If a dialogue/narrative comparison would answer a specific question, classify a defined sample consistently and inspect its shares. Ask readers targeted questions, collect examples and keep a decision log explaining which feedback you accept, test or set aside.
After substantial changes are resolved, inspect the intended submission or publication format for errors in wording, names, references, headings, page order and any required formatting. Check links and compare citations with the reference list when present. Read difficult passages aloud or use another proofing view. Resolve the recorded release criteria and keep the final file with its editable source.
Compare counts and exact whole-word allocations using your own chapter target; place real breaks according to the manuscript.
Estimate one pass from your own rate or timed sample and available work-session hours.
Compare two manually classified word categories in one sample without a quality judgment.
Plan a read-aloud pass using your measured effective pace with no automatic narration multiplier.
Loading your checklist…
Purdue describes recording a paragraph’s topic and its contribution to the overall argument to inspect focus and organisation. The scene-purpose map suggested here adapts that planning idea for fiction.
Purdue’s revision resource distinguishes larger writing issues from later editing and offers proofreading approaches such as reading aloud and checking recurring errors. Automated checks do not identify every problem.
These numbers are an arithmetic example, not a professional editing benchmark: 600 words in 30 minutes gives 1,200 words/hour. At that pace, 12,000 remaining words require 10 work hours, or five two-hour sessions.
| Record | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Pass and sample | Keep the measured work and its difficulty identifiable |
| Remaining count | Update after structural changes |
| Rate and sessions | Plan time from your own observed pace |
| Review criteria | List unresolved issues and final-format checks |
Keep the reader’s example of confusion even if you choose a different solution from the one they suggest.
Define what must be resolved for this delivery, then check those items instead of relying on a fixed number of editing rounds.