copy-editing

Copy Editing

Systematic copy improvement through focused editorial passes that enhance clarity, voice, proof, and conversion impact.

Table of Contents

• [Keywords](#keywords)
• [Quick Start](#quick-start)
• [The Seven Sweeps Framework](#the-seven-sweeps-framework)
• [Quick-Pass Editing Guide](#quick-pass-editing-guide)
• [Common Copy Problems and Fixes](#common-copy-problems-and-fixes)
• [Style Consistency Standards](#style-consistency-standards)
• [Fact-Checking Protocol](#fact-checking-protocol)
• [Editorial Checklist](#editorial-checklist)
• [Best Practices](#best-practices)
• [Integration Points](#integration-points)

Keywords

copy editing, editorial review, copy feedback, proofreading, content polishing, copy sweep, editorial standards, style consistency, grammar check, fact-checking, clarity editing, voice consistency, benefit framing, proof validation, specificity, conversion copy editing, marketing copy review, copy quality

Quick Start

Full Copy Review (Seven Sweeps)

1. Read through once without editing to understand the whole piece
2. Sweep 1 — Clarity: flag confusing sentences, unclear references, jargon
3. Sweep 2 — Voice and Tone: flag shifts in formality, personality inconsistencies
4. Sweep 3 — So What: flag features without benefits, claims without consequences
5. Sweep 4 — Prove It: flag unsubstantiated claims, missing social proof
6. Sweep 5 — Specificity: flag vague language, round numbers, generic statements
7. Sweep 6 — Heightened Emotion: strengthen pain points, aspirations, urgency
8. Sweep 7 — Zero Risk: remove barriers near CTAs, add trust signals

Quick Copy Pass

1. Cut filler words (very, really, just, actually, basically)
2. Replace weak verbs (utilize > use, facilitate > help, leverage > use)
3. Fix passive voice (reports are generated > we generate reports)
4. Verify one idea per sentence, one topic per paragraph
5. Check CTA for action orientation

The Seven Sweeps Framework

Edit through seven sequential passes. Each focuses on one dimension. After each sweep, verify previous sweeps are not compromised.

Sweep 1: Clarity

Focus: Can the reader understand what you are saying on the first read?

What to check:

• Sentences trying to say too much (split them)
• Unclear pronoun references ("it" — what is "it"?)
• Jargon or insider language without explanation
• Ambiguous statements that could be read two ways
• Missing context that assumes reader knowledge

Clarity killers to fix:

| Problem | Fix | |---------|-----| | Sentence over 30 words | Split into two sentences | | Abstract language | Replace with concrete example | | Buried main point | Move to beginning of paragraph | | Three-clause sentence | Simplify to one or two clauses | | Undefined acronym | Spell out on first use |

After this sweep: Confirm the "Rule of One" (one idea per section) and "You Rule" (copy speaks to the reader as "you") are intact.

Sweep 2: Voice and Tone

Focus: Does the copy sound consistent throughout?

What to check:

• Shifts between formal and casual language
• Inconsistent brand personality (joking in one paragraph, corporate in the next)
• Jarring mood changes without transition
• Word choices that do not match the established voice
• Mixing "we" and "the company" references

Voice consistency indicators:

| Consistent | Inconsistent | |-----------|-------------| | Same level of contractions throughout | Contractions in some sections, full forms in others | | Humor style maintained | Random joke in otherwise serious copy | | Same sentence structure patterns | Short punchy intro, corporate middle, casual close | | Consistent use of "you" | Switching between "you," "users," "customers," "one" |

After this sweep: Return to Sweep 1 to ensure voice edits did not introduce confusion.

Sweep 3: So What

Focus: Does every claim answer "why should I care?"

The So What test: For every statement, ask "So what?" If the copy does not answer with a deeper benefit, it needs work.

| Before (features only) | After (feature + benefit) | |------------------------|--------------------------| | "Our platform uses AI-powered analytics" | "Our AI analytics surface insights you would miss manually — so you make better decisions in half the time" | | "SOC 2 Type II certified" | "SOC 2 certified — your security team approves us in days, not months" | | "Real-time dashboard" | "See exactly what is happening right now, not what happened last week" |

After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 2 and 1.

Sweep 4: Prove It

Focus: Is every claim backed with evidence?

Types of proof to verify:

| Proof Type | Strength | Example | |-----------|----------|---------| | Named testimonial | Strong | "Sarah Chen, VP Marketing at Stripe: 'Reduced our setup time by 60%'" | | Specific statistic | Strong | "2,847 teams use [Product] daily" | | Case study reference | Strong | "See how Linear reduced churn by 23% in 90 days" | | Third-party validation | Strong | "Named a Leader in Gartner's Magic Quadrant 2025" | | Customer logos | Medium | Recognizable brand logos with permission | | Generic claim | Weak — flag it | "Customers love us," "Industry-leading" |

Common proof gaps to flag:

• "Trusted by thousands" (which thousands? give a number)
• "Industry-leading" (according to whom? cite the source)
• "Best-in-class" (by what measure?)
• "Customers love us" (show them saying it)
• Results claims without timeframe or specifics

After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 3, 2, and 1.

Sweep 5: Specificity

Focus: Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?

Specificity upgrades:

| Vague | Specific | |-------|---------| | "Save time" | "Save 4 hours every week" | | "Many customers" | "2,847 teams" | | "Fast results" | "Results in 14 days" | | "Improve your workflow" | "Cut reporting time from 4 hours to 15 minutes" | | "Great support" | "Average response time: 2 hours" | | "Easy to use" | "Set up in 10 minutes, no code required" | | "Affordable" | "Starting at $29/month" | | "Scalable" | "Handles 10,000 to 10 million records without slowdown" |

Rule: If a claim cannot be made specific, it is probably filler. Cut it or replace it with something verifiable.

After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 4, 3, 2, and 1.

Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion

Focus: Does the copy make the reader feel something?

Emotional dimensions to check:

| Emotion | Where to Use | Technique | |---------|-------------|-----------| | Pain/frustration | Problem section | Paint the "before" state vividly | | Relief | Solution section | Show the contrast with current pain | | Fear of missing out | Social proof | "Teams like yours already use..." | | Pride | Aspiration section | "Be the team that..." | | Confidence | CTA area | "Join 2,847 teams who already..." | | Urgency | Near CTA | Only if genuine (real deadline, limited spots) |

Emotion techniques:

• Paint the "before" state with sensory detail
• Use micro-stories (1-2 sentences) from customer scenarios
• Ask questions that prompt self-reflection
• Reference shared experiences the audience recognizes

After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.

Sweep 7: Zero Risk

Focus: Have we removed every barrier to action?

Friction checklist near CTAs:

• [ ] What happens after clicking is clear (not a mystery)
• [ ] Objections addressed within 2 scrolls of the CTA
• [ ] Trust signals visible (guarantee, certifications, customer count)
• [ ] Next steps are specific ("Start your 14-day free trial" not "Get started")
• [ ] Risk reversals stated explicitly (money-back, no CC, cancel anytime)
• [ ] Privacy concerns addressed if form collects data

After this sweep: Return through all previous sweeps one final time.

Quick-Pass Editing Guide

Word-Level Cuts

Always cut: very, really, extremely, incredibly, quite, rather, somewhat, just, actually, basically, essentially, literally (unle