• • If you have a singular noun, use a singular pronoun.
    • e.g. “George works hard to complete his work on time.”
    • The pronoun, his, clearly refers to the singular George (one person).
  • If you have a plural noun, use a plural pronoun.
    • e.g. “Students work hard to complete our work on time.”
    • The pronoun, our, refers to more than one person: students.
  • They/them/their/theirs/themselves are typically plural pronouns, but they can be singular in two cases:
    • When used as an epicene pronoun
      • e.g., In the sentence “Somebody keeps leaving their books here,” ‘somebody’ is a singular subject noun, ‘their’ is an epicene pronoun, and ‘keeps’ is in singular conjugation. This is grammatically correct.
      • Epicene pronouns are often used when you want to refer to somebody you don’t know the gender of. They can also be used to speak about a hypothetical, single person.
    •  If a person asks to be referred to exclusively with they/them pronouns, it’s always correct to use they/them pronouns when referring to them and always incorrect to use other pronouns.
    • Among others, Merriam-Webster and APA officially endorse the singular they, so it’s safe to say it’s grammatically and technically correct. However, if an instructor has explicitly forbidden singular they, complying is the safest way to avoid losing marks. In that case, speaking in the plural can’t always replace epicene pronouns, but it often can.
      • Instead of: “A citizen deserves to be taught their rights,” write: “Citizens deserve to be taught their rights.”

First read-through: Check your sentences

In the first editing read-through, the writer checked their sentences. Specifically, they checked sentence structure (fragments, fuses, and splices) and pronoun errors. It usually helps to only change two or so sentences in a paragraph at a time before rereading the paragraph.

From the beginning of the French occupation of Guinea in 1893. ^[D1] Government policy makers presumed that the dense forest patches surrounding the villages in Kissidougou were the last remaining traces of an original forest that had once fully covered the landscape, and that the use of fire by the Kissi people was gradually destroying these forests however, research has revealed that forest regions is actually increasing, and it is the villagers themselves who is creating these new forests (Second Nature, 1996). ^[D2] Policy makers, attributed to their ignorance and to the evolution of the rural society in which they live ^[D3], have largely blamed villagers for environmental mismanagement, (Fairhead and Leach 1996, 29). Government policies have criminalized any aspects of land management employed by the local communities, for example setting ^[D4]bush fires carried the death penalty in the 1970s (Fairhead and Leach 1996, 4) [D4]. However, this contradicts sharply with the perspective of villagers, who consider themselves [D5] “people of the forest” (Paulme 1960, 86).

Edit notes

^[D1] This is a sentence fragment because it has a subject but no verb/predicate.

^[D2] This is a fused sentence that needs to be revised into two separate sentences. And the fused sentence aside, this sentence is a bit long/complicated as it is.

^[D3] This highlighted section is called an aside clause. Long aside clauses, especially ones that appear directly after a sentence’s subject, tend to disrupt meaning and “flow.” That is the case here. Additionally, from the aside’s placement, the reader will reasonably assume that “Policy makers” is the noun accompanying the verb “attributed” as well as the noun referred to with “their” and “they,” but that wouldn’t make sense. This sentence should be restructured to include all necessary information without those possible area of confusion

^[D4] This is a comma splice. The simplest way to fix a comma splice is to replace the comma with the period. That can sometimes make the resulting sentences clunky, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.

^[D5] Which noun does this pronoun refer to? “Villagers is the noun, so the plural pronoun, “themselves” is correct here.

Second read-through: Check for errors

Consider the newly edited paragraph. When reading it for the second time, the writer checked for subject–verb agreement errors and verb-tense errors.

From the beginning of the French occupation of Guinea in 1893, government policy makers presumed ^[D1] that the dense forest patches surrounding the villages in Kissidougou were the last remaining traces of an original forest that had once fully covered the landscape, and that the use of fire by the Kissi people was gradually destroying these forests (Second Nature, 1996). However, research has revealed ^[D2] that forest regions ^[D3] is actually increasing, and it is the villagers themselves who is ^[D4] creating these new forests (Second Nature, 1996). Due to ignorance and bias in their own culture, policy makers have largely blamed ^[D5] villagers for environmental mismanagement (Fairhead and Leach 1996, 29). Government policies have criminalized ^[D6] any aspects of land management employed by the local communities. For example, setting bush fires carried the death penalty in the 1970s (Fairhead and Leach 1996, 4). However, this contradicts sharply with the perspective of villagers, who consider themselves “people of the forest” (Paulme 1960, 86).

Edit notes

^[D1] The verb tense changes quite a bit in this paragraph. Verbs describing past/historical actions should be in the past tense (presumed) and verbs describing ongoing or current actions should use the present tense (presume). Here, “presumed” is correct because this presumption is now accepted as erroneous.

^[D2] The verb tense here is correct. However “research reveals” would be more concise/stylish.

^[D3] Subject-verb agreement error. The subject of this sentence, “forest regions,” is a plural noun. As such, the verb must be plural. Revise it to read “are” instead of “is.”

^[D4] Subject-verb agreement error. The subject of this sentence, villagers, is a plural noun, as such, the verb must be plural. Revise it to read “are” instead of “is.”

^[D5] This is historical fact, so this verb tense is acceptable.

^[D6] This is historical fact, so this verb tense is acceptable.

Now, consider this draft of the paragraph

From the beginning of the French occupation of Guinea in 1893, government policy makers presumed that the dense forest patches surrounding the villages in Kissidougou were the last remaining traces of an original forest that had once fully covered the landscape, and that the use of fire by the Kissi people was gradually destroying these forests (Second Nature, 1996). However, research reveals that forest regions are actually increasing, and it is the villagers themselves who are creating these new forests (Second Nature, 1996). Policy makers have largely blamed villagers for environmental mismanagement, attributed to their ignorance and to the evolution of the rural society in which they live (Fairhead and Leach 1996, 29). Government policies have criminalized any aspects of land management employed by the local communities. For example, setting bush fires carried the death penalty in the 1970s (Fairhead and Leach 1996, 4). However, this contradicts sharply with the perspective of villagers, who consider themselves “people of the forest” (Paulme 1960, 86).

Third read through: Punctuation

Check your punctuation! Read your paper out loud, pausing where there are commas and stopping where there are end marks. You may want a text-to-speech robot to read it aloud instead. Make note of any areas that sound too fast or too fragmented, as this may indicate incorrect punctuation.

With extensive research into how the villager’s ^[D1] activities actually create the forest islands. ^[D2] Fairhead and Leach (1996) discovered that the techniques and practices to manage fire vary considerably among communities of Kissidougou, depending on the prevailing climate and vegetation of the specific region, local farming pattern’s ^[D3] and population density (p. 230). Fairhead and Leach suggest that future research could investigate the knowledge of communities in other forest-savannah transition zones to determine if there are other areas with a mismatch between local experience and official interpretations (p. 287).

Edit notes

^[D1] Improper use of a possessive comma. It should be “villagers’ activities.”

^[D2] This should be a comma, not a period, to avoid creating a sentence fragment.

^[D3] No apostrophe is needed here. But a comma is needed after “patterns,” to separate the three listed items.

Consider the newly edited paragraph

With extensive research into how the villagers’ activities actually create the forest islands, Fairhead and Leach discovered that the techniques and practices to manage fire vary considerably among communities of Kissidougou, depending on the prevailing climate and vegetation of the specific region, local farming patterns, and population density (Fairhead and Leach 1996, 230). Fairhead and Leach suggest that future research could investigate the knowledge of communities in other forest-savannah transition zones, to determine if there are other areas with a mismatch between local experience and official interpretations (Fairhead and Leach 1996, 287).

Fourth read through: Word usage (diction)

Check your word usage (diction)! Read each sentence out loud, listening for words that might be awkward, unclear, or misused.

^[D1] Improper use of a possessive comma. It should be “villagers’ activities.”

^[D2] This should be a comma, not a period, to avoid creating a sentence fragment.

The Dene and the Kissi base their land management strategies on familiarity ^[D1] and knowledge of their local landscapes gained over many generations. Their strategies and information ^[D2] allow them to use fire sustainably to maintain local ecosystems and protect their communities. Europeans have misunderstood and misinterpreted the activities of native inhabitants, in both Canada and Guinea.

In the past, researchers have tended to minimize or dismiss the affects ^[D3] that communities exerted on the land they inhabited, particularly in hunting and gathering societies. Research has often ignored or dismissed the importance of traditional burning practices and traditional knowledge of fire-ecology. Lewis acknowledged the shortcomings of researchers, writing that, “No aspect is quite so dismal as anthropologists’ lack of knowledge of indigenous uses of fire for transforming and maintaining natural environments.” (Lewis 1982, 3). In the last few decades, this has begun to change, although debate continues with some researchers continuing to emphasize ^[D4] that lightening strikes are responsible for the majority of historical fire evidence (Wuerthner 2006, 9).

Edit notes

^[D1] Consider if this word is the best word here. Yes, they are familiar with their local landscapes, but, isn’t it more their experience that influences their strategies?

^[D2] In order to create a clear connection between the topic sentence and this sentence, consider using the word knowledge, instead of information. There is such a thing as effective repletion.

^[D3] This is a commonly misused word. Instead of “affects”, the writer should be using “effects.”

^[D4] This word does not make sense here. To give emphasis to something means to draw attention to it above something else. Perhaps the writer should use: assert, claim or avow, instead of emphasize to make the message clearer.

Consider the newly edited draft

The Dene and the Kissi base their land management strategies on experience and knowledge of their local landscapes gained over many generations. Their strategies and knowledge allow them to use fire sustainably to maintain local ecosystems and protect their communities. Europeans have misunderstood and misinterpreted the activities of native inhabitants, in both Canada and Guinea. 

In the past, researchers have tended to minimize or dismiss the effects that communities exerted on the land they inhabited, particularly in hunting and gathering societies. Research has often ignored or dismissed the importance of traditional burning practices and traditional knowledge of fire-ecology. Lewis acknowledged the shortcomings of researchers, writing that, “No aspect is quite so dismal as anthropologists’ lack of knowledge of indigenous uses of fire for transforming and maintaining natural environments.” (Lewis 1982, 3). In the last few decades, this has begun to change, although debate continues with some researchers continuing to assert that lightening strikes are responsible for the majority of historical fire evidence (Wuerthner 2006, 9). 

Fifth read through: Spelling

Check your spelling! With a list of personal spelling demons, the spellchecker tool on the computer and a basic knowledge of spelling, check to make sure each word is spelled correctly.

Although ecologically distinct, expereinces ^[D1] in both Guinea and Northern Alberta indicate that there are still many lessons to learn about fire and land management from other cultures. It is vital to realise ^[D2] that each ecosystem responds to fire in it’s ^[D3] own way (Wuerthner 2006, 89), and people who have lived in a region for many generations have intimate knowledge of their local ecosystems. As Lewis wrote “we may gain and share important knew ^[D4] insights into the ecology and technology of fire” (Lewis 1982, 50). Fire is part of nature. Humans can not eliminate it, nor should we wish to. In the recent past, European colonists in both North America and Africa have sought to prevent fires, overlooking a key distinction between prevention and control. Recently research has revealed the value ov ^[D5] traditional fire-ecology practices, and offerred ^[D5] suggestions for improving current fire practises ^[D7].

Edit notes

^[D1] Switching ‘e’ and ‘i’ when they appear together is a common spelling mistake: experience

^[D2] This is a commonly misspelled word: realize

^[D3] It’s is the contracted form of “it is.” This is not the correct word the writer needs here. The writer needs “its.”

^[D4] Watch out for homophones that sound the same but are spelled differently. The writer needs to use “new” here, instead of “knew.” However, this error appears in a quotation. If the original author (Lewis) indeed made this error, then you can insert [sic] immediately following the error to assure your reader that this is not a mistake on your part.

^[D5] The word “of” has no “v” in it! This was probably a typo (f and v are next to each other on a qwertyuiop keyboard)

^[D6] Mixing up single- and double- consonants is a common spelling mistake: offered

^[D7] This should be spelt with a c, not an s. This is a common mistake that might not get caught by spell-check, because in British/Canadian English, ‘practise’ is the correct spelling if it’s a verb (it’s a noun here). Go here for more explanation if you want it.

Consider the newly edited paragraph:

Although ecologically distinct, experiences in both Guinea and Northern Alberta indicate that there are still many lessons to learn about fire and land management from other cultures. It is vital to realize that each ecosystem responds to fire in its own way (Wuerthner 2006, 89), and people who have lived in a region for many generations have intimate knowledge of their local ecosystems. As Lewis wrote “we may gain and share important new insights into the ecology and technology of fire” (Lewis 1982, 50). Fire is part of nature. Humans can not eliminate it, nor should we wish to. In the recent past, European colonists in both North America and Africa have sought to prevent fires, overlooking a key distinction between prevention and control. Recently research has revealed the value of traditional fire-ecology practices, and offered suggestions for improving current fire practices.