Organise an exhibition where labels proofed two days before

Choose someone with subject knowledge who did not write the labels and can read them as a visitor would. A colleague from another department, a volunteer with relevant expertise, or another curator works well. The proofreader needs enough time to read carefully, check facts against catalogue entries or loan agreements, and spot inconsistencies in tone or terminology. Agree the deadline so the proofreader knows exactly when their review is due and can plan the work.

Agree in advance whether late corrections will be made or whether the deadline is final. If labels are already printed, minor corrections might be made by hand or with printed overlays, while major errors might require reprinting. Decide who makes that call—usually the curator or exhibition manager—and how quickly the installer can receive corrected versions. The two-day window exists precisely to avoid this situation, so emphasise the deadline clearly when asking for the proofing commitment.

Provide a numbered list matching the labels to their positions in the exhibition, or ask the proofreader to confirm the total count when reporting completion. If labels are in a shared document, ask the proofreader to initial each one or mark them reviewed. If they receive printed samples, ask them to return the samples with annotations. The completion message should include the total number reviewed so you can compare it against the number you sent and catch any missing labels immediately.

Ask the proofreader to check factual accuracy against loan agreements or catalogue records, consistent terminology across all labels, correct artist names and dates, accurate object titles and accession numbers, appropriate tone for the intended audience, and that each label matches the object it describes. They should also confirm measurements, dates and attributions, flag anything unclear to a general visitor, and note if any label is significantly longer or shorter than others without good reason. Agree these criteria when making the request.

Agree this before the proofing starts. Usually the person who wrote the labels makes corrections, but if they are unavailable the proofreader might make minor fixes directly or the exhibition coordinator might handle them. Clarify who has final approval if the correction changes meaning or interpretation. Decide whether corrections go back to the proofreader for a second check or proceed directly to printing. The installer needs the corrected versions by a specific time, so agree who ensures they arrive.

The proofreader or the person making corrections should list exactly which labels changed, ideally by number or position. If corrections are made in a shared document, mark the revised labels clearly. If new labels are printed, confirm which ones replace earlier versions and ensure the installer does not use old copies. The completion message should state clearly whether all labels are approved as originally provided or whether specific replacements are coming, and when the installer can expect them.

The proofreader should say so as soon as they realise, not on the deadline day itself. Decide together whether someone else can complete the proofing, whether the deadline can move without affecting installation, or whether the labels proceed with partial proofing. If installation cannot be delayed, agree which labels are highest priority—perhaps introductory panels or labels for key objects—and proof those first. The two-day buffer exists to handle this, but only if the problem is raised early enough.

Yes, if they have time and the subject knowledge. Agree separate deadlines for each exhibition and make clear which set of labels each request covers. The proofreader should confirm which exhibition they are reporting on when they send approval or corrections. If one person regularly proofreads, they may develop a checklist or standard approach, but each exhibition is a separate agreement with its own completion. Do not assume they will remember details from previous exhibitions when checking facts or terminology.