I pasted in an article I wrote for a publication with a reasonably competent editor a while ago and the number of false positives was, I thought, surprisingly h

I pasted in an article I wrote for a publication with a reasonably competent editor a while ago and the number of false positives was, I thought, surprisingly high. Many of the 'errors' it flagged simply wouldn't be considered as such in the context I was writing, and in fact the proposed changes would worsen the reading experience for the intended audience. I realise it's overtly supposed to be nit picking, rather than providing a realistic overview of what an intelligent reader may actually consider errors, but there's no substitute for simply having another human read what you've written when trying to eliminate mistakes.