One of my fellow editors asked for my opinion the other day related to "[sic]." I've got her back, she's got mine.
V: Quoted material in MS: "Despite any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still. . ." Would you insert [sic] after "was"?
ME: Either that or just fix it without the sic, to not draw attention to it. Of course I couldn't find this in CM [Chicago Manual of Style], but aren't we allowed to simply fix errors of this kind?
V: So I should change the "was" to "were" and leave it at that? Suppose that would work.
ME: It works for me. Who's going to object?