1. Random capitalisation of the editors comments. They all follow a basic "Ed. Here is my comment." format, but sometimes the "Ed" is all lowercase, sometimes the sentence has no capital, and sometimes there are no capital letters at all. Pick a scheme and stick with it.
2. No sense-checking. There's no quick read through to check the articles after an automatic spell check, so you often get sentences like:
• "she had a look of disappoint in her eyes".
• "I thought that is why we where having it".
• "by buying (RED) products your are insuring further donations to Africa".
• "Inyslas is great for admiring the views" (they mean "Ynyslas", but both would end up being ignored by the spell checker).
3. Random punctuation. Not all sentences end with full stops, commas are randomly distributed as though they've been thrown at the page like darts and the number of dots used for "to be continued" varies between 2 and 4. I suppose that last one is up to them, but I always use three...
4. Randomly coloured backgrounds leading to randomly coloured text. You'd have to see this to believe it, but there's an article sitting in front of me now that uses a picture of a lamborghini in the background. The article text is then overlayed onto this grayscaled picture. Now normally, the text is black on a white background. With this section the back ground obviously varies in intensity, but the text can only change from black to white. This has led to the some words being white and some being black. I'd even let that drop if there weren't sections where the text changes colour in the middle of a word. It's pretty much unreadable.
5. Articles as (bad quality) images. the last page of the latest issue has something about a Tekken competition in it. Loads of text on that page and only 3 small logos in the corners. For some reason this page looks like it's been saved as a low quality jpeg (or as an article in the Courier has said "j.peg") and then had to be enlarged to fit to A4. It looks awful and isn't easy to read at all.

All of the above mistakes are from one issue of the Courier, but it's been going on for years. I let it all drop last year because someone had mentioned that it was actually the editor putting the mistakes in when he was "correcting" the articles, but there's a new team every year and it turns out that none of them were taught English in high school. I'd also like to point out that the mistakes I've highlighted are only the most obvious ones that I found after glancing through the magazine. I actually think there are a lot more, but I've given the team the benefit of the doubt and not mentioned them.

In all fairness, I understand it's a voluntary thing and that they don't want to be devoting every hour of the day to the task of producing the magazine, but it'd be nice if the Courier team took a little bit of pride in their work and just proof-read the thing once each. It'd take them 10 minutes and then they'd be able to say they'd done a good job without fear of picky little bastards like me finding fault. Well, we'll wait and see what the next issue is like...