Pet peeve: sources who insist on seeing an article they've been interviewed for. Maybe it's wrong of me to hate it, but I just do.

Sometimes, sure, I'd like to have someone look at my story, see if I've overlooked anything major or mis-stated a fact. This is especially true when I'm doing veterinary-related articles—I'd hate to provide information that could injure someone's animal. When it comes to things like careers or real estate, I probably have the subject covered. It's not like an editor is going to publish something that's blatantly incorrect (OK, that happens, too, but not usually.).

If there's a controversial slant to the article, I can see someone wanting to see how they're portrayed. Then again, if you said it, you said it. If you don't want to be portrayed as pro-this or anti-that, you should've declined the interview.

For the most part, when a source insists on seeing an article, it's for vanity's sake. They just want to be sure their quote sounds good. They might like to rewrite parts that have nothing to do with them. I've even had them try to rewrite others' quotes. I've just been burned too many times by this to feel good about sending off my story before I submit it.

I do sometimes let sources review, even when I don't feel like they have to. Sometimes I get good feedback, and sometimes I get garbage that I dismiss. Luckily, as the writer, I can dismiss it. I just feel like if they think they can do my job better, they should give it a try under their own byline, not mine.

I recently ran into a situation that got under my skin. I had two articles due one morning. They were both on the short side and both about related topics. I knew I could get them done in a relatively short period of time. I had two sources who wanted to e-mail me their responses (which I happen to love). Neither one, it turns out, got their responses e-mailed to me in the time that I'd asked—I did have a plan to write these articles on the evening before they were due and then to polish and turn in the stories the next morning. Sucks that they didn't get them in when I'd hoped, but it wasn't the end of the world.

What pushed my buttons was one of the sources asked me in her e-mail to read the article before submission. Thank goodness I was under no obligation to deliver. Here, she'd turned in the information late, so I had to scramble and do last-minute story construction the morning they were due, and she turned in the information in writing. Exactly what did she think I was going to screw up between her e-mail and my article? Ugh. It still bothers me.

To answer the question posed in the title, you probably shouldn't be asking how far to push, rather how can you help the writer get her story done well and by deadline. Insisting on seeing the story before publication will probably not win you points.