My first crit group used to quote one of their writing professors. "Just because it's right, doesn't make it good." We often incorporate real-life happenstances in our writing, but if they don't come across as "normal" to readers, they're likely to assume we're making something up for the sake of the story. And "contrived" is NOT something we want in our work.
I strive for accuracy in my writing, but if there's a conflict with what a reader considers truth, it's a stumbling block. One very common instance is the CSI effect, where readers assume the police and forensic procedures they see on TV are the way it works in real life.
Or maybe it's simple terminology. How many times have you read a crime novel where the characters smells "cordite" indicating gunshots have been fired. WRONG. Cordite manufacture ceased at the end of the last century. Lee Lofland gives his feelings on this on The Graveyard Shift. And I just read a modern-day novel written by a prolific mystery writer who made the same error.
Then there's "APB". This is another term that's rarely used anymore. The current usage is "BOLO" (Be On the LookOut). But readers (and tv viewers) are familiar with APB. Until BOLO is common enough, the writer might feel obligated to explain, which can be tricky without getting into author intrusion territory.
I've been rewriting my final scene for more tension, and thought I'd done a fair job. However, when the hubster read the draft of the revised scene, he had 2 questions. The first: Should it be "German shepherd" or "German Shepherd"? I looked it up at various websites and found that although the dictionary went with shepherd, almost all of the dog sites wrote it as Shepherd. I can leave it for an editor to change, but I figure about half the readers will think it's wrong. Not much I can do about that.
