I could tell that striving for perfection was going to destroy the picture that the author was trying to paint with words. Along with that realization, came the understanding that sometimes it's more important to get the "picture right" than it is to insure that every last detail is perfectly correct.
I understand this, and actually do agree with it. However, my point is that not only is the "devil in the details" but as one engineer once told me, "God is in the details".
Including EVERY detail in the description of things in the story can be detrimental to the "big picture". However, the solution is simple, don't include those details that are detrimental to the narrative, and do ensure the ones you do include are correct.
For example, saying "he cocked the hammer and drew a careful aim" tells all the important details, and saying "he cocked the target hammer with its 24line per inch checkered pad, and took careful aim" isn't really needed, and when the gun named doesn't HAVE a target hammer with 24 lpi checkering then, for those of us who know that, its an error and a needless distraction to the storyline.
to my mind, the writer is better off leaving details out than including wrong ones.
Its fine to say the D-Day landings were in France. Its fine to say they were in Normandy, but if the writer names them Gold, Sword, Omaha and Alaska, he'd be better off not naming them at all.
Just my thoughts, and worth every penny you paid for them.