Sources and Product Claims
Assess the recommendation through its evidence and stated reader scenario, rather than unsupported ratings or promises.
Current product claims should be checked against official feature pages, pricing terms, support documentation, and other appropriate primary references. A source establishes only what it actually says: plan access, billing period, version, geography, and required setup can change the meaning.
Merchant descriptions are evidence of documented capabilities and terms, not independent proof of universal performance. Articles should not turn a capability into a ranking guarantee or a customer case study into a promise for every publisher.
Source links should remain close enough to the relevant explanation to be useful. Important claims in tables, captions, metadata, and structured data need the same review as the main prose. A working citation alone does not establish that the wording is supported.
Comparisons and Recommendations
Comparisons should apply matching criteria to the products discussed. Recommendations should identify the audience and workflow that make the tool relevant. A product can be a sensible option for one publishing process and a poor fit for another.
The publication should not invent numerical ratings, output benchmarks, prices, testimonials, discounts, or results. Editorial use-case picks are qualitative judgments, with their reasoning explained. They should not be presented as measured universal rankings.
Examples and Visualizations
Illustrative examples explain a method using explicitly stated assumptions. They are not customer results or observed performance. Calculations should show enough information for readers to understand the units and arithmetic.
Numerical visualizations require verified values, labels, a meaningful scale, and a readable data equivalent. Where no suitable dataset exists, a process or relationship diagram can explain the topic without fabricated scores. Generated illustrations should not be presented as real screenshots or evidence.
| Content Type | Editorial Standard |
|---|---|
| Product fact | Appropriate current source and retained restrictions |
| Recommendation | Explained criteria and reader scenario |
| Example | Clearly labeled assumptions |
| Chart | Verified values or labeled non-numeric process |
| Correction | Evidence and all affected page elements |
Corrections and Review Dates
A review date should reflect an actual review of the relevant content. Replacing a year token without checking the article is not an update. Product information can change after review, so readers should check current merchant terms before purchasing.
Corrections should identify the original statement, supporting evidence, and affected page elements. When a fact changes, related tables, FAQs, metadata, and conclusions should be reviewed too. See Contact for support routes and a correction-report helper.