Human-led content editorial checklist

Use this as a readiness review

Use this checklist when a page is new, substantially revised, or reopened by changed evidence. Mark each item applicable, not applicable, complete, gap, or needs review; preserve the evidence, owner, next action, and review trigger. This checklist records the result. The editorial workflow owns detailed stages and approvals, while the content-improvement playbook owns question mapping and worked revisions.

Resolve publication-blocking defects before publishing. Improvements that do not prevent accurate, usable content can be scheduled; Complete the review explains the distinction. Assigning an owner does not clear a blocker.

Review register

For each gap, record whether it blocks publication or can be scheduled, and why. If that decision needs review, obtain the responsible review before treating the gap as nonblocking.

Define the reader and accountable work

1. The reader and situation are specific. The editorial brief identifies who has the question, what they are trying to decide, and the consequence of a weak answer.
2. The page gives one primary answer. Its title, opening, and headings match the reader question and identify where the answer stops.
3. Scope has a reason. Included and excluded subjects reflect the page’s job; separate tasks route to an existing relevant resource rather than expanding the page indefinitely.
4. An accountable person owns the decision. The owner can approve, pause, correct, or retire the page; contributors and reviewers are not presented as approvers unless they hold that role.
5. Risk is assessed before publication. Privacy, rights, regulated advice, safety, security, and other high-consequence issues have an appropriate review path.

Plan and check evidence

6. Subject-matter input fits the question. Relevant expertise supplies distinctions, constraints, examples, or failure cases, and the record states what still needs documentary support.
7. Material factual claims have appropriate evidence. The claim-and-source record captures exact wording, source location, scope, and review result where required.
8. Primary sources are used when they establish the relevant fact. A source’s official status is not treated as proof of performance, context, or a fact outside its remit.
9. Independent sources are used accurately. Reporting, research, opinion, sponsored material, and analysis are labeled according to what they can establish.
10. Dates, versions, populations, and markets are preserved. Material limitations appear beside the affected claim, not only in internal notes.
11. Original observations are reproducible enough to assess. The record distinguishes setup, inputs, observed result, and proposed explanation.
12. Private or restricted material is protected. The page does not expose personal data, credentials, confidential information, or media without a suitable permission or license basis.

Write an answer a reader can use

Use the writing guide when a failed check needs explanation or a worked example. For material answer and offer passages, also read the passage on its own and verify that the subject, units, eligibility, and exclusions remain clear. This is a source-copy check, not an AI visibility test.

13. The opening gives a direct answer and relevant condition. It does not require a reader to infer the action from a long introduction.
14. The page explains mechanism and consequence. Instructions identify what to inspect, what result matters, and how that result changes the next action.
15. Terms are explained at the point of need. Technical vocabulary is used consistently and does not rely on an acronym expansion or glossary link alone.
16. The basis of statements is clear. Facts, original observations, analysis, recommendations, and hypothetical examples remain distinguishable.
17. Examples enable a decision. Hypothetical examples are labeled and do not invent customers, results, quotations, credentials, or case studies.
18. Headings and links describe the content. The hierarchy supports scanning and the structure is meaningful for readers using assistive technologies.
19. The page gives a checkable next action. It names the artifact, test, comparison, or decision that demonstrates progress.
20. Repetition and unsupported padding are removed. Each section adds necessary explanation, evidence, a condition, an example, or a route to another task.

Review, implement, and maintain

21. Every material claim was fact-checked as written. The reviewer opened the relevant source, compared scope and wording, and rechecked material revisions.
22. AI-assisted work received human review. Research leads, citations, calculations, examples, and prose were treated as input, not evidence or approval.
23. Attribution and usage rights are resolved. Quotations, media, data, and close paraphrases have an appropriate basis and required attribution.
24. Accessibility and comprehension checks are complete. The implemented page has meaningful headings, descriptive links, relevant alternatives or transcripts, and intelligible language for the intended reader.
25. Specialist review is recorded when required. A qualified reviewer checks material within the organization’s policy; their involvement is not invented or overstated.
26. Production matches the approved version. Copy, sources, links, media, metadata, and structured data do not introduce unsupported claims or private working material.
27. Authorship and production information are accurate. Disclose substantial automation where readers need it to assess evidence, originality, or limits; do not manufacture a byline, review, credential, or result.
28. Maintenance has an owner and trigger. Publication and substantive-update dates are shown only where the site’s policy calls for them and only when accurate. A correction, new evidence, product or policy change, role change, or scheduled review can reopen the page.

Complete the review

Resolve publication blockers first. Blockers include unsupported or misleading material claims, unresolved privacy or usage-rights issues, missing required editorial or specialist approval, and comprehension or accessibility defects that prevent the intended reader from completing the page’s task. Correct the defect, remove the affected material, or narrow the page’s scope until it can be supported, then repeat the affected checks. Assigning an owner and a future action does not make the page ready.

Schedule nonblocking improvements. Refinements such as smoother paragraph flow or an additional example can wait when the existing page is accurate, understandable, usable, and fulfills its stated task. Record why the improvement can wait, its owner, the next action, and a review date or trigger. An example needed to understand the task or a missing qualification that changes the answer is a blocker, not an optional refinement.

Complete the publication decision. The page is ready only when applicable checks have observable results, publication blockers are resolved, required approvals are recorded, and any remaining improvements have a documented schedule or review trigger. Verify that the implemented page matches the approved version before claiming publication checks are complete.

A public date is not a universal quality signal: use it accurately when it helps readers understand the currency of a time-sensitive page, while following the site’s current display policy for evergreen pages.

For an improvement task, start with Improve content for reader questions. For a full accountable process, use the editorial workflow.