We would approve a factual claim only after matching it to a source passage that supports the wording actually being published. A working link is the start of that check. It does not prove that the author read the right section or carried the limits into the article.
Start with one checkable claim
Take the sentence “This setting prevents every search engine from indexing the page immediately.” It contains several claims: what the setting does, which engines recognize it and when it takes effect. Split those questions before searching. Otherwise a source that supports only one part can make the whole sentence look established.
Google’s noindex documentation provides a concrete test. Google must be able to crawl the page to see the rule. A robots.txt block can prevent that, and the blocked URL can still appear in results. That does not support a promise about every search engine or immediate removal. A defensible rewrite is: “For Google to process this page’s noindex rule, allow it to crawl the page.”
Open the source, then locate the evidence
- Open the exact URL. Check the final destination, publication or update date, and whether it is the document the citation promises.
- Find the passage that supports the claim. A search snippet or another article repeating it is not a substitute for that passage.
- Record the subject, population, location, version, measurement and conditions that limit the result.
- Compare the article’s verbs with the source. “May help” does not establish “guarantees,” and an observed association does not establish causation.
Choose authority for the kind of claim
For a product’s current behavior, start with its official documentation or the behavior you can directly verify. For a study’s result, inspect the study and its methods. For a company’s booking conditions, use the responsible company’s current approved policy. A secondary explanation can help interpret a subject, but repeated summaries do not become independent confirmations just because several sites carry them.
Resolve conflicts at the claim level
If two sources disagree, check whether they describe different dates, versions, locations or populations. Keep a short record of the difference and which authority controls this statement. If the conflict remains material, narrow the claim to what is established, obtain the specific missing answer, or remove the unsupported assertion. Do not average incompatible prices, dates or safety rules into a new answer.
An inaccessible source is an unresolved evidence problem. It is not proof that the claim is false, and it is not permission to pretend the article was read. Look for a publicly accessible original or another authoritative source that independently supports the same claim. If the exact result cannot be established, revise the article accordingly.
Keep a compact evidence record
| Record | Why it helps |
|---|---|
| Claim as published | Shows exactly what needs support |
| Source and exact supporting passage | Lets another editor reproduce the check |
| Effective date and scope | Prevents an older or narrower result becoming a universal rule |
| Editorial action | Keep, qualify, correct or remove, with the reason |
Place the citation beside the statement it supports and make the anchor describe the source or topic. The reader should be able to tell what the link substantiates. Avoid attaching one distant citation to a paragraph that mixes an official rule, an opinion and an unrelated numerical promise.
The final check is a reread of the finished article against the evidence record. Corrections can change the scope after the first review. Approve the revised claim, preserve the supporting source and remove abandoned assertions, rather than assuming an earlier citation approves every later rewrite.
