Editorial Fact-Check Checklist Template

Fact-Check Log (fill-in)

When to use: One row per claim with its primary source, reviewer, date, verdict and correction, plus owners and a completion check.

Editorial fact-check log

One log per article. One row per checkable claim: every price, stat, quote, product limit, date and named fact. Fill the header first.

Log header

• Article and URL: [title] / [/blog/slug/]
• Writer: [name] - Fact-checker: [name, not the writer]
• Draft version checked: [v3, date]
• Publication gate owner: [editor who signs the gate]
• Re-check date for changing facts: [date]

Per-row detail (fill for every claim)

• Exact quote from the source: [the sentence or table cell that supports the claim]
• Source owner: [who published it: vendor, regulator, researcher, interviewee]
• Second source (for contested claims): [URL or none needed]
• Archive or screenshot: [file name or archive link]
• Can change? [yes: re-check by date / no]
• Note for the reader: [as of date, region, plan or sample limits to state on the page]

Next action

• Fact-checker: [name] - action: check every row against its primary source by [date]
• Writer: [name] - action: apply every fix and cut, then send the new draft version
• Editor: [name] - action: run the publication gate and sign it with a date

Completion check

• Every price, stat, quote, product limit and date in the draft has a row.
• Every row links a primary source, or the claim is cut or marked hold.
• The reviewer is not the writer, and every row has a reviewer and date.
• No row is still marked hold at publish time.
• Changing facts have a re-check date in the calendar.

Ask writers to list sources in the brief with Content Brief, so the log starts half full. After publish, re-run the Website Audit to catch broken links and redirect chains on the page.

Setting this up for a whole content team? Book a free consultation with Anatolii Ulitovskyi. House rules for tone and sourcing live in the Content Style Guide Template.

Claim Finder and Source Ladder

When to use: Spot every checkable claim in a draft and pick the right primary source for each claim type.

Find every claim first

Print the draft or copy it into a doc. Highlight anything a reader could prove wrong. Each highlight becomes a row in the log.

Claims to highlight

• Prices and plans: amounts, currency, billing period, free tiers, trial length.
• Stats: any number, ranking, share or trend, plus the sample behind it.
• Quotes: direct quotes, paraphrases and job titles.
• Product limits: caps, integrations, supported platforms, what a feature does.
• Dates: launches, deadlines, policy changes, "new" and "latest".
• Names: people, companies, product names and their spelling.
• Superlatives: first, only, biggest, fastest, most popular.

Source ladder: what counts as primary

Rules borrowed from fact-checkers

• The IFCN Code of Principles asks signatories to use the best available primary sources, not secondary ones, and to check key claims against more than one named source where possible.
• It also asks for enough detail on sources that readers could replicate the work. Your log is that record.

AI-drafted copy

Treat every number, name and quote in an AI draft as unverified until it has a row and a source. Cut any citation you cannot open.

Want to see how AI answers already describe your brand or product facts? Run the AI Visibility Checker and log any wrong claim you find.

Pre-Publish Gate

When to use: A sign-off checklist the editor completes before the article goes live. One no means it holds.

Pre-publish gate

The editor signs this gate. One "no" means the article holds. Publishing with an open row is a decision, so write down who made it.

Gate signed by: [editor] on [date]. Held because: [open row numbers]

Why the gate maps to Google's guidance

• Google's people-first content self-assessment asks: "Does the content have any easily-verified factual errors?"
• It also asks if it is self-evident who wrote the content, and how automation or AI was used.
• Google's byline date docs suggest a visible date with a clear label and matching datePublished or dateModified.

Run the final draft through the Content Optimizer and the Readability Checker after the fact-check, so edits for flow do not reopen claims.

Corrections Note Pattern

When to use: Labels, wording and placement for corrections, clarifications and updates after publish.

Corrections note pattern

Mistakes happen. What readers judge is how you fix them. Publish a short policy, then use the same note format every time.

Pick the right label

Note template

Correction ([date]): An earlier version of this article said [wrong claim]. It is [correct claim], per [source]. We have updated [section].

Update ([date]): [Vendor] changed [what] on [date]. This article now reflects [new fact].

Placement and logging

• Put the note at the top for errors that change the article's main point. Otherwise at the end.
• Fix the claim in the body. Do not leave the wrong text in place.
• Change the visible "Last updated" date and dateModified together.
• Add the correction to the fact-check log row and link the note.
• Tell anyone who flagged the error that it is fixed, and thank them.

Policy page basics

The IFCN Code of Principles asks signatories to publish a corrections policy, follow it, and correct clearly and transparently. A marketing site can borrow that standard.

State how to report an error, who reviews it, and the labels above. Link the policy from your About page. The About Page E-E-A-T Template shows where it fits.

Spreadsheet Header (CSV)

When to use: A paste-ready header row and allowed values to run the log in Google Sheets or Excel.

Paste-ready spreadsheet header

Paste this row into cell A1 of Google Sheets or Excel, then split text to columns by comma. One row per claim.

article_url,claim_id,claim_text,claim_type,primary_source_url,source_quote,archive_ref,can_change,recheck_date,reviewer,review_date,verdict,correction_text,gate_status,gate_owner,gate_date,correction_note_url

Allowed values

• claim_type: price, stat, quote, product-limit, date, name, superlative, policy
• verdict: verified, fix, cut, hold
• can_change: yes, no
• gate_status: open, held, passed, published, corrected

Sheet tips

• Highlight any row where verdict is hold. The article cannot pass the gate.
• Highlight rows where reviewer equals the writer.
• Sort by recheck_date to build a monthly re-check list for prices and limits.
• Filter by claim_type to see which kinds of claims break most often on your site.

Schedule the re-checks next to refreshes from the Content Audit and Refresh Template.

Worked Example (fictional email tool blog)

When to use: A filled-in log for an invented SaaS blog post, with a cut stat, a fixed quote and a later update note.

Worked example: Tidlemark email scheduling blog

Example only. Tidlemark is an invented email scheduling tool. Pellucine Research is an invented publisher. All people, URLs, prices, numbers and dates below are made up.

• Article: "How to schedule cold emails by time zone" at /blog/schedule-by-time-zone/
• Writer: Ines - Fact-checker: Bram - Gate owner: Odile
• Draft checked: v2, 2 Oct

What the gate caught

• The price row missed the billing period. The page now shows both prices with an "as of" date.
• The open-time stat had no original source. It was cut, not softened.
• The quote was paraphrased in quote marks. It now uses the speaker's exact words.
• Odile signed the gate on 3 Oct with no rows on hold.

Two weeks later

Tidlemark raised the monthly price. The team fixed the body, changed Last updated and dateModified, and added this note:

Update (17 Oct): Tidlemark changed Team plan pricing on 16 Oct. This article now shows the new monthly price.