An editorial workflow helps an author move from a reader's question to a reviewed article without losing track of scope, evidence, or changes. The steps below are a working checklist; they do not guarantee that an article is complete or error-free.
Define the reader's question
Write down what the article will answer, who it is for, and what it will leave out. A clear scope helps distinguish useful details from material that belongs in another guide. Use the opening to tell readers what the article covers and any important limits.
Match claims to sources
Collect sources before drafting claims that depend on facts, standards, current product details, or rules. Prefer the source closest to the claim, such as the responsible standards body, official manual, original study, or government publication. Record what each source supports and when it was checked.
During review, check important names, numbers, dates, quotations, and links against the source itself. If the source does not support a sentence, narrow the sentence, find better evidence, or remove it. Distinguish the source's statement from the author's interpretation.
Edit for use
Use headings that describe the sections, define unfamiliar terms, and remove repeated explanations. Tables and lists can help readers compare or follow steps when the content supports that structure. Keep caveats near the advice they qualify, especially when a process depends on location, equipment, or changing rules.
Maintain published material
Keep a record of corrections and substantive updates so an editor can explain what changed and why. Recheck a source when a reader reports a problem or when a standard, product, or rule may have changed. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics is a voluntary reference for ethical journalism; publishers can consult it as one source of principles, not as a certification or a substitute for their own review process.