Review claims that matter to a buyer
Read the statements about what your business provides, how it works and who it is suitable for. Prices, guarantees, qualifications and integrations deserve a careful check against your current public information.
The most useful reviewer knows the business well enough to notice an invented capability or an outdated promise. An article can be grammatically clean and still give a customer the wrong expectation. Correct the underlying business facts when the issue could affect future articles too.
Choose what happens while you are away
Review mode can hold a draft until someone acts, or publish an unanswered draft after your selected waiting period. The setting should match the risk of the subject and the availability of your reviewer.
For specialist topics or a new product launch, holding for an explicit decision may be appropriate. For familiar evergreen subjects, a timed policy may fit your process. Review the actual article and source links before changing it to automatic publishing.
Resolve the right problem
A held article may need a claim corrected or a check retried. A delivery failure may instead involve the CMS connection or destination page. Open the article to read the explanation before deciding what to do next.
Automated checks can miss errors. They also cannot supply the judgement of a qualified specialist for legal, medical or other sensitive advice. Use human review for the subjects that need it, and keep those editorial responsibilities clear within your team.
Common questions
- Can a draft wait indefinitely?
- Yes. In review mode, choose the setting that holds unanswered drafts instead of automatically publishing them after a waiting period.
- Are source checks the same as expert review?
- No. They are part of the article workflow. A person still needs to assess important claims, specialist advice and whether the article accurately represents the business.