TL;DR
Open the original source and find the statement supporting the exact claim. Check its scope and current status, then distinguish the documented fact from your recommendation. A citation is useful only when it supports what the page says.
Start with the sentence you want to publish
Write the claim in plain language before searching for a citation. “Google supports a particular markup type” is different from “this markup makes every assistant recommend a practice.” A source supporting the first does not establish the second.
For platform behavior, prefer the platform's own documentation. For practice facts, use the authorized operational owner and appropriate records. The expertise and responsibility review helps distinguish evidence about a person from permission to name them as an author or reviewer. For clinical or legal claims, involve the qualified reviewer and the evidence process appropriate to that subject. This guide concerns editorial checking; it does not supply clinical or legal expertise.
Ask four questions of each source
- Does it address this claim? Locate the relevant passage rather than citing a homepage.
- Does its scope match? Check the platform, feature, country, audience or circumstance covered.
- Is it current enough? Look for updates, retirement notices, qualifications or superseding guidance.
- What remains an inference? Identify any recommendation or conclusion you added.
Record the URL, title, access date, supported claim and review note. That record lets another editor repeat the check without trusting your memory.
Watch the jump from fact to promise
If a draft cites Google's SEO documentation to promise a top result within a fixed period, require evidence for that exact promise. The citation alone does not establish it. Google's starter guide says there are no secrets that automatically rank a site first. Google's SEO Starter Guide.
A useful rewrite would explain the specific improvement being proposed and how it will be checked. It would keep uncertain platform outcomes separate from the work the team controls.
The same discipline applies to a screenshot. An assistant naming a practice is evidence of that saved observation. It is not proof of permanent preference, market share or resulting appointments.
Use sources without copying their article
Explain only the documented point your reader needs, link near that point and add your own practical analysis. A long paraphrase of a platform guide usually contributes less than a short verified fact followed by a practice-owner decision tool.
Do not repeat the same citation throughout a library as a decorative trust signal. Give each article a distinct purpose and cite the source relevant to its actual claims.
Recheck when the article changes
A revised headline can outgrow the evidence even if the body originally passed review. Reopen source checks when a claim is expanded, a platform changes or a previously optional feature becomes unavailable.
If the source cannot be verified, narrow or remove the claim, or hold the draft for review. Do not replace missing evidence with a confident-sounding attribution to “research.”
Frequently asked questions
Is a reputable secondary source ever useful?
Yes, for context or interpretation. Follow it to the primary source when your claim concerns a platform rule, official requirement or original finding.
Must every recommendation have a citation?
No. Label original editorial recommendations as such and explain the reasoning. Cite factual assertions that need external support rather than pretending the source mandates your entire workflow.