Review policy

Editorial and Review Policy for Private Well Water Content

This page explains what gets reviewed before a guide is published or refreshed, and what kinds of claims are not allowed.

Public trust asset Indexable Last updated 2026-03-07

Review policy

What we review before publishing

Public pages are checked for scope, source fit, and whether the proposed next step is stronger than the available evidence.

Working rule

Pages should separate health risk, nuisance issues, and corrosion clues instead of collapsing them into one alarmist answer.

Working rule

A treatment comparison should not appear as a verdict when certified testing or scope clarification is still missing.

Working rule

State-specific pages should show why the state context changes the next action instead of merely repeating a state name.

Review policy

This project blocks a few common patterns because they create bad private-well decisions.

Working rule

No fear-based copy that tries to force a purchase before testing or verification.

Working rule

No pretending a home kit, product listing, or affiliate page is stronger than certified lab evidence.

Working rule

No broad claims that a single category solves every odor, stain, radionuclide, or contaminant problem.

Review policy

If a page has weak sourcing, stale logic, or a misleading comparison, the page should be revised before more surface area is added.

Working rule

Source-trail dates exist so older research can be spotted and refreshed.

Working rule

High-risk health topics should be refreshed faster than low-stakes nuisance pages.

Working rule

When the evidence is weak, the correct outcome is a narrower recommendation, not more confident copy.