These standards govern topic selection, research, drafting, review, labels, updates, and commercial separation. They apply to plant profiles, guides, comparisons, problem pages, tools, category pages, and policy content.
Accuracy Over False Precision
We aim to publish instructions that fit the named plant and the stated setting.
A technically true fact can still mislead when the plant stage, climate, soil, dose, or timeframe has been removed. Editors check those boundaries along with names, units, dates, links, tables, and the relationship between a symptom and its possible causes.
We distinguish observation from diagnosis and possibility from probability. We avoid guarantees about plant performance, because weather, starting material, site history, and care all differ.
When evidence cannot support a precise number or a single answer, we use a range, explain the variables, or state the uncertainty directly.
Evidence must suit the claim
University extension programs, current government resources, scientific literature, recognized botanical institutions, and product labels carry the most weight for claims within their scope.
Reputable horticultural references can contribute practical context. A retailer, manufacturer, personal account, or search result may identify a question, but commercial popularity does not establish a biological claim.
Sources should be close enough to the claim that a reader can inspect the support. We do not use automated drafting output as a source.
Our Research and Verification Methodology sets out the full source hierarchy and conflict process.
Editorial decisions stay separate from revenue
Editorial may decide
Which question deserves coverage, which sources control a claim, what conclusion follows, which limitations must be visible, and whether a product is appropriate to mention.
A commercial party may not decide
The conclusion, rating, recommendation, comparison set, safety warning, correction outcome, or whether material criticism is removed.
Advertising placement, an affiliate arrangement, a free product, or a sponsorship must be disclosed where it could affect how a reasonable reader reads the page. Commercial status does not turn a marketing claim into evidence.
Our current arrangements and standard labels are described in the Advertising and Affiliate Disclosure.
Assisted Drafting
Automated tools may help organize research notes, identify gaps, propose outlines, transform structured content, or prepare language for editorial review. They can also repeat a common myth, invent a source, flatten meaningful differences between plants, or produce confident instructions without the conditions that make them valid.
- Tool output is never cited as evidence.
- Material factual claims require an appropriate source and a traceable evidence note.
- Plant-specific differences must survive drafting; a category template cannot replace them.
- Links, names, numbers, safety statements, and current status claims receive direct checks.
- The published page remains subject to correction regardless of which tools helped prepare it.
What Review Labels Mean
Review depth follows risk, complexity, and available evidence. A low-risk plant-selection page and an article involving pesticides or structural tree hazards should not get the same check.
We do not imply that every page has been reviewed by a named horticulturist, arborist, scientist, physician, or veterinarian.
Editorially reviewed
An editor checked structure, support, clarity, internal consistency, and page function. The label does not itself claim specialist credentials.
Expert reviewed
This label should appear only when a relevant, identifiable reviewer actually checked the stated scope and that review is documented.
Last updated
The displayed date marks a material content or policy revision, not a promise that every linked source was republished that day.
No review label
The content still follows site standards, but readers should not infer a review event that the page does not document.
Sensitive Topics
Plant toxicity, edible identification, pesticide and fertilizer use, invasive species, wildlife, fire, power equipment, ladders, buried utilities, structural trees, medical concerns, and animal health can cause harm when advice is incomplete. We use current controlling sources where available, keep safety instructions attached to their conditions, and direct readers to local or licensed help when a webpage cannot inspect the risk.
Readers must follow current product labels and local rules. A photo or description cannot reliably confirm every edible plant, disease, hazard tree, exposure, or emergency.
We will not trade those limits for a more confident headline.
Corrections and significant updates
- Receive the report. We need the URL, disputed wording, reason for concern, and a reliable source when available.
- Trace ownership. We determine whether the issue entered through evidence, drafting, data, rendering, or an upstream content contract.
- Evaluate the claim. We compare the existing support with the new evidence and preserve uncertainty where facts remain disputed.
- Correct at the source. We update the owning page or system and revise the date when the change is material.
Minor spelling, formatting, or link repairs may not receive a public note. A correction that changes a safety instruction, central conclusion, material comparison, or commercial disclosure should be handled promptly and clearly.
How to challenge our work
Specific feedback is more useful than a general disagreement. Quote the passage, explain the observed problem, identify your region or growing setting when relevant, and link the strongest source you believe we missed.
Personal experience can reveal a gap, though we may need independent evidence before turning it into a general recommendation.
Send reports to [email protected] or use the Contact page. We review criticism on its merits, and a sponsor, advertiser, seller, or affiliate partner does not get a different correction standard.
Images, assets, and accessibility
Images should teach, identify, orient, or establish a deliberate editorial setting.
We do not use a generated face to imply a real employee, reviewer, customer, or testimonial. Generated and illustrative assets must not fabricate a diagnostic observation, product result, credential, or field event.
Captions and nearby copy should make the role of an illustration clear when a reasonable reader could mistake it for documentary evidence.
Production review checks meaningful alternative text, heading order, keyboard-accessible controls, readable contrast, sensible line length, stable card distribution, and layouts that avoid unnecessary breaks. A polished page remains defective when a reader cannot navigate it or distinguish evidence from decoration.
Product coverage and comparisons
A product belongs in coverage because it fits the reader’s decision, not because a seller offers a commission.
We consider intended use, measurable specifications, significant constraints, maintenance, available evidence, and the alternatives a reasonable buyer would compare. A useful list explains why the included choices differ instead of filling a grid with interchangeable cards.
We distinguish manufacturer specifications, independent evidence, and editorial assessment. Price and availability can change after publication, so readers must inspect the current destination.
Supplied products, affiliate links, and sponsorships follow the same disclosure rules whether our conclusion is positive, negative, or mixed.
Headlines, summaries, metadata, and navigation labels follow the same accuracy standard as the article body. A cautious paragraph cannot repair a title that promises certainty the evidence does not support.
Editors check the complete reading path, including cards and calls to action a reader may see before the detailed limitations.