AI assistance does not create a separate, lower publishing standard. The finished article still needs to be accurate, useful and accountable, with extra attention paid to invented facts, undisclosed automation and wording that could have appeared on any competing site. This checklist is designed for a small team reviewing a real page before publication.

1. Purpose and audience

  • [ ] The article serves an existing or clearly intended audience.
  • [ ] It answers one defined decision or problem.
  • [ ] The topic fits the site’s stated purpose.
  • [ ] The page would still be worth publishing without search traffic.
  • [ ] The reader can tell what the article covers and excludes.

If the only reason for the page is that a keyword tool reported volume, return to the brief.

2. Original value

  • [ ] The article adds a framework, comparison, calculation, process or documented observation.
  • [ ] It does more than summarize the first available sources.
  • [ ] It avoids generic advice that could apply to every product.
  • [ ] Examples are concrete and accurate.
  • [ ] Any first-hand experience is real and documented.

Google’s people-first guidance asks whether content provides original information, analysis or substantial value beyond other results. When generic production becomes easier, the reason for publishing each page needs to become clearer.

3. Evidence and accuracy

  • [ ] Material claims are listed in an evidence ledger.
  • [ ] Primary sources are used where available.
  • [ ] Every source opens and supports the sentence.
  • [ ] Prices, limits and dates were checked recently.
  • [ ] Numbers and calculations were reproduced.
  • [ ] Vendor claims are attributed.
  • [ ] Unknown information is labeled or removed.
  • [ ] No quotation, statistic or source was invented.

For high-impact topics such as security, privacy, law, health or finance, require a suitably qualified reviewer.

4. Product-content integrity

  • [ ] The comparison criteria are stated.
  • [ ] Products are compared on equivalent plans or the difference is explained.
  • [ ] A rating has a documented scoring method.
  • [ ] “Best” names the use case and comparison set.
  • [ ] The article includes meaningful drawbacks.
  • [ ] It says who should not buy the product.
  • [ ] Direct testing is claimed only when evidence exists.
  • [ ] Vendor-provided access or benefits are disclosed.

5. Writing and usefulness

  • [ ] The short answer appears near the top.
  • [ ] Headings follow the reader’s natural questions.
  • [ ] Paragraphs make one main point.
  • [ ] Important terms are defined in plain language.
  • [ ] The article does not repeat the conclusion to increase length.
  • [ ] Transitions and examples sound specific to this page.
  • [ ] The reader leaves with a clear next action.

Google explicitly says it has no preferred word count. Stop when the reader’s task is complete.

6. Authorship and automation context

  • [ ] The byline is accurate.
  • [ ] The publisher and contact route are visible.
  • [ ] The editorial basis is stated: source-led research, direct testing or another method.
  • [ ] Material AI assistance is explained where readers would reasonably expect context.
  • [ ] A human editor accepts responsibility for the final page.

An automation disclosure should describe the real process. Do not claim “human reviewed” if the only review was another automated prompt.

7. Search and page quality

  • [ ] The title accurately summarizes the page without exaggeration.
  • [ ] The meta description matches the visible content.
  • [ ] The URL is short and descriptive.
  • [ ] The page is internally linked from a relevant hub.
  • [ ] Important content is available as text.
  • [ ] Images are useful, licensed and accurately captioned.
  • [ ] Alternative text describes informative images.
  • [ ] Structured data matches the visible page.
  • [ ] Canonical, indexability and status code are correct.

There is no special markup required for Google AI Overviews or AI Mode. Standard search eligibility and quality remain the foundation.

8. Commercial transparency

  • [ ] Affiliate relationships are disclosed clearly.
  • [ ] Commercial links use appropriate sponsored attributes.
  • [ ] The call to action does not overstate urgency or savings.
  • [ ] The final price is left for the vendor to confirm.
  • [ ] Sponsorship, supplied access or other material relationships are labeled.
  • [ ] A commercial relationship does not grant editorial approval.

9. Final independent review

  • [ ] A second pass checked every material claim.
  • [ ] Broken links were tested.
  • [ ] Spelling, grammar and duplicated language were checked.
  • [ ] Tables remain readable on a small screen.
  • [ ] The page builds without an error.
  • [ ] The publication date is real.
  • [ ] A correction route is available.

The issues that should stop publication

Do not publish if any of these are true:

  • a material claim lacks evidence;
  • the article invents experience or results;
  • the page offers no value beyond a generic summary;
  • the author or editorial basis is misleading;
  • the recommendation lacks criteria;
  • a security, legal or privacy claim has not received the necessary review.

Smaller imperfections can be corrected through a transparent update. The failures above affect the basis on which the page asks for trust and should be resolved before it reaches readers.

Sources