Project

Editorial standards

How content is created, reviewed and corrected. The rules on this page are generated directly from the platform's code – they describe what the system actually enforces.

Publication workflow

Every entry has exactly one status. Transitions are only possible along the paths below. Approval and publication require at least one source, all required reviews of the current revision, approved illustrations and approved translations.

01
Draft
draft
First version, not yet researched or referenced.
Possible next steps: Researching · Expert review pending · Archived
02
Researching
researching
Sources are being located and evaluated.
Possible next steps: Draft · Expert review pending · Archived
03
Expert review pending
fact_check_required
Content is written; the fact check is pending.
Possible next steps: Researching · Illustration review · Translation review · Approved · Archived
04
Illustration review
technical_illustration_review
Drawings and diagrams are checked for technical accuracy.
Possible next steps: Expert review pending · Translation review · Approved · Archived
05
Translation review
translation_review
Translations are checked for accuracy and language.
Possible next steps: Expert review pending · Approved · Archived
06
Approved
approved
All required reviews are present.
Possible next steps: Published · Update required · Expert review pending
07
Published
published
Publicly visible and indexable.
Possible next steps: Update required · Archived
08
Update required
update_required
Published, but a revision is needed (e.g. after an error report).
Possible next steps: Expert review pending · Researching · Archived
09
Archived
archived
No longer public.
Possible next steps: Draft

Reviews by risk level

The higher the risk, the more reviews are needed. Each review is recorded by a named person with a role for a specific revision. The system never creates reviews automatically.

Reviews by risk level
Risk level	Required reviews
General knowledge	Fact check by editor or senior editor or subject expert
Practical skill	Fact check by editor or senior editor or subject expert
Safety relevant	Fact check by senior editor or subject expert Safety review by subject expert
Only with expert instruction	Fact check by senior editor or subject expert Safety review by subject expert
Emergency critical	Fact check by subject expert Safety review by subject expert Medical review by medical professional

No external reviewers have been appointed. The content is written and maintained by the editors; error reports go straight into corrections.

AI policy

AI tools may help with drafting, outlining and translation suggestions.
AI output is always treated as a draft. It goes through the same review process as any other text.
Sources, quotes, measurements and experts are never invented by AI or adopted unchecked. Every source must be opened and checked by a person.
Missing translations are visibly labelled, not silently machine-filled.
Technical illustrations are generated deterministically from reviewed structured data, not as freely generated images.
Recommendations in the situation explorer and material finder follow visible rules – no AI decides.

Corrections

Errors can be reported at any time via the report form – anonymously if you prefer.
Every report is reviewed by the editors. If it concerns safety, the entry is set to “update required” until the correction has been reviewed.
Content corrections increase the entry's revision. Reviews only apply to the revision they were recorded for.
Significant corrections are documented with a date on the entry.

Report an error Source register