The editorial decision

A source link can stop being useful even when it still opens. The destination may move, change scope or no longer contain the statement it once supported. Review important sources when updating an article and after a reader reports a problem. Keep the source title and the reason it was cited in the editorial record. This helps a future editor distinguish a missing URL from a deeper change in the underlying evidence.

A working method

If a source moves, look for the current official location and verify the relevant content before replacing the link. If the claim is no longer supported, revise or remove it rather than substituting an unrelated page from the same organisation. For historical reporting, make the timing clear and use an appropriate archived record where lawful and suitable. Do not imply that a source was checked recently unless it actually was. A broken-link checker can assist, but editorial judgment determines whether the evidence still fits.

Imagine this

Hypothetical example

A guide links to a provider document that now redirects to a general homepage. The editor locates the current documentation and discovers a changed eligibility condition. Both the citation and the article wording are updated, rather than merely replacing one working URL with another.

Make it practical.

Use this checklist as you read. Checks are not stored.

References & further reading

Further reading: Google people-first content guidance ↗

Published by Tap Tap Go. Product availability and eligibility vary by programme and market. About our stories.