Fact-Check SOP – verify stats, names, quotes, links, spellings, and dates; keep a source log for every paid article
You want to write blog posts, essays, magazine pieces, guest posts, or journal-style articles for professional websites like WIRED.com and you want to get paid, not just published. This Fact-Check SOP turns that big scary idea of “fact-checking” into a calm, repeatable checklist that you follow before you send any draft to an editor. You will walk through your piece in fact-check mode, you will verify every important name, number, date, quote, and link against trusted sources, and you will keep a simple source log that proves where each fact came from. This habit protects your reputation, saves editors time, prevents embarrassing corrections, and makes it easier for them to hire you again and again.
The 12-minute fact-check pass for any paying outlet
You will not fact-check “whenever you remember”. Instead you will run a short, focused fact-check pass near the end of your writing process. Think of it as switching from writer mode to checker mode. In this pass you are not rewriting your story. You are only asking one question for every claim: “Where did this fact come from, and have I verified it?” Use this pass for any serious outlet: a technology feature for WIRED-style sites, a reported blog post, a service article, or a narrative feature.
12-Minute Fact-Check — minute by minute
- Save a copy of your draft named StorySlug_FactCheck so you can highlight and annotate freely without touching the final file.
- Read the piece once, slowly, and highlight all names, numbers, dates, locations, quotes, brand/product names, job titles, and strong claims (“first”, “biggest”, “only”, “proved”, etc.).
- Give each highlight a simple Fact ID like F01, F02, and so on. You will reuse these IDs in your source log.
- For each person in your story, confirm the spelling of their name, their job title, and the organisation name using a primary source: company site, university page, professional profile, or direct email.
- For each place, check the correct spelling, city, region, and country. Confirm that the location actually exists and is used in the way you describe (for example, a lab, a startup office, a conference venue).
- Update your draft so that names, diacritics, and capitalisation match the most authoritative source you can find.
- For every statistic or number (market size, percentages, study results, budgets, user counts), click through to the original dataset, study, or official document, not just a secondary blog that repeated it.
- Confirm the unit (millions vs billions), the timeframe (year, quarter), and whether the number is global, regional, or tied to a specific country.
- If you convert between currencies or measurement systems, double-check the maths with a fresh calculation and write the conversion source in your source log.
- For every direct quote, compare the words in your draft against your recording or notes. Make sure names, technical terms, and emotional tone are represented fairly.
- For every paraphrase, ask if you have changed the meaning or added a stronger claim than the source actually made. If needed, soften the language or quote directly instead.
- Check that you have not pulled a dramatic sentence out of context in a way that misleads the reader about what the source believes or experienced.
- Check all calendar dates against at least one solid source, especially for launches, announcements, and historical events. Make sure the year is correct and matches the rest of your story.
- Replace fuzzy phrases like “recently” or “last year” with clearer ones when needed, especially if the publisher might update or republish your article later.
- Read your story once focusing only on sequence (what happened first, second, third) and make sure the order matches the evidence you have.
- Click every hyperlink to confirm that it works, goes to the page you expect, and actually supports the fact next to it. Remove low-quality links that add no real proof.
- For each Fact ID in your draft, add a line in your source log with the claim, the verification source, the date you checked, and the status (confirmed, updated, disputed, or removed).
- Finally, run a brief spelling and grammar check focusing on names, brand names, and specialised terms. Update your source log one last time if you change anything factual.
What you fact-check (and what you record in your source log)
In professional editorial fact-checking, the default rule is simple: check every fact that can be checked. To make this easier, you will work with seven fact groups. For each group, you will write one short sentence in your notes and one precise line in your source log. This table acts as your quick map before and after each fact-check pass.
| Fact group | Examples in your article | Minimum check & what to log |
|---|---|---|
| People & organisations | Names of founders, CEOs, researchers, activists, interviewees; company and institution names. | Confirm full spelling, titles, and affiliations from official sites or direct communication. Log: Fact ID, person’s name, source URL or file, date checked. |
| Places & geography | City and country names, neighbourhoods, campuses, lab locations, event venues, regions. | Verify spelling, location, and relevance using maps and official pages. Log: Fact ID, place name, reference source, and any nuance (for example, “suburb of…”, “near…”). |
| Numbers & statistics | Market sizes, study results, performance metrics, financial figures, user counts, percentages. | Trace every number back to the original dataset or document. Log: Fact ID, exact number as used, original figure, unit, time period, and citation. |
| Dates & timelines | Product launches, funding rounds, policy changes, historical events, “since” and “for X years” claims. | Check against at least one strong source (press release, regulator, archive). Log: Fact ID, date as printed, verified date, and how you resolved any conflict. |
| Quotes & paraphrases | Direct quotes, paraphrased statements, second-hand quotes from other articles or reports. | Compare to recordings, transcripts, or original articles. Log: Fact ID, quote target, verification source, and whether you edited wording for clarity. |
| Links & external sources | Hyperlinks to studies, reports, company pages, blog posts, videos, or other coverage. | Open each link, confirm it supports the fact and is a trustworthy source. Log: Fact ID, destination URL, source type (study, news, blog), and status (kept, replaced, removed). |
| Superlatives & strong claims | “First”, “largest”, “only”, “most advanced”, “proves that”, “guarantees”. | Look for competing examples and counter-evidence. Log: Fact ID, phrase used, scope (region, time period), and whether you softened or deleted the claim. |
| Spellings & specialised terms | Technical vocabulary, acronyms, product names, scientific names, legal terms, brand spellings. | Check at least one style guide or authoritative reference. Log: Fact ID, preferred spelling, source (style guide, official doc), and any outlet-specific preferences. |
Template_01: Fact-Check & Source Canvas — [Editable] Fill for every story
Your goal is to see all important facts for one story on a single page. Each box here corresponds to one fact group in the table above. When the canvas is complete and your source log is filled, you can submit the piece knowing you have checked the most risky items that editors and fact-checkers will look at first.
Build a simple source log so any editor can see your evidence trail
Your source log is the quiet document that proves you did your homework. It does not have to be fancy. A single table is enough, as long as you use it consistently. For every serious story, especially for outlets with a reputation like WIRED, you should be able to hand this log to an editor or fact-checker and let them recreate your checks quickly.
| Fact ID | Claim as printed | Fact type | Verification source | Checked on | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F01 | “Meta’s fact-checking partnerships launched in [year].” | Date / background | [Link to official announcement or reputable coverage] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | Confirmed | Cross-checked with second independent news source. |
| F02 | “The startup has raised $25 million in Series B funding.” | Money / number | [SEC filing / press release / reputable funding database] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | Updated | Original draft had $20 million; corrected after new round was announced. |
| F03 | “According to researcher [Name], AI-generated personas fooled several publications.” | Quote / claim | [Interview transcript / email / recorded call] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | Confirmed | Checked wording against transcript; adjusted sentence for clarity, kept meaning identical. |
| F04 | “The report estimates that 26% of UK adults used a fact-checking website at least once.” | Statistic | [Original report PDF or data table] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | Confirmed | Verified base sample size and date of survey; figure is national, not global. |
| F05 | “The company claims its tool ‘eliminates all misinformation’.” | Superlative / marketing claim | [Company marketing page / product FAQ] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | Softened | Rephrased in article as “markets its tool as…” and added independent expert skepticism in the next paragraph. |
| F06 | “The investigation was retracted after fact-checkers found serious errors.” | Historical / sensitive | [Official retraction note / editor’s letter] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | Confirmed | Mentioned retraction date and outlet for transparency, avoided repeating disputed details. |
Manage writing and earning at one place
While writing on multiple websites you can miss your progress and earning records. Clickup is a tool to manage all your writings and earnings at one place.Recommended: Clickup — find what’s working, track progress, and collect payment details all at one single place
Collect missions, sections, voice, submission paths, and payment info inside one dashboard so you can focus on ideas and delivery. Why it helps: fewer misses, faster decisions, smoother content writing. Clickup – Manage Writing And Earning From A Single Place→Fact-Check SOP · Part 2 — Canvas, error log, and career-building habits
In this second part you will turn your fact-checking work into a simple system you can reuse for every assignment. You will fill a Fact-Check Canvas, you will maintain a small error & correction log, and you will score each article before you submit. This is still a data-collection SOP, so you are not writing emails or pitches here, you are only collecting and organising information that proves your article is reliable. When you send your work to a website like a tech magazine, a niche blog, or a journal, this invisible preparation makes you look like a professional that editors want to hire again and again.
Template_02: Six-Box Fact-Check Canvas — [Editable] Fill Your Own Data
Copy this Fact-Check Canvas under your article outline. Fill it slowly and honestly. It becomes your “control room” where you can see, in one place, which parts of the story are strong, which facts need extra work, and what you will tell an editor if they ask, “Where did this number come from?”
Pre-Filled Example · Six-Box Fact-Check Canvas (Demo tech article)
This is a fictional example for a technology feature that could appear on a site like a tech magazine. Replace everything with your own details when you work on real assignments.
Error patterns & correction log — learn once, fix forever
Even careful writers make mistakes. The difference between a casual writer and a professional is simple: a professional pays attention to what goes wrong repeatedly and builds tiny systems that make those errors less likely next time. You will keep an “Error & Correction Log” only for yourself. It is a short table that follows you from article to article and turns every small problem into a permanent improvement.
| Error type | Example | Prevention rule you write | Log column idea |
|---|---|---|---|
| Name spelling | You once wrote “Stephan” instead of “Stefan” in a quote. | “I never publish a name unless I have checked it against a primary profile or email signature.” | Names — tick “Profile checked?” |
| Old statistics | You used a 2018 usage stat even though a 2024 report existed. | “I always search for a newer edition (year + topic + ‘report’) before accepting any stat.” | Stats — column “Last updated year?” |
| Timeline confusion | Events in your story appeared in the wrong order. | “I draw a tiny time line with dates in my notes before writing the narrative.” | Timeline — “Sketch done? Yes/No” |
| Weak attribution | You wrote “Experts say” without naming anyone. | “I do not use vague ‘experts say’ phrases. I either name the source or cut the line.” | Attribution — “Named source?” |
| Broken links | One of your key URLs returned a 404 error. | “I click every link inside the CMS preview or final doc before I deliver.” | Links — “Clicked after paste?” |
Fact-check heatmap — score each article before you send it
A simple score helps you decide if a draft is really ready for an editor at a serious outlet. You will quickly rate your work from 1 (weak) to 5 (very strong) in six areas: names, numbers, quotes, dates, links, and overall documentation. The goal is not to chase a perfect score but to avoid sending work that is obviously under-checked.
| Area | Score you aim for | Minimum rule before you submit |
|---|---|---|
| Names & identities | 4 or 5 | Every name, title and organisation has been checked once from an official or primary profile. |
| Numbers & stats | 4 or 5 | Each main number is traced back to a clearly named report, dataset, or document. |
| Quotes & paraphrases | 4 or 5 | All quotes checked against recordings or notes; paraphrases clearly match what the person meant. |
| Dates & timelines | 3 or higher | Events appear in the right order and relative phrases are grounded in real dates in your notes. |
| Links & anchors | 3 or higher | Every URL opens and supports the claim it is attached to; anchors describe the linked page accurately. |
| Source log & folder | 3 or higher | A basic fact log exists and main PDFs / transcripts are saved in a clear folder for future reference. |
Handoff data — what your editor or fact-checker actually needs from you
Some publications have their own fact-checkers. Some expect the writer to do most of it. In both cases, editors love when a writer shares clear, simple information that makes the checking process smooth. You are not sending this automatically; you are just ready to provide it if they ask.
| Item | What it contains | Why it helps them |
|---|---|---|
| Source list | Short list of main reports, datasets, and interviews (titles + organisations). | Saves time finding key documents and people. |
| Fact log (optional) | ID, claim, source, status; especially useful for complex feature stories. | Gives a direct map between the text and the evidence. |
| Interview notes | Transcripts, time-stamped notes, or written Q&A, clearly labelled by person. | Allows a checker to confirm quotes and context quickly. |
| Clarification notes | Short explanations where wording is cautious on purpose or evidence is limited. | Helps editors understand why you used phrases like “estimate” or “early study”. |
How strong fact-checking turns into more money and better assignments
When an editor knows you deliver clean, well-checked work, several quiet but powerful things start to happen. Your pitches get a warmer look, your drafts move through edits faster, and you are trusted with more complex, higher-fee stories. This section collects the small mental models that keep you focused on long-term earning instead of only one article.
Fewer factual corrections → higher trust → more repeat work → more stable income.
Editors are more likely to assign deep features and investigations to writers who have already proven they check carefully.
- Invisible portfolio: Your public portfolio shows headlines and bylines. Your invisible portfolio is the number of corrections you never had to publish because you caught issues in advance.
- Rate defence: When negotiating higher fees later, you can honestly say you include a full fact-check pass with your process. This is a value-add, not a nice extra.
- Client mix: High-trust, high-standard clients rarely want to train a new writer from zero. Your fact-checking system quietly signals that you already understand their level.
- Time leverage: A reusable canvas, log, and checklist remove thinking time from basic tasks, leaving more mental space for the creative and strategic parts of writing that actually move your income.
7-day fact-check habit builder — one small action per day
Instead of trying to become “perfect” overnight, you will build a gentle weekly routine. Each day you do one small thing that raises your fact-checking level over time. You can repeat this seven-day cycle whenever your schedule allows.
| Day | Small action | Result after 10 minutes |
|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Pick one old article you wrote and underline every checkable fact. | You see how many facts live in a normal 1,000-word story. |
| Day 2 | Make a tiny fact log for that article with 10 Fact IDs. | You understand how to minimise the log while still covering key claims. |
| Day 3 | Practice verifying five names and titles using official sources. | You become faster at finding reliable profiles and checking spellings. |
| Day 4 | Practice tracing three statistics back to original reports. | You practise reading tables and charts instead of just copying numbers. |
| Day 5 | Draw a one-line timeline for any story you like (your own or from a big outlet). | You get a feel for how professional stories line up events in time. |
| Day 6 | Take one quote from your notes and practise writing a fair paraphrase. | You learn the difference between summarising for clarity and twisting for drama. |
| Day 7 | Score your own recent draft using the Fact-Check Heatmap (names, numbers, quotes, dates, links, log). | You get a baseline score and can watch it improve the next time you repeat the week. |
Signals examples — from “maybe true” lines to solid, checked lines
Sometimes it is hard to see what a “well-checked” sentence looks like in real life. This table shows pairs of weak and stronger lines, plus the simple evidence note you would keep in your source log for each one.
| Weak line in draft | Stronger, checked version | Source log note |
|---|---|---|
| “Millions of people are already using this tool.” | “More than 3.2 million people used the tool in 2024, according to the company’s annual report.” | F-08 — Company annual report 2024, page 17; figure: “3.2 million active users.” |
| “Experts say this technology is dangerous.” | “Two privacy researchers interviewed for this story said the technology could be misused to track individual behaviour.” | F-15 — Interview 1 (Dr X, timestamp 12:34), Interview 2 (Dr Y, timestamp 08:10); both mention tracking concerns. |
| “Recently, regulators have started paying attention.” | “Since mid-2023, regulators in the EU and US have launched at least four formal investigations into the practice.” | F-22 — EU press release (July 2023), US agency report (Oct 2023), two state-level announcements (Jan and Mar 2024). |
| “Many apps collect more data than users realise.” | “In a 2024 study of 200 popular apps, 67% collected at least one category of data that was not clearly explained in the settings.” | F-30 — University study “Dark Patterns in Permission Requests,” 2024, table 3: 134 of 200 apps. |
Your Fact-Check SOP is now complete
You now have a complete, beginner-friendly Fact-Check SOP that you can run before you send any article, blog post, feature, or guest post to a professional website. You know how to mark every checkable fact, how to verify names, numbers, quotes, links, spellings, and dates, and how to keep a simple source log that proves your work is solid.
In Part 1, you learned how to collect information about the outlet, the section, and the readers so your ideas actually fit what the publication wants. In this Part 2, you learned how to collect information about your own draft so your article is something an editor can trust on the first read. Together, these two SOPs form a quiet system that supports your long-term writing career: you pitch with clarity, you write with structure, and you fact-check with discipline.
When you combine this Fact-Check SOP with your existing writing workflow, you move closer to being the kind of writer that serious outlets, including big tech magazines and niche expert blogs, feel comfortable relying on again and again. That reliability is what turns one good article into a steady stream of paid work over time.