The Editorial Review Workflow

Overview

The editorial review workflow is a five-pass system for evaluating content before publication. Each pass focuses on one dimension of quality. This separation of concerns prevents reviewers from trying to catch everything at once, which leads to missed issues.

Why Five Passes?

Single-pass review fails because the brain cannot simultaneously evaluate clarity, completeness, structure, specificity, and polish. By separating these into distinct passes, you catch more issues and produce more consistent results.

Time Budget

The Five Passes at a Glance

Pass 1: Clarity

Goal: Ensure the reader can understand the message without cognitive strain.

Time budget: 20% of total review time

What to Check

• Sentence length: Average 15-20 words. No more than 25% of sentences over 25 words.
• Paragraph density: Paragraphs under 80 words and rarely over 4 sentences.
• Word choice: Common words over rare ones. Jargon defined on first use.
• Voice: Active voice preferred. Passive voice only when intentional.
• Transitions: Sentences and paragraphs connect logically.

How to Review

1. Read aloud. Mark any sentence where you stumble or run out of breath. Rewrite each marked sentence.
2. Hunt "which" and "that". These often introduce clauses that can be split into separate sentences.
3. Replace Latinate verbs. "Make a decision" → "Decide". "Conduct an analysis" → "Analyze".
4. Break walls of text. Any paragraph over 80 words is a candidate for splitting.
5. Define jargon. If a term is not common knowledge, ensure it is defined on first use.

Common Clarity Issues

Pass/Fail Criteria

• [ ] No sentences over 35 words
• [ ] No paragraphs over 100 words
• [ ] All jargon defined on first use
• [ ] No stumbling points when read aloud

Pass 2: Completeness

Goal: Ensure the page answers the reader's core question and covers expected subtopics.

Time budget: 25% of total review time

What to Check

• Core question: What question did the reader come with? Is it answered?
• Subtopic coverage: What subtopics would a reader expect? Are they covered?
• Unanswered questions: What questions does the page raise that it does not answer?
• Word count: Does the page meet the minimum for its type?
• Boilerplate ratio: Is over 50% of the page repeated content (nav, footer, sidebar)?

How to Review

1. Write the reader's question at the top of the draft. "How do I write a meta description?" "What makes a good product page?" If the page does not answer this, it is incomplete.
2. List expected subtopics before reading. For a guide: what, why, how, examples, mistakes, next steps. Check each off as you read.
3. Read and note every question that pops into your head. Then check if each question is answered in the page itself.
4. Compare to competing pages. Find the top 2-3 ranking pages for the same query. List what they cover that this page does not.
5. Check word count against type thresholds. If under minimum, identify what subtopics need expansion.

Pass/Fail Criteria

• [ ] Core reader question is answered
• [ ] All expected subtopics are covered
• [ ] No obvious unanswered questions
• [ ] Meets minimum word count for type
• [ ] Boilerplate ratio under 50%

Pass 3: Structure

Goal: Ensure information is organized logically and easy to navigate.

Time budget: 15% of total review time

What to Check

• Heading hierarchy: One H1, H2s for sections, H3s for subsections, no skipped levels.
• Heading descriptiveness: Do headings describe the section content?
• Logical sequence: Is information presented in the order the reader needs it?
• Visual breaks: Are there lists, tables, images, or callouts every 200-300 words?
• Internal linking: Are related pages linked appropriately?

How to Review

1. Cover the body text and read only the headings. Do you understand the page's argument? Can you predict what each section covers?
2. Check heading levels. Ensure no levels are skipped (H1 → H2 → H3, not H1 → H3).
3. Verify logical flow. For guides: what → why → how → examples → mistakes → next steps. For product pages: problem → solution → features → proof → price → CTA.
4. Count visual breaks. Insert a list, table, callout, or image every 200-300 words.
5. Check internal links. Ensure related pages are linked and links use descriptive anchor text.

Pass/Fail Criteria

• [ ] Heading hierarchy is correct (no skipped levels)
• [ ] Headings are descriptive (not cute or vague)
• [ ] Information flows logically
• [ ] Visual break every 200-300 words
• [ ] Internal links use descriptive anchors

Pass 4: Specificity

Goal: Ensure all claims are backed by concrete details, numbers, or examples.

Time budget: 25% of total review time

What to Check

• Numbers: Are measurable claims quantified?
• Names: Are sources, studies, and experts named?
• Examples: Are abstract concepts illustrated concretely?
• Step-by-step: Are instructions specific enough to follow?
• Vague claims: Are words like "helps", "improves", "better" explained with mechanisms?

How to Review

1. Search for vague claims. Find "helps", "improves", "better", "effective", "proven". For each, ask: "How, exactly?"
2. Add numbers to measurable claims. "Short sentences" → "Sentences under 20 words". "High contrast" → "WCAG AA, 4.5:1 ratio".
3. Replace generic examples with concrete ones. "A product page" → "A product page for a $200 ergonomic keyboard".
4. Name sources. "Studies show" → "Gunning (1952) found". "Experts recommend" → "Nielsen Norman Group recommends".
5. Test instructions. Could someone replicate the advice exactly? If two people could do different things, it is not specific enough.

Pass/Fail Criteria

• [ ] No vague claims without mechanisms
• [ ] All measurable claims have numbers
• [ ] Sources are named (not "studies show")
• [ ] Examples are concrete, not generic
• [ ] Instructions are replicable

Pass 5: Readiness

Goal: Ensure the page is polished and fit for publication.

Time budget: 15% of total review time

What to Check

• Title accuracy: Does the title (H1 and title tag) accurately describe the page content?
• Metadata: Meta description (150-160 characters), canonical URL, Open Graph tags.
• Links: Do all links work? Do they go where expected?
• Images: Do all images have alt text? Do they load correctly?
• Consistency: Are terms used consistently throughout?
• Polish: No typos, no placeholder text, no console errors.
• Authorship: Author name, last-updated date, corrections link visible.

Pre-Publication Checklist

• [ ] Title tag matches H1 and accurately describes the page
• [ ] Meta description is 150-160 characters and summarizes the page
• [ ] Canonical URL is set
• [ ] Open Graph and Twitter Card tags are present
• [ ] All links work (internal and external)
• [ ] All images have alt text
• [ ] No placeholder text ("lorem ipsum", "TODO", "[insert example]")
• [ ] No console errors
• [ ] Author and last-updated date are visible
• [ ] Corrections/contact link is present
• [ ] Page is added to sitemap.xml
• [ ] Robots.txt allows crawling (if indexable)

Pass/Fail Criteria

• [ ] All pre-publication checklist items checked
• [ ] Title accurately describes content
• [ ] No typos or placeholder text
• [ ] All links and images work

Severity Scoring

Not all issues are equal. Use this severity framework to prioritize fixes.

Severity Levels

Severity by Issue Type

Downloadable Checklist

Use this Markdown checklist for your review workflow. Copy and paste into your preferred editor.

# Editorial Review Checklist

## Pass 1: Clarity
- [ ] Read aloud: no stumbling points
- [ ] No sentences over 35 words
- [ ] No paragraphs over 100 words
- [ ] All jargon defined on first use
- [ ] Active voice preferred

## Pass 2: Completeness
- [ ] Core reader question is answered
- [ ] All expected subtopics covered
- [ ] No obvious unanswered questions
- [ ] Meets minimum word count for type
- [ ] Boilerplate ratio under 50%

## Pass 3: Structure
- [ ] Heading hierarchy correct (no skipped levels)
- [ ] Headings are descriptive
- [ ] Information flows logically
- [ ] Visual break every 200-300 words
- [ ] Internal links use descriptive anchors

## Pass 4: Specificity
- [ ] No vague claims without mechanisms
- [ ] All measurable claims have numbers
- [ ] Sources are named
- [ ] Examples are concrete
- [ ] Instructions are replicable

## Pass 5: Readiness
- [ ] Title tag matches H1 and content
- [ ] Meta description is 150-160 characters
- [ ] Canonical URL is set
- [ ] Open Graph and Twitter tags present
- [ ] All links work
- [ ] All images have alt text
- [ ] No placeholder text
- [ ] No console errors
- [ ] Author and last-updated date visible
- [ ] Corrections/contact link present
- [ ] Page added to sitemap.xml

## Issues Found

| Pass | Issue | Severity | Status |
|------|-------|----------|--------|
|      |       | P0/P1/P2/P3 | Open/Fixed/Deferred |
|      |       |          |        |

## Review Decision

- [ ] **Approve**: Ready for publication
- [ ] **Approve with minor fixes**: P3 issues can be fixed post-publication
- [ ] **Revise and re-review**: P1 or P2 issues must be fixed
- [ ] **Reject**: P0 issues or fundamental problems

**Reviewer:** ________________
**Date:** ________________
**Time spent:** ________________

Workflow Variations

Adapt the workflow for different contexts while preserving the core five-pass structure.

Single Author

When you are the only author and reviewer, use the full five-pass workflow. Budget 20-30 minutes for standard content. The discipline of separate passes matters more when you are reviewing your own work.

Team Review

For team environments, assign passes to different reviewers:

• Author: Pass 1 (Clarity) and Pass 5 (Readiness)
• Subject matter expert: Pass 2 (Completeness) and Pass 4 (Specificity)
• Editor: Pass 3 (Structure) and final approval

High-Volume Publishing

When publishing velocity is critical, use a condensed three-pass workflow:

• Combined Pass 1+2: Clarity and Completeness (10 minutes)
• Combined Pass 3+4: Structure and Specificity (10 minutes)
• Pass 5: Readiness (5 minutes)

Do not skip passes entirely. Condense, do not eliminate.

Cornerstone Content

For cornerstone resources (handbooks, definitive guides, flagship content), add a peer review pass after the five-pass workflow:

• Five-pass review: Author completes all passes
• Peer review: Second reviewer reads and flags issues
• Final approval: Editor approves or requests revisions

Related Resources