How to review an article in WordPress

Editors should verify that sources are provided for:

• Facts not widely known or self-evident (e.g. “The EU’s GDP grew by 0.2% in Q1 2024” → requires a source).
• Data, figures, or statistics (always link to the original dataset/report where possible).
• Quotations or paraphrased ideas from other authors, journalists, or scholars.
• Events, news, and developments (e.g. elections, court rulings, policy changes).
• Arguments or positions of others (e.g. “Critics argue that…” should link to a specific identifiable critic or publication).
• Specialist knowledge outside general public awareness (e.g. EU treaty articles, niche institutions, or policy instruments).

No source is required for:

• General common knowledge (e.g. “Paris is the capital of France” Or “The German GDP is higher than the French GDP”).
• The author’s own interpretation, reasoning, or opinion (though these must build on sourced facts).

–> General rule: Authors should provide a source wherever they most likely needed one themselves to find or verify the information while writing. However, it is also important to identify which pieces of information may not be essential to the argument. These can, in some cases, be omitted altogether or may not require a source.

This also means: Avoid over-sourcing (every sentence linked), which interrupts reading flow. Authors should link where it adds clarity, traceability, and verifiability.

Keep in mind that our readership is largely politically interested and may have a basic education in political, economic, international, legal, and related topics. However, since our articles cover a broad range of subjects and often delve into specific information in greater depth, most readers will therefore need a certain degree of context, framing, and linked sources in order to properly understand the article and trace the origins of important information. This should be taken into account when writing or editing.

2. Sources by Article Type:

News Article (250–750 words):

• Expectation: A compact text anchored in verifiable facts.
• Source practice: Every key claim (new development, number, statement by an actor) must be traceable through a linked source.
• Balance: A news article often relies on a few solid sources (press releases, official documents, reputable media).
• Editor’s eye: If a reader cannot verify the main facts from the provided links, sourcing is insufficient.

Analysis (1500–2500 words):

• Expectation: A deeper argument that interprets developments.
• Source practice: Analyses should normally build on a broad evidence base, including:
  • Primary sources (e.g., official data, institutional reports, legal texts, speeches, data of what is analysed, …)
  • Secondary sources (e.g., academic analysis or commentary, think tank reports, high-quality journalism, …)
• Balance: Every major point of the argument should be anchored in at least one source, but not every sentence requires a link.
• Editor’s eye: If the argument feels opinionated without evidence, ask for more references. If it is drowning in links without a clear contribution, advise the author to streamline.

Opinion Piece (750–1500 words):

• Expectation: A strong viewpoint backed by facts.
• Source practice: Sources are needed to establish factual grounding (e.g. statistics, opponent’s arguments, key events).
• Balance: Not every rhetorical flourish needs a link, but core claims must be verifiable.
• Editor’s eye: Ask: Can a critical reader verify the factual scaffolding behind the author’s opinion? If not, require more sourcing.

Explainer (500–1500 words):

• Expectation: A comprehensive, balanced introduction to a topic.
• Source practice: Explainers must draw from multiple perspectives (e.g., historical, institutional, legal, political, etc.). This should also reflect in the referencing.
• Balance: More sources are expected here than in a news piece or opinion, but they should be integrated smoothly to avoid overwhelming the reader.
• Editor’s eye: If the explainer feels like it’s based only on one article or Wikipedia, it’s insufficient. Encourage variety and balance across source types. The explainer format is intended to be similar to a high-quality encyclopedia entry.

3. Red Flags Across All Article Formats

• Key facts without references.
• Vague referencing (e.g. “Some experts say…” without attribution).
• Over-reliance on a single source to carry the argument. This does not apply if the author analyses one source in-depth.
• Chain referencing (e.g. citing a news article that cites another report, without linking to the original).
• Broken or misleading links (editor must test-click). Such links need to be corrected or changed by the author
• Plagiarism or patchwork sourcing (lifting text/ideas without attribution).
• Sources that do not actually support the claim.
• Academic citation styles (such as APA, Harvard, or MLA) are not permitted, but the Sources & Linking Policy follows the same underlying principle: every claim that is not the author’s own should be backed by a verifiable source through a hyperlink in the text.

4. Quality & Relevance of Sources

Editors should check that:

• Original sources are prioritised (e.g. EU legislation, official statistics, institutional press releases, …).
• Reputable secondary sources (academic articles, think tank reports, established newspapers or specialised media) are used for context or debate.
• Linking: Sources must be hyperlinked (1–4 words) directly.
• Balance: where debates exist, authors should show awareness of different perspectives, not only one-sided evidence.

5. Role of the Editor

• Encourage authors to diversify sources if needed.
• Check the sources and their content and quality.
• Suggest additional sourcing if key claims are unreferenced or under-evidenced.
• Flag cases where sources do not support the claims made.