Guides
Part of Magazine copy editing: a practical guide to clean, accurate copy
How to fact-check an article claim by claim
How to fact-check an article: number each claim, trace consequential lines to primary records, and decide what the evidence supports before publication.
What to take away
- Number every checkable claim in the draft, including captions, pull quotes and display copy.
- Trace consequential claims to the closest primary record, then test that record's authority.
- Give each claim its own decisionstand, qualify, attribute or cut.
- Recheck the final proof, because editing creates facts the manuscript never had.
- Agree the corrections route before publication, not after the first complaint.
How to fact-check an article begins with one question about the whole package: can this issue support what it states or strongly implies? The checker needs the manuscript, reporting notes, recordings and documents. It also needs data, image details and a named person to escalate to. A link found after the prose is finished is not a check.
Build the claim sheet
Number the factual statements in the draft:
Build the claim sheet
- Number every factual statement in the draft
- Record exact claim, source, page or timestamp
- Record evidence type, decision, correction
- Record author's response and final wording
- Extend numbering to headings, captions, graphics
- Extend numbering to alt text, pull quotes, sidebars
- Extend numbering to the social copy
Extend the same numbering to every part of the package:
- headings
- captions
- graphics
- alt text
- pull quotes
- sidebars
- social copy
For each item, record several details. Record the exact claim, the source, and the page or timestamp. Record the evidence type, your decision, and the correction. Record the author's response and the final wording. One citation can carry several related facts, but each fact still gets a decision.
Worked example (hypothetical): Claim 1 says the board approved a proposal. Source: the meeting minutes; page or timestamp: the entry for that proposal; evidence type: official minutes. In this example, the minutes record discussion but no approval. Decision: qualify; correction: replace approved with discussed; author response: ask whether another record supports approval; final wording: The board discussed the proposal.
Start with identity and primary evidence
Confirm the source is the person, agency, dataset, record, paper or image it claims to be. Then follow summaries back to the original. Poynter's account of PolitiFact's prepublication checks describes a story-specific accuracy checklist and tracing information to primary sources, so an editor can defend a challenged line.
Primary does not mean infallible. A press release can misstate a result, a memory shifts, a database is revised, and an official may lack direct knowledge. Test authority, method, date, scope and interest.
Reaching the original record takes longer than reading about it. The Journalist's Resource summary of strategies for investigations advises checking whether a records request has already been filed, and reading documents in person where a collection exists only on paper. Put that time in the schedule instead of accepting the first online summary.
Two ethical reference points are the International Fact-Checking Network's Code of Principles, which sets commitments for its signatories, and the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, which emphasizes verifying information before release. Use them as guides, not substitutes for checking the evidence.
Match a primary-source tool to the claim: SEC EDGAR for company filings, PACER for federal court records, and the National Archives Catalog for archival holdings. Follow search results to the underlying record, then check its date and scope.
Check by claim type
| Claim type | Useful checks |
|---|---|
| Quote | Recording or notes, speaker, exact wording, context, ground rules |
| Scene | Presence, sequence, source of detail, time, place, dispute |
| Number | Unit, denominator, period, baseline, method, rounding, revision |
| Superlative | Universe, time frame, metric, authoritative comparison |
| Historical fact | Contemporaneous record, archive, qualified scholarship |
| Person | Spelling, pronouns, title, role at the relevant date |
| Image | Subject, date, place, creator, rights, alteration, caption claim |
Resolve contradictions
When two sources disagree, do not pick the sentence that fits best. Ask whether they measure the same thing, cover the same period, use the same definition, or saw the same event. Seek a third record. If the conflict survives, narrow the claim, attribute each account, state the uncertainty, or cut the assertion.
Recheck after editing
Editing creates facts. A rewritten number, a new transition, a shortened quote, a fresh caption and a late headline all need a second look, so compare the checked manuscript against the final proof. Agree the corrections route before publication. Name the assigning editor as the corrections contact and the managing editor as backup. Log each challenge with the disputed line, date received, source trail, owner and decision, so someone can open the evidence trail promptly.
Common questions
Is author approval the same as verification?
No. The author can clarify sources and point to records, but the publication makes its own evidence decisions. Approval is a courtesy, not a check.
Should a checker call every quoted person?
Policy varies by title. Direct contact can confirm wording and context, but it must not hand editorial control to the source or expose a protected contact.
Can Wikipedia begin a check?
It can reveal leads and point to citations worth chasing. Consequential claims still need the stronger underlying record, so treat it as a map rather than a source.
What if a claim cannot be verified by deadline?
Qualify it accurately, attribute it to the source, cut it, hold the piece, or escalate according to risk. Printing an unverified line and correcting later costs more than a delay.
