Editorial standards

This page describes how I write, review, update, and correct articles on thisismyurl.com. The same standard applies to every editorial post: a named author, a named reviewer, a real review date, and a clear paper trail when something changes.

Authorship

I write from direct project experience, hands-on testing, and verifiable reference material. Where research relies on third-party data or quoted sources, citations are included inline. Every editorial article carries a byline naming the author. The author bio links to the About page, where qualifications and contact details are published.

I am the named reviewer for editorial content on this site: a WordPress practitioner and educator based in Fort Erie, Ontario. Reviewer credentials, in the order that matters most for the work published here:

Instructor-led and written training delivered to government and higher-education teams in Canada, including Privy Council, federal political offices, and post-secondary institutions.
LMS architecture and editorial-systems work for media, education, and enterprise clients, with a focus on content models, taxonomies, and accessibility.
Nineteen years on WordPress (since 2007) and thirty years on the open web (since 1996), with PHP and technical SEO across the same span.
Currently Training & Development Specialist at M.L. Campbell, a Sherwin-Williams operating company. Editorial work on this site sits outside that role.
MA candidate in Learning and Technology, Royal Roads University.

Credentials are public and verifiable through the About page, the WordPress.org profile, and the GitHub profile.

Review process

Each article is reviewed for technical accuracy, current applicability, and clarity before publication, and again at least once a year after publication. The reviewer's name and the last review date are rendered next to the byline by the site framework, not typed into the article body, so the stamp cannot be removed by accident and so the same standard is enforced on every reviewed page.

Pre-publication review covers four things: every technical claim is reproducible on a current install, every code snippet runs as written, every external claim has a primary or near-primary source, and every recommendation is something the reviewer would actually do in client work. Articles that cannot pass all four checks are held back, not softened.

Source hierarchy

Sources are weighted in this order, and the strongest available source is the one cited:

Primary sources: legislation, regulator publications, the original RFC, the source code, the official benchmark results, the original research paper.
Official documentation: the vendor's or project's own current docs (WordPress core, PHP manual, MDN, browser vendor docs).
Reputable secondary reporting: established trade publications and named experts with track records.
Community sources: Stack Overflow answers, GitHub issue threads, individual blog posts. Used only when stronger sources do not exist, and always attributed.

Marketing material from a vendor is not a source for claims about that vendor's own product. Where a vendor's claim is reported, it is identified as a vendor claim, not as a verified fact.

Numerical claims, dates, and screenshots

Numbers and statistics are linked to the source they came from, with the date the figure was reported. If the underlying data is updated, the number in the article is refreshed at the next review.
Software versions are stated explicitly when the behaviour described depends on a version (for example, "as of WordPress 6.x" rather than "currently"). Vague time language is avoided.
Screenshots and dashboard captures show the date they were taken and the version of the tool. Screenshots are reshot, not silently retouched, when the interface they depict has changed.
Quotations are reproduced verbatim and linked back to their source. If a quote is shortened for length, the omission is marked.

Updates and corrections

Routine updates. Software versions, vendor behaviour, and best practices change. When an article is refreshed to reflect a current state of the world, the review date is bumped and a short note may be added to the top of the article describing what changed.
Material corrections. If a correction changes the meaning of a claim, not just a typo, a dated correction note is added to the top of the article, with a link to the original wording where useful.
Retraction. If an article is retracted, the original URL is preserved with a clear retraction notice rather than silently deleted, so anyone who linked to it understands what changed.

Independence and conflict of interest

This Is My URL is an independent practice. No paid placements, sponsored posts, or undisclosed affiliate links appear in editorial articles. When a tool, vendor, or product is recommended, the recommendation is made because the work was done with it. Any commercial or affiliate relationship is disclosed in the article that mentions it.

AI-assisted content disclosure

AI tools are used here as a thinking partner, not a content factory. They may help during research, drafting, formatting, or proofreading; they do not write the article and they do not get the final word. Every published article is reviewed and edited by a named human author and reviewer before publication. AI is not used to invent claims, statistics, quotations, or sources, and any AI-suggested fact is verified against the source hierarchy above before it is published. If an article is substantially AI-assisted, that is noted in the article itself.

Sources and citations

External claims link to primary sources where they exist: official documentation, regulator websites, peer-reviewed work, or original reporting. Internal links resolve to canonical site URLs and are pruned when the destination is unpublished or archived, so dead links do not accumulate over time.

Tell me about a problem

If something on this site is wrong, out of date, missing a citation, or unclear, say so. Email hello@thisismyurl.com with the article URL and what you noticed.

Acknowledgement: within two business days.
Factual error with a verifiable source: corrected within five business days, with a dated correction note on the article.
Disputed interpretation: reviewed against the source hierarchy above. Where the disagreement is reasonable, the article is updated to reflect both positions.
Accessibility issue: handled under the accessibility statement, on its own SLA.