An AI draft can be fluent while still missing the answer a reader needs. It may repeat generalities, add an unsupported statistic or describe an experience the author never had. Editing begins by checking usefulness and evidence, before polishing the sentences.
This approach works for a personal blog, community newsletter or small-business article. Keep the reader’s actual question in view and make every section earn its place.
10 MINUTES · GUIDED PRACTICE
Practice separating a factual correction from a style preference. Leave with a checked workshop announcement and a short list of questions still unanswered.
Ask what the reader will leave with
Write one sentence describing the purpose. For example: “After reading, a beginner can turn a short set of event details into a checked announcement.” That is more useful than a broad promise to transform someone’s productivity.
Read the draft against that purpose. Does it explain the task, provide a usable example and show what to check? Remove repeated introductions and sections that merely restate the benefits of AI.
Google’s people-first content guidance emphasizes useful, reliable material and honest explanations of how content was produced. It is not a guarantee that a particular article will rank or attract an audience.
Make a claim list
Highlight statements that a reader could reasonably ask you to prove: numbers, product features, prices, quotations, study findings and legal or health claims. Record the source and the date checked for each important factual statement.
Open the source and read the relevant passage. A citation must support the specific claim, not merely discuss the same broad topic. A manufacturer’s description can establish a documented feature; it does not independently prove that the product is best.
Remove a claim you cannot support, or rewrite it with the uncertainty made clear. Do not ask the model to generate a plausible citation to fill a gap.
Keep examples honest
Try it with the fictional workshop example below. Read the source note and the draft, then ask AI:
Compare this draft with the source note. Source: the workshop lasts 90 minutes; no registration fee is given. Draft: Join our free 60-minute class. List unsupported or conflicting claims. Write one corrected sentence without inventing the missing fee. Keep style suggestions separate from factual corrections.
Label a made-up scenario as fictional or illustrative. Do not turn it into a customer success story, imply that you tested a tool you did not test or attribute a quotation to someone who never said it.
Consider this fictional example: a source note says a workshop lasts 90 minutes but gives no registration fee. If the draft says “a free 60-minute class,” two claims need correction. Improving the wording does not fix the underlying error.
For a product review, distinguish documented features, your own actual observations and questions you have not tested. For a tutorial, confirm that the described steps match the current tool and account requirements.
Check your result
Before opening the answers, name the two claims that need attention. Would replacing “class” with “workshop” solve either factual problem?
Show the two factual problems
The draft changes 90 minutes to 60 minutes and invents a zero price. Restore the stated duration and leave the fee unknown until an actual source confirms it.
One possible correction is: “Join our 90-minute workshop. Check the registration information for the fee.” Do not imply that this fictional workshop is a real event.
Check the difference between facts and style
Choosing “class” or “workshop” may be a wording decision in this example. The duration and fee affect what a reader expects and require evidence.
If a fresh draft adds a location, date or testimonial, those details also need support. A smoother sentence does not make an unsupported claim publishable.
You have finished this exercise when: your sentence preserves the 90-minute duration, does not promise free admission, and you can explain which information needs checking.
Get help with a stuck step · Choose another practice lesson
Fictional practice example added October 10, 2026. Your wording can differ; check the facts and limits above.
Check images and video as carefully as text
- Inspect people, hands, faces, objects and visible text for obvious errors or misleading details.
- Check that cropping does not remove the part that makes the image understandable.
- Use images you have permission to publish and provide appropriate credit.
- Describe meaningful image content with accurate alternative text.
- Label illustrations and mockups so they do not look like proof of a real event or product result.
Open a linked video and confirm its subject, publisher and relevance before recommending it. A recognizable thumbnail or generated title is not enough. Consider whether captions or a readable explanation are available to someone who cannot use the audio.
Remove decorative media that creates confusion or distracts from the task. One relevant, accurate image is more helpful than several impressive but misleading ones.
Review the published preview
Check headings, paragraph length, tables, links and image placement on a narrow screen as well as a larger one. Follow each important link and confirm that the destination still contains the intended information.
Read the title and description separately. They should represent the article you actually wrote, without promising guaranteed income, health outcomes or expertise the content cannot substantiate.
Look for leftover instructions, placeholders, repeated headings and unexplained jargon. Ask whether a reader encountering AI for the first time could complete the example without guessing.
Use AI to assist the review, then verify
Identify unsupported claims, repeated points and missing steps in this draft. Do not rewrite facts or invent sources. Return a list of specific passages and questions I should check. Distinguish an evidence problem from a style suggestion.
Treat the response as an editing aid, not an independent certification. Resolve the questions using real sources and appropriate expertise. High-stakes topics deserve qualified review when the content goes beyond general information.
Record substantive updates and make AI assistance clear. If the topic already has a strong article on your site, improve that article rather than publishing another version of the same answer. Our old-content refresh workflow explains that next step.
Illustrative photo by Unsplash on Unsplash.
