Editorial Standards

1. Purpose of the standard

These standards describe how content is produced so that readers can judge how much weight to place on it. They apply to every page on this site, including Station landing pages, reference articles, and any future guide or comparison content, and they are the internal checklist our editorial desk works against before anything is published.

We publish this page because travel information is unusually easy to get subtly wrong, through outdated fees, misquoted regulations, or rules that vary by nationality, and we would rather be transparent about our process than ask readers to simply trust the byline.

2. Sourcing hierarchy

• Primary sources first: government regulations, international conventions, published airline fare rules, official airport information, and statements from the relevant regulator or authority.
• Where a primary source is not publicly available or not in plain language, we use secondary sources, such as reputable news reporting or industry publications, only to locate or interpret the primary one, and we say where the interpretation came from.
• Where practice differs from published policy, for example a rule that is enforced inconsistently at different airports, both the written rule and the observed practice are described separately.
• Where a rule is genuinely ambiguous, contested, or in transition, we say so directly rather than choosing the neater, more confident-sounding answer.
• Anonymous or unverifiable claims, including uncredited social media reports, are not treated as a sufficient source on their own for a factual claim.

3. Writing standards

• The answer appears near the top of the page, not after a scene-setting introduction, because most readers arrive with a specific question.
• Plain language, short sentences, and no unexplained jargon, with technical or regulatory terms defined the first time they appear.
• Numbers are given as typical values with an explicit note that they vary by carrier, route, season, or nationality.
• We do not use scare framing or exaggerated headlines to make routine travel sound more dangerous or complicated than it is.
• Every article states the country or regulatory regime a rule applies to, rather than presenting a single country's rule as if it were universal.

4. Review cadence per Station

Different sections of the site are reviewed on different schedules depending on how quickly the underlying facts change. Articles covering fast moving areas, such as liquids and security rules, baggage fee tables, and entry requirement changes, are reviewed at least every three months. Articles covering carrier-specific policy, such as change and cancellation fees, are reviewed at least every six months.

Evergreen planning material, such as general guidance on airport layouts, time zones, or how a type of journey typically works, is reviewed at least annually, or sooner if a reader report or a known industry change suggests it should be. Every article carries a visible review date so readers can judge its freshness themselves rather than assuming everything on the site was checked yesterday.

5. Correction severity levels

• Minor correction: a typo, a formatting issue, or a small clarification that does not change the meaning or advice in the article. These are fixed without a separate note.
• Moderate correction: an outdated figure, fee, or date that is updated to the current value. The review date on the article is updated to reflect the check.
• Major correction: a factual error that could have led a reader to a wrong decision, such as a misstated entry requirement or an incorrect deadline. These are corrected immediately, the review date is updated, and where the error was live for a meaningful period we consider whether a visible correction note is warranted on the page.
• Retraction: an article found to be built on a source that turned out to be unreliable or superseded is removed or substantially rewritten rather than left in place with a patch.

6. Independence and conflicts of interest

• No sponsored articles, paid placements, or affiliate-driven recommendations influence what we write or how we rank options.
• No payment is accepted for inclusion in an itinerary, comparison, or resource list.
• No commission is earned on travel arranged by readers, because we do not sell or arrange travel at all.
• Staff and contributors are expected to disclose any personal relationship with a company or destination covered in an article they write, and disclosed conflicts are handled by reassigning the article or adding a visible disclosure.
• If a commercial relationship of any kind is ever introduced, for example a licensing arrangement, it will be disclosed at the top of every affected page before it takes effect, not folded quietly into the footer.

7. Use of AI tools and disclosure

Drafting assistance from AI tools may be used for structure, phrasing, and first-draft research organization. It is not used as a substitute for checking a claim against a real source, and it is not permitted to invent statistics, quotes, or regulatory citations. Every published factual claim, whether or not AI assistance was used in drafting, is checked by a human editor against a source before publication.

Responsibility for accuracy rests with the editorial desk, not with any tool used during drafting. If our use of AI assistance materially changes in a way that affects readers, for example through fully automated publication without human review, that change would be disclosed on this page before it happens.

8. Imagery

Photographs are illustrative. They are chosen to match the general subject of the article and are never used to imply an endorsement by an airline, airport, or business shown, and they are captioned to make clear when an image is generic rather than a photograph of the specific thing being discussed.

9. Reader corrections and feedback

Readers can flag a suspected error through the contact page at any time. We aim to acknowledge a correction report within two business days and to resolve it, at whichever severity level applies, promptly after we are able to verify it against a source. We would rather correct openly than quietly, and we do not delete a page simply to make a mistake disappear from view.