Publishing a source-led page creates an ongoing editorial job. The page may remain useful for years, but its sources, links and wording need attention along the way. A visible “updated” date is helpful only when the publication can explain what was checked and what changed.
A review register gives a small editorial team a way to manage that work. It connects pages to sources, assigns responsibility and records decisions. The method below is intended for publishers maintaining CBD-related educational material. It is a publishing workflow, with the emphasis on keeping the source trail usable after the original article has gone live.
Separate the three dates
A source-dependent page often has at least three relevant dates. The underlying document has a publication date. Your article has its own publication date. The editorial team also has a date when it last checked the article. Keep those fields distinct in the working record.
A review does not always produce a visible text change. An editor might check the important sources and find that the article still accurately describes them. Record that review internally. If the site displays a review date, describe what the label means so readers can distinguish it from a rewritten article.
NCCIH's guide to scientific articles notes the usefulness of considering a study's date within the wider evidence base. For a publisher, that is also a reason to preserve source dates rather than replacing them with a single recent date at the top of the page.
Create a register small enough to use
Start with a spreadsheet or simple database containing the page title, public URL, responsible editor, important sources, last check and next action. Add a field for the reason a review is due. The register should answer a practical question: what needs attention next, and who will handle it?
Avoid collecting fields that nobody will maintain. If a small team cannot reliably update a complicated scoring system, a short list of clear review reasons is better. Examples include a broken link, a reader correction, a revised source, an overdue scheduled check or a meaningful change to the article itself.
Give sources their own records when several pages depend on them. One agency overview may support statements across a glossary, an explainer and a workshop handout. A source-to-page relationship lets the editor identify all three when the source changes.
Decide what deserves a review trigger
Not every page needs the same schedule. A glossary definition and an article about a newly issued document have different maintenance needs. Choose a review interval based on the page's subject, the importance of its claims and how likely its sources are to change. Record the reasoning so the next editor can understand it.
A scheduled review is only one trigger. A correction request should enter the same queue. So should a broken-link report or a notification that an important source has been revised. The queue becomes useful when it brings those signals together rather than leaving them in separate inboxes and notes.
Automation can help detect a page that no longer loads or a changed document title. It cannot determine by itself whether the article's meaning remains accurate. Assign a person to inspect the relevant source and decide what the change means for the publication.
Review the claim, not just the link
A working link does not establish that the article is current. Open the source and locate the passage the article relies on. Compare the page's statement with that passage, then examine whether the source now directs readers to newer material or uses different wording.
The FDA's cannabis and CBD information page is an example of a source that should be identified by its role and checked directly when used. A publication summarizing an agency position needs to verify the current agency material, rather than relying on a remembered version of the page.
If the source has moved, find the current official destination and confirm that it still supports the statement. Updating a URL is not enough when the replacement document has a different scope. Record whether the change was a repaired link, a revised source or a change to the article's substance.
Use a worked review example
Imagine a publication with a page explaining how to identify a research abstract. Its register lists a public-agency reading guide and a sample paper. During a routine check, the editor finds that the sample paper's landing page now links to a correction notice.
The next action is to inspect the notice and determine whether it affects the example used in the article. If the example concerns only the location of the abstract, the page may need a contextual note or a different example. If the article summarizes a result affected by the correction, the relevant passage needs a substantive review.
The register should show what was found, who reviewed it and the decision made. “Checked source” is too vague. “Reviewed correction notice; replaced example and revised explanatory paragraph” gives the next editor a useful history without reproducing the entire discussion.
Write update notes for readers
A public update note should explain a meaningful change in ordinary language. It might say that a source link was replaced, an example was revised or a factual statement was corrected. Readers need to know the nature of the change, especially when the previous version could have left a different impression.
Keep internal workflow details out of the public note. The reader does not need task identifiers, staff chat or the names of editing tools. The internal record can preserve that operational context while the public note explains the effect on the article.
A correction deserves a clear label. Quietly changing a sentence and refreshing the date can hide information a returning reader needs. Decide the publication's correction practice in advance, including who approves the note and how it is displayed beside the affected content.
Assign an owner and a backup
Every page should have a responsible role even when the original writer is a freelancer or has moved to another assignment. The owner does not need to perform every review personally. They do need to make sure the queue has a next action and that the decision is recorded.
A backup matters for time-sensitive corrections. Define who can temporarily remove or flag a passage while a review is underway. That decision should follow the publication's editorial policy, with a record of what changed and why, rather than depending on whoever happens to notice the problem first.
At a regular team check-in, review the oldest unresolved items and the pages connected to changed sources. The discussion should end with assignments. A growing list without owners is an archive of concerns, not a maintenance process.
Begin with five pages
Choose five published pages and enter their important sources into the register. Assign an owner, record the last actual check and identify the next review action. Follow one source through every page that relies on it. That small exercise will reveal which fields are useful and where the publication has lost its source trail.
Once the method works, expand it to the rest of the collection. The goal is a record that another editor can pick up and use. A maintained publication is built through these ordinary decisions: checking the source, revising the statement, explaining the change and leaving a clear next step.