Services · Editorial
Content Production for Review and Comparison Websites
Reviews readers can rely on: planned around real demand, written to a documented methodology, edited and fact-checked, localised for each market, and updated on a schedule with visible verification dates.
What the work covers
From Topic Plan to Scheduled Update
| Stage | What we do | What you receive |
|---|---|---|
| Topic planning | Map the topics your audience searches for and the questions a review must answer; sequence them by value and effort; agree what is out of scope. | A topic plan with priorities, owners and a publishing calendar. |
| Review methodology | Define the criteria, weighting, evidence and sources for each review type, and how conflicts of interest are handled. | A written methodology and brief templates approved by your editorial lead. |
| Writing and editing | Specialist writers produce to the brief; editors check structure, accuracy, tone and compliance with the methodology before anything is submitted. | Edited articles with sources, author attribution and a change record. |
| Localisation | Adapt content for each market: language, regulation, product availability, currency and cultural context, rather than translating word for word. | Market-specific versions with a localisation checklist completed for each (how localisation works). |
| Fact-checking and updates | Verify claims against primary sources before publication and re-check on a schedule; record what changed and when. | An update log with verification dates and visible “last reviewed” information on the page. |
Example brief
What a Brief Looks Like
Every article starts from a brief like this one. It fixes the purpose, the evidence required and the checks before publication, so writers, editors and your reviewers work from the same document.
- Article type
- Operator review (desk-based assessment)
- Reader question
- Is this operator a reasonable choice for a reader in the target market, and what are the trade-offs?
- Market and language
- Agreed market; local language variant; local regulatory context stated in the article
- Criteria
- Licensing and regulation; terms and fees; product range; payment options; customer support; responsible-play tools; complaint history where verifiable
- Evidence
- Primary sources only: regulator registers, the operator's published terms, documented test of registration and support response. No claims of hands-on play unless a test took place.
- Disclosures
- Commercial relationship disclosure in the agreed wording; age restriction and responsible-play notice where required by the market
- Structure
- Verdict summary; criteria table; strengths and limitations; who it suits and who it does not; how we assessed; sources; last reviewed date
- Length
- 3,000–5,000 words: long enough to cover every criterion with evidence, structured so the verdict is on the first screen
- Checks before publication
- Editor review; fact-check against sources; disclosure present; links attributed correctly; publisher approval as per workflow
- Update schedule
- Re-verify quarterly or on a material change in terms, licence or availability
Localisation
Localisation, Not Translation
A review that works in one market rarely works in another. The operators differ, the rules differ, the payment methods differ, and so do the questions readers ask. We therefore produce a market-specific version of each piece rather than translating the original word for word.
Each market version is written or adapted by an editor who works in that language, checked against that market's sources and kept on its own update schedule. The methodology and the disclosure rules stay the same everywhere; the facts, examples and wording change with the market.
What changes for each market
- Language variant, terminology and tone readers expect
- Licensing status and the regulator's register for that market
- Product availability, bonuses, fees and currency
- Payment methods that are actually offered locally
- Age restrictions, responsible-play resources and mandatory notices
- Examples, comparisons and sources relevant to that audience
How we keep it accurate
- A localisation checklist completed and signed off for every article
- Market-specific sources verified before publication
- Editorial review by a native-language editor, then the agreed publisher approval
- A separate update log and verification dates per market version
- Search demand mapped per market, so topics are chosen locally rather than copied
- Disclosure wording agreed for each market and its regulator
Deliverable: market versions of the agreed articles, each with a completed localisation checklist, its own sources and its own last-reviewed date.
Quality criteria
What Every Article Must Pass
- Answers the reader's question in the first screen, then earns the verdict with evidence.
- Every factual claim has a source a reader or editor can check.
- Method is stated: how the assessment was done, including what was not tested.
- No invented experience: we never claim hands-on testing that did not happen.
- Limitations are visible, not buried below the call to action.
- Commercial relationships are disclosed in plain language, in the agreed wording.
- Market-appropriate: regulation, age and responsible-play messaging match the market.
- Dated and maintained: a last-reviewed date and a scheduled re-check.
These criteria are applied through our Editorial Standards. For publisher partnerships, your editorial team's approval rights sit on top of them.
Discuss Your Content Project
Tell us about the topics, markets and volume you have in mind. We will propose a methodology, a plan and a first batch of briefs for your review.