Source clarity
Claims should map back to named source pages.
Review checks whether source-basis notes explain what each source was used for instead of dropping links without context.
Standards review
Standards Review Team
The Review Team checks whether a page is structurally sound, visibly dated, supported by source basis notes, and sufficiently different from the public source pages to deserve its own place in the indexable portal.
Review gates
The checks every material page should pass.
Review is a standards layer, not a rubber stamp. It checks whether the page is useful, traceable, distinct from its source material, and technically aligned with the trust signals readers can see.
Dates
Visible dates and structured data dates must match.
A page should not tell the user one thing in the interface and another in the markup.
Originality
The page must add connective value.
If a page reads like a source-page echo, it should be revised, merged, or redirected before launch.
Linking
Strong pages should not be isolated.
Review checks that new pages are linked from at least one relevant hub, family page, place page, lineage page, or timeline entry.
Metadata
The technical layer should match the visible page.
Titles, descriptions, canonical URLs, schema type, sitemap entry, and image references should describe the actual content.
Caution handling
Unresolved source tension should stay visible.
Review confirms that unclear title chronology, conflicting dates, or self-descriptive claims are not converted into false certainty.
Launch checklist
What review looks for before publication.
| Area | Pass condition | Common reason to revise |
|---|---|---|
| Topic fit | The page has a distinct reader purpose and a clear place in the architecture. | The page is a thin duplicate of another hub or source page. |
| Source basis | Source links explain what each source supports. | The source list is missing, vague, or not connected to the page's strongest claims. |
| Chronology | Dates are exact only where the source supports exactness; approximate dates are labeled as such. | The draft smooths over a source tension or introduces unsupported precision. |
| Internal links | The page links to relevant family, place, entity, theme, or timeline pages. | The page is orphaned or only reachable from the sitemap. |
| Index readiness | Canonical, title, description, schema, updated date, and sitemap are aligned. | Metadata still reflects an earlier draft or a different page type. |
Caution register
Known issues review keeps visible.
These items help future editors avoid accidental overclaiming as the site expands.
Agustín and Lanzarote title chronology
The Agustín, Lanzarote, and Orders pages now treat 1567, 1569, and 1584 as the strongest external title markers, while leaving 1548 and the family-domain life frame explicitly unresolved.
Banco Caracas late-sale inconsistency
Pages touching later Banco Caracas ownership or sale chronology should keep the 1988, 1998, 2000, and 2002 layers distinct rather than collapsing them into one endpoint.
Prestige and legacy language
Review should convert family-domain self-description into neutral editorial prose, especially around nobility, influence, stewardship, and elite social framing.
Review outcomes
What can happen after a review.
Pass
The page is source-led, linked, dated, technically aligned, and ready for publication or sitemap refresh.
Revise
The page has value but needs sharper attribution, clearer caution language, stronger internal links, or better metadata.
Hold
The topic is promising but needs stronger source support before it should become an indexable page.
Merge
The draft duplicates an existing page and should become a section, timeline note, or internal link rather than a standalone URL.
Traceability
Source basis for the Review Team page
This page defines the portal's internal review role and is supported by the site's own publishing standards.
- Editorial Methodology — Used for rules around names, dates, source-model tiers, and technical standards.
- Sources — Used for source-led review expectations and the source-group framework.
- Editorial Desk — Used for the handoff boundary between drafting, integration, and review.
- Knowledge & FAQ — Used for reader-facing source-caution terminology and known caution flags.
Linked pages