Find the controlling source
The researcher identifies the authority. A standard defines a protocol, a registry maps an assigned value, and the vendor documents its current product.
FirewallGuide Editorial Policy and Review Standards
Review how FirewallGuide researches technical claims, selects sources, handles automation, labels limitations, updates pages, and corrects errors.
Publication standard
Every indexable page must solve a distinct reader problem. A publishable page needs a clear answer, enough context to apply it safely, meaningful edge cases, accurate links, and sources appropriate to its claims. Search demand can help prioritize useful work, but keyword variation alone is not a reason to create a URL. Weak pages are improved, combined with a stronger page, left unpublished, or removed. The FirewallGuide publication overview explains the audience, scope, and limits behind this standard.
Research and source hierarchy
Technical claims are checked against primary sources whenever practical. These include standards and registries from organizations such as NIST, CISA, IETF, and IANA, plus current product documentation from the responsible vendor. A reputable secondary source can provide context, but it should not replace the controlling standard or vendor instruction when one is available.
Writers distinguish three things: a sourced fact, an editorial recommendation, and an output produced from reader input. A standard may define an address range, while FirewallGuide recommends how to document a related change. A calculator may return the correct mathematical range, but it cannot confirm the live route, VLAN, device, or policy. These are not presented as equivalent evidence.
How a technical claim is reviewed
Separate fact from advice
The editor compares the claim with the source. The page labels an editorial recommendation through its reasoning instead of presenting it as a rule from the source.
Test the useful action
The reviewer checks the instruction. The page records assumptions, limits, rollback, and a result the reader can verify.
- Identify the exact claim.
- Open the best current source.
- Check scope and version.
- Write the limit beside the recommendation.
Originality and visible effort
Pages should add more than a summary of other websites. Useful additions can include a decision framework, worked scenario, failure cases, rollback method, verification steps, comparison criteria, or browser-based calculation. Introductions that repeat the title, generic security warnings, and padded conclusions are removed. The most useful answer appears early, while necessary nuance follows in a structure readers can scan.
Product coverage and testing language
Security products change quickly. A claim about an interface, operating system, or feature must identify enough context for a reader to verify it. FirewallGuide does not claim hands-on testing unless that work occurred and the method can be described honestly. Documentation research is not relabeled as laboratory testing. Affiliate relationships, sponsorship, or supplied access must not change the editorial conclusion and would require clear disclosure if introduced.
A legacy review is redirected or consolidated when its original model, version, method, or support status no longer supports a fair current conclusion. Old rankings are not kept merely to preserve traffic or backlinks.
Titles, headings, links, and page structure
The page title and its single visible H1 must describe the same topic. Subheadings divide genuine questions instead of repeating keyword variants. Link text names the destination accurately. A card description is not wrapped into an oversized anchor, because the resulting anchor text would combine the title, category, and sales-like description. Internal links are added where the destination helps the reader take the next step, not to manufacture relevance.
Automation and Docs Library imports
Automation can queue a site-specific article, but it cannot bypass the publication standard. The importer verifies that the API identity and folder match firewallguide.com, rejects duplicate slugs and overlapping intent, removes extra H1 elements and presentation classes, checks topic fit and source support, blocks promotional or affiliate-tracked links, and schedules no more than one post every three days.
Every due article passes the current gate again before publication. A failure changes its status to held instead of public. Imported pages disclose the automated workflow, and the site does not describe them as hands-on tests or human-reviewed work unless that work actually occurred and can be documented. FirewallGuide remains responsible for every page it publishes.
Updates and corrections
Material claims are reviewed when product behavior, official guidance, or the threat environment changes. A correction request should identify the URL, exact passage, current evidence, and affected version. Material corrections update the content and reviewed date. Minor spelling or formatting repairs may be made without a separate change notice. Readers can submit evidence through the contact page. The publication rules above also govern automated imports and legacy URLs.