Content & Editorial Policy

Our editorial standard

Every guide on this site exists to give travellers accurate, plain-English information about entry requirements. The stakes are real. Someone acting on incorrect information could be denied boarding or turned away at the border. Because of that, accuracy comes before everything else. A well-written piece of incorrect information is worse than an imperfect piece of correct information.

We do not publish guesses or assumptions. Every factual claim about an entry requirement (visa fees, stay limits, passport validity rules, transit requirements) must be traceable to an official government source.

Visa rules also change, sometimes with little notice. Our job is not just to produce content; it is to maintain it.

Who does what

Every guide passes through at least three people before publication. No writer publishes their own work.

Research Analyst: finds and documents the official source for every fact the guide will contain, before any writing begins. They supply this to the writer as a source record, not a draft.

Content Writer: turns the source record into a complete guide. Every factual claim in the draft must remain traceable to the source record.

Fact-Check Editor: independently verifies every factual claim against official sources, without initially consulting the writer’s source record. They build their own source set from scratch and compare it against the draft. Any discrepancy must be resolved before the guide advances.

Senior Editor: reviews the verified draft for completeness, clarity, and tone. Has final say on whether a guide is ready to publish.

The writer and the fact-checker must always be different people. A writer cannot fact-check their own work.

What counts as a source

We use official government and intergovernmental sources only.

The destination country’s official immigration portal. This is the primary authority. For UK guides, that is GOV.UK. For US guides, travel.state.gov. If a government portal contradicts another source, the portal is correct.
Official embassy or consulate websites. Specifically, the embassy of the destination country in the traveller’s country of origin. These may contain country-specific details not on the main portal.
The origin country’s immigration authority. Used as a corroborating source only. Does not override the destination country’s portal.
Intergovernmental bodies (IATA, Schengen resources). Used only for cross-border rules such as transit rights or Schengen calculations, and always cross-referenced against the relevant government portal.

Travel blogs, visa agencies, Reddit threads, airline help pages, and third-party aggregators are never acceptable sources, not even for corroboration.

How we write

We write for someone planning a trip who has no legal or immigration background. Our job is to translate official language into clear, confident English without losing accuracy.

Be direct. Say what the rule is. If the answer is “yes, you need a visa,” say that first. Do not bury the key information in caveats.

Be specific. Name the exact visa type, the exact fee, the exact number of days. Vague answers usually mean the research is incomplete.

Stay neutral. We do not editorialize about visa policy or immigration systems. Our tone is informative and steady, not alarming and not dismissive.

Avoid overpromising. We describe requirements; we do not guarantee outcomes. Use “typically,” “generally permitted,” or “you are usually required to” rather than “you will be allowed in if.”

Use plain language. Avoid jargon that is not explained. If a technical term is unavoidable, define it the first time it appears.

Words and phrases to avoid: “simply,” “please note,” “just,” and passive constructions where active voice is possible. Do not minimise the significance of immigration decisions.

If a requirement is genuinely ambiguous in the official source, say so plainly and advise the reader to verify with the relevant authority. We do not fill gaps with assumptions.

How we fact-check

Fact-checking is an independent process, not a final read-through.

The Research Analyst compiles the source record before writing begins.
The Writer produces a draft with every factual claim annotated to a source. A draft without annotations is returned unreviewed.
The Fact-Check Editor independently verifies every claim, building their own source set without consulting the writer’s record first.
The two source sets are compared. Any discrepancy is flagged and returned to the writer and analyst for resolution. The fact-checker identifies what is in question; they do not correct the draft themselves.
If a discrepancy cannot be resolved between the writer and fact-checker, it is escalated to the Senior Editor.
Once all discrepancies are resolved, the Fact-Check Editor provides written sign-off. This is required before the Senior Editor reviews the piece.
The Senior Editor reviews for completeness, tone, and clarity, then approves for publication.

If at any point a team member believes a published or pending guide contains information that could cause real harm to a traveller, they should flag it to the Senior Editor immediately and halt publication if needed.

Keeping content up to date

Published guides are not permanent. Entry requirements change in response to policy shifts, new legislation, and diplomatic agreements.

High-traffic routes are reviewed every six weeks. All other guides are reviewed every three months. Every guide goes through a full audit annually.

Outside of scheduled cycles, certain events require an immediate review: a fee change, a new bilateral visa agreement, a visa category being created or abolished, or a reader flagging potentially outdated content. If a guide is found to be materially incorrect, it should be suspended from publication until it is corrected.

The team maintains a watchlist of official immigration portals and embassy news pages for the countries we cover. Any detected change is logged and the relevant guides are flagged for review.

When sources conflict

It is not unusual for two official sources to contradict each other. When this happens, apply the source hierarchy: the higher-tier source takes precedence. If both are at the same tier, the more recently updated source takes precedence.

If the conflict cannot be resolved this way, the Research Analyst should contact the relevant embassy or immigration authority directly for clarification. The guide is not published until the conflict is resolved.

If a conflict cannot be cleanly resolved and publication cannot wait, the guide should present the more conservative of the two requirements, note that sources differ, and direct the reader to verify directly with the authority. We do not expose readers to risk because of our own source uncertainty.

All source conflicts must be documented in the guide’s source record, along with how they were resolved.

Corrections

Errors will occasionally slip through. What matters is how we respond.

When an error is identified, whether by the team or by a reader, the guide is flagged immediately. The Research Analyst verifies whether the claim was incorrect at the time of publication. If confirmed, the guide is corrected within 48 hours and the error is logged.

For significant errors (those that could have led a traveller to make a wrong decision) a plain note is added to the guide stating what was corrected and when. This is not an apology; it is a factual update.

Reader-submitted corrections are reviewed within five working days. If the reader is right, the guide is updated. If they are not, the verification is documented. Readers who identify genuine errors are acknowledged.

Corrections are reviewed monthly. Where a correction reveals a gap in the process, this policy is updated accordingly.