The short answer
Keep a source log that connects each checkable claim to the exact supporting page, observation date and any relevant limitations. This makes review easier than a general bibliography with no claim mapping. Prefer first-hand documents when the article explains a product, policy or technical behavior.
A worked example
A fictional draft says an image tool processes files locally. Its source log should point to the implementation and network test, not a general privacy slogan. A separate statement about a search-engine rule needs that engine's documentation. The two claims use different evidence, even if they appear in the same paragraph.
A practical checklist
- Highlight factual claims in the draft and give each one an evidence row. Record the precise supported statement rather than only the source domain.
- Check whether the document is current and whether its scope matches the wording. Revise the claim when the source supports a narrower statement.
- Keep interpretation separate from observation. When offering your own workflow recommendation, label it as guidance rather than attributing it to a source that never made it.
What to avoid
Avoid treating citations as decoration or using a source title to justify unrelated claims. Do not copy a long passage when a short original explanation would serve the reader. For changing information, revisit the source during the next substantive editorial review.
A useful follow-up
Does adding a source automatically prove the whole paragraph?
No. The linked document must support the specific claim, and any extrapolation should remain clearly identified.
