The short answer
Review an answer by asking whether it is correct, understandable, sufficiently complete and useful for the stated reader. Use concrete notes rather than a mysterious aggregate quality score. A review sheet should identify the revision needed and the evidence that would close each issue.
A worked example
A fictional definition is clear but omits that a metric is undated. Another answer has a source but no actionable next step. The editor records those as different issues: add the observation-date limitation, and add a relevant decision checklist. A single score of '92 quality' would not explain either correction.
A practical checklist
- Read the title and direct answer together. Confirm that they address the same question and that the answer retains its essential conditions when quoted alone.
- Check the example, steps and sources for consistency. Mark invented scenarios, missing evidence and claims that need a current primary reference.
- Test the page as a reader: can you complete the task, and do you know what remains unknown? Assign specific revisions and a real review owner.
What to avoid
Avoid calling a content audit an expert certification unless an actual qualified reviewer performed that role. AI-assisted drafts can support editorial work, but a functioning template and automated checks do not establish lived experience or independent subject-matter review.
A useful follow-up
Can automated checks replace the editor's judgment?
No. They can catch structure and missing fields; usefulness, accuracy, permission and context require editorial review.