Fact-Checking Process

Most content sites say they fact-check. Few explain what that actually involves. We're publishing our process so you can evaluate our standards for yourself - and so you can tell us when we fall short of them.

Fact-checking at Mower Mentor is never performed by the person who wrote the draft. Every article is reviewed by a designated fact-checker before a senior editor signs off on publication.

Roles

• Draft author - the category-owning editor who researches and writes the article. Responsible for sourcing claims correctly during drafting, but not the final authority on accuracy.
• Designated fact-checker - typically our testing editor (for engine, deck, cut, and handling performance) or our repair-and-maintenance editor (for troubleshooting steps, parts fitment, and upkeep claims). The fact-checker is assigned based on the article's subject matter.
• Senior editor- reviews the fact-checker's notes, confirms all flagged items have been resolved, and gives final sign-off before publication.

No article is published without all three roles completing their part of the process.

Every Article

Regardless of content type, the fact-checker verifies:

• Mower specifics - engine or motor type, cutting width, deck construction, drive system, battery and runtime figures, weight, and included attachments are cross-referenced against the manufacturer's documentation at the time of publication.
• Claims attributed to our testing - any result we present as tested (a runtime, a cut quality rating, a starting reliability finding) is traced back to the corresponding entry in our internal testing log and its notes. If the log doesn't support the claim, the claim is revised or removed.
• Claims attributed to third parties - any data or finding we cite from an external source (CPSC guidance, an EPA standard, a published safety or emissions rule) is verified against the original source. We do not rely on secondhand reporting of third-party data.
• Comparisons and rankings - when we say one mower cuts better or holds up better than another, the fact-checker confirms the comparison is based on each mower's current spec and our testing, performed on comparable dates.
• Dates and currency - every guide carries a “Last tested” date confirmed on the publication date. Because models and lineups change, we note the testing date and re-test during scheduled refreshes.

Content-Type-Specific Checks

Different article types have additional verification requirements:

Brand and model hubs- the fact-checker confirms the source of every figure (the manufacturer's spec page, owner manual, or service bulletin), verifies the “Last tested” date is current, and cross-checks that the engine, deck, and drive details match the manufacturer's documentation as written today.

Mower comparisons- the fact-checker verifies that every mower in a ranking was tested within the current cycle, that head-to-head comparisons use each mower's current spec and our testing notes, and that no model has quietly changed since it was last tested.

How-to and repair guides - the fact-checker confirms that the described steps match the mower's actual service procedure (blade changes, belt and spark plug replacement, deck cleaning), that tool and torque guidance is accurate, and that any safety-critical guidance (disconnecting the spark plug or battery) is correct.

Mower-type and concept articles - the fact-checker verifies that definitions (mulching vs. bagging, self-propelled vs. push, brushless motor, side discharge) are accurate, that maintenance intervals reflect how mowers actually hold up, and that examples cite a real, tested mower.

Mowing technique articles - the fact-checker confirms that each described practice or remedy traces to current guidance or our testing (cutting height, mowing patterns, seasonal care), and that any equipment-safety steps (slope limits, clearing debris, fueling) are accurate and current.

Not all sources carry equal weight. We use a tiered system to evaluate the reliability of information:

Tier 1 - Primary Sources (Preferred)

• Our own hands-on testing in the shop and on real lawns - documented in our testing log with the date and conditions recorded.
• The manufacturer's own documentation - spec page, owner manual, or service bulletin - with the source recorded.
• CPSC guidance and EPA emissions publications.
• Published safety standards and recall notices governing mowers.

Tier 2 - Trusted Third-Party Sources

• Named consumer-advocacy and testing organizations we have explicitly vetted and trust (e.g., established nonprofit consumer groups).
• Reputable reporting that cites a primary spec or standards source we can trace back.
• On-the-record statements from manufacturer representatives, attributed by name and role.

Tier 3 - Contextual Sources (Not Cited as Evidence)

• Forum posts, Reddit threads, and user communities - may be quoted for color or to illustrate a common reader experience, but the underlying factual claim must be independently verified through a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source before publication.
• Customer-service chat or phone answers - useful as a lead worth verifying but not treated as authoritative until confirmed against the manufacturer's documentation or our own testing.
• Other media outlets' roundups - we may reference for context but do not treat another publication's figures as a substitute for our own hands-on testing.

If a claim cannot be supported by a Tier 1 or Tier 2 source, it is either removed from the article or explicitly qualified with language that communicates the uncertainty (e.g., “reports suggest” or “based on user accounts, though we haven't independently verified this”).

Here is the step-by-step process an article goes through:

1. 1Draft submission - the author submits the completed draft along with a source list documenting where each factual claim originated.
2. 2Fact-checker assignment - the senior editor assigns a fact-checker based on the article's subject matter.
3. 3Line-by-line review - the fact-checker reads the article and flags every verifiable claim. Each flag is categorized as confirmed, needs source, needs revision, or remove.
4. 4Source verification- the fact-checker independently checks each flagged claim against the cited source and records whether the source supports the claim as written. Where the source doesn't fully support the claim, the fact-checker proposes revised language.
5. 5Author revision- the author receives the fact-checker's notes and revises the draft accordingly. Disagreements between the author and fact-checker are escalated to the senior editor for resolution.
6. 6Final review - the senior editor reviews the revised draft, confirms all flags have been resolved, and signs off for publication.
7. 7Publication- the article goes live with its byline and, where applicable, the reviewer's name.

The entire process typically takes 2–4 business days after the draft is submitted, depending on the complexity of the article and the volume of claims that require verification.

Not every question has a clear, sourceable answer - especially when a manufacturer's documentation is silent on an edge case or a mower behaves inconsistently in the field. When we encounter genuine uncertainty, we follow these principles:

• We say what we know and label what we don't. If a detail hasn't been confirmed through our testing or the manufacturer's documentation, we say so rather than presenting it as confirmed.
• We don't speculate as fact. Predictions, expectations, and educated guesses are clearly framed as such, using language like “we expect,” “early indications suggest,” or “based on last year's model.”
• We revisit and update. If we publish with a qualified claim, we flag the article for follow-up once better information becomes available.

Fact-checking doesn't end at publication:

• Reader-reported issues submitted through our contact page are routed to the editor-in-chief and reviewed against the same source standards described above.
• Scheduled refreshes (on a regular cadence for brand and model hubs, at least yearly for mower comparisons) include a full re-test of performance, upkeep, and any claims that may have been affected by a model being redesigned or discontinued.
• Corrections, when warranted, follow our corrections policy. Every substantive correction is logged publicly.

To be transparent about the boundaries of this process:

• Subjective assessments - when we describe a mower's cut as “clean” or its handling as “effortless,” those are editorial judgments informed by experience. They reflect how the mower compares, not a figure that can be checked against a spec sheet. We don't fact-check opinions, but we do ensure they're grounded in our hands-on testing.
• Future claims- we don't verify predictions about models a manufacturer hasn't announced, future redesigns, or upcoming releases beyond attributing them to their source.
• Third-party ad content - advertisements displayed on our site through programmatic ad networks are not subject to our editorial fact-checking process.