AI-written website content: a review checklist before you publish

Check the evidence, the reader's question, the promises, and the actual CMS output before an AI-assisted draft goes live.

Share ↗

An AI-assisted draft is ready to publish when a responsible reviewer can stand behind its claims and it helps the reader do something useful. Smooth wording is not enough. Review the evidence and purpose before polishing the sentences.

Google's guidance on generative AI content emphasizes value and warns against producing many pages without adding value for users. A larger publishing queue does not replace editorial judgment.

Start with the reader and the source material

Write down the question the page answers and the decision it supports. Compare it with existing pages. If the draft repeats the same intent, improving the original may be more useful than creating another URL.

Gather the approved product facts, service scope, documentation, and client evidence before asking for a draft. Record what is unknown so it does not become a confident sentence later.

Review every claim that could change a decision

  • Product claims: confirm the feature exists in the relevant plan and configuration.
  • Numbers: check the source, period, baseline, and what was measured.
  • Client examples: confirm the work, outcome, attribution, and publication permission.
  • Promises: remove guarantees about rankings, conversion, or timing that the evidence does not support.
  • Dates: distinguish an announcement date from the article's publication date.
  • Sources: open the original source and confirm it supports the nearby claim.

For a hypothetical correction, replace “Our migration guarantees no traffic loss” with “The migration plan includes URL mapping, redirect checks, and post-launch monitoring.” The second sentence describes work that can be scoped and verified. It should still match the actual agreement.

Edit for the way your team speaks

Read the opening aloud. Remove a staged introduction if the second paragraph already contains the answer. Replace broad claims with the concrete work behind them. Keep useful qualifications, but remove hedging that does not change the advice.

At Beqi, that means distinguishing implementation from original design. We build approved designs, migrate websites, and support ongoing work. A draft should not quietly expand those services to make a paragraph sound more complete.

Check the CMS and the published output

Confirm the title, slug, excerpt, category, tags, author, and genuine publication date. Inspect headings, links, tables, image descriptions, and mobile layout. Check that SEO and sharing fields are connected to the template, not simply filled in.

Structured data should describe the visible article. Do not add a rating, customer outcome, author credential, or date that the page cannot support.

Give the reviewer a clear release decision

Use three outcomes: ready, needs a named correction, or blocked by missing evidence. Keep the unresolved claim out of the public copy until it is supported. Save the source and decision so future updates do not repeat the same research.

For a recurring workflow, assign the content owner and publisher before scaling production. Beqi can help implement the CMS workflow and review controls; the website governance guide explains how to keep ownership clear.

← All articles