Corrections Policy
Gladewick takes factual accuracy seriously enough to have a formal, public corrections process. This page explains exactly how errors are reported, how we investigate them, how quickly we act, and how corrections are labelled transparently in published articles.
Acknowledged Within 24 Hours
Every reader-reported error receives a response within one business day — not an auto-reply, but a real acknowledgement from our editorial team.
Corrected Within 48 Hours
Once an error is confirmed, the correction is made and the updated article is live within 48 hours — reviewed by an independent expert before republishing.
Transparently Labelled
Material corrections are labelled in the article — what changed, what it said before, and when the correction was made. Nothing is buried or hidden.
Independently Re-Reviewed
Corrected content goes through the same independent expert review process as new articles. A correction is not published until a second expert confirms it is accurate.
Why This Policy Exists
Every publication makes mistakes. The difference between a trustworthy publication and an untrustworthy one is not whether errors occur — it is how they are handled when they do. A publication that silently edits errors, deflects accountability, or suppresses reader corrections is making an editorial choice that prioritises reputation management over reader trust.
Gladewick chooses the opposite. We believe that transparent error correction — done promptly, labelled clearly, and reviewed independently — is one of the highest expressions of editorial integrity available to a publisher. This Corrections Policy is our public commitment to that standard.
This policy also exists because our content has real-world consequences. When a reader follows a Gladewick guide to wire an outlet, plant a tree, or apply a fertiliser, they are acting on information we published. If that information is wrong, the consequences can be financial, physical, or both. We take that responsibility seriously.
Our standard: Gladewick treats every confirmed factual error — no matter how small — as an editorial failure that requires formal correction, transparent labelling, and independent re-review before the corrected version is published. We do not distinguish between “important” and “unimportant” errors when it comes to the process. Every error is corrected the same way.
What Counts as a Correction
Not every article update is a correction. Gladewick regularly updates content to keep it current — adding new product options, refreshing pricing, updating seasonal guidance, and expanding articles with new information. These updates are not corrections and are not labelled as such.
A correction is specifically a change made to content because the original information was factually wrong, misleading, or incomplete in a way that could cause a reader to make an incorrect decision.
Examples that require a formal correction
- A measurement, dimension, or specification stated incorrectly — for example, the wrong wire gauge for a circuit amperage rating
- A safety instruction that was incorrect, incomplete, or absent in a context where safety was material — for example, a missing ground fault interrupter requirement in a wet-area electrical article
- A product claim stated as fact that was incorrect — for example, a stated battery runtime that does not match real-world testing results
- A building code or permit requirement stated incorrectly — for example, citing an outdated code version or stating that no permit is required when one is
- A plant hardiness zone, fertiliser application rate, or chemical concentration stated incorrectly in a gardening article
- A price, product model number, or product availability stated incorrectly in a product review
- A professional credential or qualification attributed to an author or source that was overstated or inaccurate
Examples that do not require a formal correction
- Adding a new product recommendation that did not previously exist — this is an update, not a correction
- A difference of professional opinion between the author and the reader — this is a disagreement, not an error (see Section 10)
- A style or formatting preference the reader disagrees with — this is subjective feedback, not an error
- A product price that has changed since publication — this is a routine update, not a correction, unless the original price stated was never correct
Types of Corrections
Gladewick classifies corrections into four categories based on severity and the potential consequences of the original error. Each category has its own response timeline and labelling requirement.
Safety-Critical Correction
An error that could lead a reader to take an action that risks personal injury, property damage, fire, flooding, electrocution, or other serious harm. Examples: incorrect electrical wiring instructions, missing asbestos disturbance warnings, incorrect structural load guidance, unsafe chemical application rates.
Corrected within 6 hours of confirmation
Factual Correction
An error that states something factually incorrect — a measurement, specification, code requirement, product attribute, or professional standard — that could lead a reader to make a wrong decision. Examples: incorrect tile square footage, wrong fertiliser application rate, outdated building code reference.
Corrected within 48 hours of confirmation
Minor Factual Correction
A small factual error that does not affect any decision a reader would make — for example, a typographical error in a product model number, an incorrect city name for an author’s location, or a minor numerical error that does not affect practical guidance.
Corrected within 5 business days
Clarification or Context Addition
The original statement was not technically incorrect but was incomplete or ambiguous in a way that could lead to misunderstanding. For example, guidance that is accurate for most US regions but not for a specific jurisdiction, without adequate qualification.
Assessed and updated within 7 business days
How to Report an Error
If you believe any content on Gladewick.com is factually incorrect, misleading, unsafe, or outdated, we want to hear from you. Reader corrections are one of the most valuable tools we have for maintaining accuracy at scale, and every report is taken seriously.
Step-by-step: how to submit a correction report
Email our editorial team
Send your correction report to support@gladewick.com with the subject line “Correction Request”. This subject line ensures your email is routed directly to the editorial review queue rather than the general support inbox.
Include the article URL
Paste the full URL of the article that contains the error. This allows us to locate the exact article immediately without searching and eliminates any possibility of confusion between articles covering similar topics.
Describe the specific error clearly
Tell us exactly what the article currently says and why you believe it is incorrect. Quote the specific sentence or passage you are disputing. The more specific you are, the faster we can investigate. Vague reports — such as “something in this article is wrong” — are harder to investigate efficiently.
Share your source, if you have one
If you have a source that supports the correction — a manufacturer specification sheet, a government code document, a peer-reviewed study, or professional experience — please include it. We will verify it independently as part of our review process, but having a starting point speeds up investigation considerably. A source is helpful but not required to submit a report.
Safety-critical reports: If you believe an article contains information that could cause physical harm to a reader who follows it — for example, incorrect electrical, structural, chemical, or tool-use guidance — please mark your email subject line as “URGENT — Safety Correction Request.” These reports are escalated immediately to our editorial team and our most relevant expert reviewer, and are addressed within 6 hours of confirmation.
Our Corrections Workflow
Every correction report follows a structured, consistent workflow from the moment it is received to the moment the corrected article is republished. Here is exactly what happens.
Report received and logged
Your correction report is received, logged in our editorial queue with a timestamp, and assigned to a member of the editorial team. If you provided an email address, you receive an acknowledgement confirming we have received your report and it is under investigation. This acknowledgement is sent within 24 hours — not an automated reply, but a response from our editorial team confirming the specific claim you have raised.
Claim verified against primary sources
The editorial team and the relevant category specialist independently verify the reported claim. We consult primary sources — manufacturer specifications, government codes, trade organisation guidance, peer-reviewed research, and our authors’ professional experience. We do not simply take the reporter’s word for the correction, even when a source is provided, because the correction itself must also be verified before it replaces the original information.
Error confirmed or disputed
Based on our investigation, we reach one of three conclusions. First — the report is confirmed: the article contains a factual error and a correction is required. Second — the report is partially confirmed: the article is not wrong but is incomplete or ambiguous, and a clarification is appropriate. Third — the report is not confirmed: our investigation supports the original content, and no change is required. In all three cases, we respond to the reporter explaining our conclusion and our reasoning.
Article corrected by the responsible author
If a correction is confirmed, the responsible author — or a replacement author if the original is unavailable — revises the article. The correction is made precisely: only the factually incorrect information is changed. We do not use a correction as an opportunity to substantially rewrite an article in ways unrelated to the reported error.
Corrected content reviewed by an independent expert
The corrected article undergoes the same independent expert review as a new article before it is republished. The reviewer confirms that the correction is accurate, that it has not introduced any new errors, and that the corrected passage is consistent with the rest of the article. The reviewer must not be the author of the correction. For safety-critical corrections, the reviewer is the most relevant specialist available.
Corrected article republished with transparent label
The corrected article is published with a transparent correction notice labelled within the article body — not hidden in the footer, not in the metadata, but visible to any reader of the article. The “Last Updated” date is revised. The correction is noted in our internal editorial log. Where possible, the reporter who identified the error is notified that the correction has been published.
Timelines & Response Standards
The following timelines represent our commitments for each correction category. These are not aspirational targets — they are the standards we hold ourselves accountable to.
| Correction Type | Acknowledgement | Investigation & Decision | Correction Published |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safety-Critical | Within 2 hours | Within 4 hours of receipt | Within 6 hours of confirmation |
| Factual — Standard | Within 24 hours | Within 24–36 hours of receipt | Within 48 hours of confirmation |
| Factual — Minor | Within 24 hours | Within 2–3 business days | Within 5 business days of confirmation |
| Clarification | Within 24 hours | Within 3–5 business days | Within 7 business days of assessment |
| Report not confirmed | Within 24 hours | Within 3–5 business days | Response explaining our position sent to reporter |
Timelines run from the point at which the correction is confirmed — not from the point of receipt. Confirmation requires independent verification of the reported error against primary sources. In cases where primary source verification takes additional time — for example, when a building code version must be checked against a specific jurisdiction — the timeline may extend accordingly, and we will communicate this to the reporter.
How We Label Corrections
Transparency in correction labelling is the most visible part of our corrections policy. Gladewick never silently edits published content. Every material correction is labelled clearly within the article body so that any reader — whether they are reading the article for the first time or returning after reading the original — can see what changed and when.
What correction labels look like in practice
Safety-critical correction notice — appears at the top of the article, before any article content:
⚠️ Correction notice — April 29, 2026: This article previously stated that 14-gauge wire is appropriate for a 20-amp circuit. This was incorrect. 20-amp circuits require 12-gauge wire minimum per NEC 310.15. The article has been corrected and re-reviewed by Rob Callahan, Licensed Electrician. We apologise for the error.
Standard factual correction notice — appears adjacent to the corrected content within the article body:
Correction — April 29, 2026: This section previously stated a coverage rate of 1,000 sq ft per bag. The correct coverage rate is 5,000 sq ft per bag. The error has been corrected. Reviewed by Emily Carter.
Minor correction notice — appears in the article’s update log at the bottom of the page:
Last Updated: April 29, 2026 — Minor correction: Author location updated from Nashville to Denver. No editorial content affected.
Clarification notice — appears adjacent to the clarified content:
Clarification added — April 29, 2026: The guidance in this section applies to jurisdictions that have adopted the 2021 IRC. Requirements may differ in jurisdictions using earlier code versions. Always verify permit requirements with your local building department.
What we always include in a correction label
- The word “Correction” or “Clarification” — clearly and prominently stated, never softened or euphemised
- The date on which the correction was published
- A description of what the article previously said and what it now says
- The name of the expert who reviewed and approved the correction
- An acknowledgement of the error where appropriate — we do not minimise or deflect when we were wrong
What we never do with correction labels
- Bury the correction notice in a footer, sidebar, or metadata field where casual readers will not see it
- Use vague language such as “updated” or “revised” to describe a factual error — corrections are called corrections
- Remove the correction label after a period of time — correction labels are permanent within the article
- Attribute a correction to a vague source like “the editorial team” when a specific named reviewer approved it
The Re-Review Requirement
One of the most important — and most often absent — elements of a corrections process is what happens to the article after the correction is made. Most publications correct the error and immediately republish without any independent verification. This creates a risk that the correction itself introduces a new error, contradicts other information in the article, or fails to fully address the underlying problem.
Gladewick applies the same independent expert review standard to corrected articles that it applies to new articles. No corrected article is republished until a second expert — someone other than the person who made the correction — has reviewed and approved it.
The re-review requirement in practice
- The reviewer who approves the correction is never the same person who made it — the same author-reviewer separation that applies to new articles applies to corrections
- For safety-critical corrections, the reviewer is the most relevant specialist available — for example, a licensed electrician reviews a corrected electrical article, not a garden or decor specialist
- The reviewer evaluates not just the corrected passage, but the surrounding context — ensuring the correction is consistent with the rest of the article and has not created new inconsistencies
- The reviewer’s name is included in the correction label published with the article, providing full accountability for the corrected version
- A corrected article that fails independent review is returned for further revision — it is not published until the reviewer is satisfied
Why this matters: Publishing a correction without independent review risks substituting one error for another. The re-review requirement means that the standard of accuracy we hold our original articles to is the same standard we hold our corrections to. A corrected article is not simply a patched version of a flawed one — it is a newly verified piece of content that happens to have a correction notice attached.
What We Will Not Do
These are hard commitments. None of the following will ever happen at Gladewick in relation to a correction, regardless of the circumstances.
- We will not silently edit errors. Every factual correction to published content is labelled — no exceptions. A reader who bookmarked an article and returns after a correction will always be able to see that the article has been corrected and what changed.
- We will not suppress a correction report. Every report is investigated. If a report arrives from someone with a commercial interest in the outcome — a competing brand, a former partner — the investigation is conducted with the same rigour and the same independence as any other report.
- We will not delay a safety correction for any reason. If an article contains information that could cause physical harm to a reader who follows it, that information is addressed immediately — regardless of publication schedules, commercial considerations, or any other factor.
- We will not allow a brand or advertiser to prevent a correction. If a product review contains an error that is unfavourable to a brand — for example, a performance claim that was incorrect — the correction is published regardless of the brand’s objection or commercial relationship with Gladewick.
- We will not remove correction labels after time has passed. Correction notices are a permanent part of the article’s record. They are not removed once they have been published, even if we believe sufficient time has passed. The record of a correction is part of the article’s history.
- We will not publish a corrected article without independent re-review. No matter how straightforward the correction appears, no corrected article is republished until it has been reviewed by a second expert who did not make the correction.
Reader Feedback & Disagreements
Not every reader concern is a factual error. Some readers disagree with our recommendations, prefer a different product, use a different technique, or have had a different experience with a product than our reviewer. These are legitimate perspectives — but they are disagreements, not corrections.
Gladewick distinguishes clearly between factual errors and professional disagreements. A factual error is a statement that is objectively wrong. A professional disagreement is a difference of informed opinion between our expert and the reader.
How we handle disagreements
- We respond to substantive disagreements: If you have professional experience or research that you believe contradicts our guidance, we take it seriously. Email support@gladewick.com with the specific claim and the basis of your disagreement. We will pass it to the relevant expert author and, if the disagreement raises a genuine question of accuracy, treat it as a potential correction.
- Differences of opinion are noted internally: Even where our investigation confirms our original content, substantive professional disagreements from credentialed readers are logged internally and may inform future article updates or additions.
- We do not change recommendations based on preference: If a reader prefers a product we did not recommend, that is not a correction. Our product ratings are based on structured testing methodology — not reader preferences — and we do not adjust ratings or rankings in response to reader lobbying.
On regional variation: Home and garden guidance varies significantly by location. A reader in Arizona may have a different experience with a product than a reader in Minnesota. If our article does not adequately note that guidance is climate-specific or jurisdiction-specific, that is a legitimate feedback point — and one we treat as a clarification request rather than a reader preference. We aim to make regional variation explicit in all guidance that is location-dependent.
Contact & Related Pages
To report a factual error, submit a safety concern, or ask a question about how a specific correction was handled, please use the contact information below.
Report an Error or Inaccuracy
For all factual corrections, safety concerns, or accuracy questions about Gladewick content:
support@gladewick.comSubject line: “Correction Request” for standard reports, or “URGENT — Safety Correction Request” for safety-critical concerns.
For editorial policy questions, contributor matters, or press enquiries:
hello@gladewick.comYou can also use our Contact Us page to submit any correction report through our secure online form.
Explore our complete editorial and trust documents:
- Editorial Policy — The full standards framework governing all Gladewick content
- Editorial Review Process — How the independent expert review system works
- How We Test Products — Our product evaluation and testing methodology
- Meet Our Team — Full credentials of all 18 Gladewick authors and reviewers
- Affiliate Disclosure — How our commercial relationships are kept independent of editorial decisions
- Disclaimer — Liability limitations for our home and garden advice content