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 Grooming Nova 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 guard lengths, battery life, and blade or foil specs) or our skin-comfort editor (for technique, irritation, and sensitive-skin 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:

• Device specifics - guard lengths, closeness, battery life, blade and foil specs, included accessories, and maintenance needs are cross-referenced against our hands-on testing and the manufacturer's official spec page at the time of publication.
• Claims attributed to our testing - any figure we present as tested (a 90-minute runtime, a 0.5mm guard increment, a closeness rating) is traced back to the corresponding entry in our internal testing log and its source. 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 (an FTC guidance, a state attorney general, published consumer-protection law) is verified against the original source. We do not rely on secondhand reporting of third-party data.
• Comparisons and rankings - when we say one device shaves closer or runs longer than another, the fact-checker confirms the comparison is based on each device's current tested results, measured on comparable dates.
• Dates and currency - every device carries a “Last tested” date confirmed on the publication date. Because manufacturers revise their models, 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 (our hands-on testing or the manufacturer's official spec page), verifies the “Last tested” date is current, and cross-checks that the guard lengths, battery life, and blade specs match the device on sale today.

Device comparisons- the fact-checker verifies that every device in a ranking was tested within the current cycle, that head-to-head comparisons use each device's current tested results, and that no model has quietly been revised since it was last tested.

Technique and how-to guides - the fact-checker confirms that the described steps match how the device actually works (guard settings, wet vs. dry use, neckline technique), that accessory and upkeep guidance is accurate, and that any model-specific guidance is current.

How-it-works and concept articles - the fact-checker verifies that definitions (foil vs. rotary, guard length, blade type, motor speed) are accurate, that technique and comfort claims reflect how the device actually performs, and that examples cite a real, tested device.

Skin-comfort articles - the fact-checker confirms that each described technique or remedy traces to our testing or named authoritative guidance (e.g., FTC or published consumer-protection law), and that any safety-sensitive guidance is 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 on real hair, and the manufacturer's official spec page for figures like guard lengths and battery life - documented in our testing log with the source recorded.
• Published consumer-protection law and official regulatory documentation.
• FTC guidance and state attorney general publications.
• Court decisions and statutes governing advertising and consumer products.

Tier 2 - Trusted Third-Party Sources

• Named consumer-advocacy organizations we have explicitly vetted and trust (e.g., established nonprofit consumer groups).
• Reputable reporting that cites a primary policy or legal source we can trace back.
• On-the-record statements from brand or 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.
• Brand customer-service chat or phone answers - useful as a lead worth verifying but not treated as authoritative until confirmed against our testing or the manufacturer's spec page.
• 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 spec is silent on a detail or a device performs inconsistently across hair types. When we encounter genuine uncertainty, we follow these principles:

• We say what we know and label what we don't. If a device detail hasn't been confirmed by our own hands-on testing, 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 device comparisons) include a full re-test of guard lengths, battery life, blade specs, and any claims that may have been affected by a manufacturer revising the model.
• 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 shave as “close” or a trimmer as “effortless,” those are editorial judgments informed by experience. They reflect how the device compares, not a figure that can be measured. 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, unreleased specs, or upcoming launches 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.