Review accuracy, usefulness, originality, readability and next steps separately. A good total score must never excuse a false claim.
A quality checklist is useful when it changes an editorial decision. It becomes misleading when a numerical average lets a serious factual error pass.
Accuracy is a publishing gate
List names, dates, measurements and quotations. Verify them against accessible sources. Treat a fabricated citation, unsupported testimonial or incorrect instruction as a blocker, even if the rest of the draft reads smoothly.
Check the reader's task
State who the article is for and what they should be able to do afterward. Remove sections that do not support that task. A beginner may need a worked example; an experienced reader may need limitations and a reproducible method.
Identify the actual contribution
Ask what this page adds: a tested example, a useful comparison, an explanation of a failure case or a documented workflow. Rephrasing an existing article is not automatically a new contribution.
Example review note
For a whitespace tutorial: “The example is reproducible, but the draft says all spaces are harmless. Add the code-indentation limitation before publication.” This is more actionable than assigning an unexplained originality score.
Review structure and language
Use headings that describe the questions answered below them. Keep related instructions together. Sentence length and paragraph length should serve the material; no fixed count proves quality or human authorship.
Give the reader a next step
End with a relevant action and explain what success looks like. Avoid a sales call to action unrelated to the problem.
Google's people-first content questions can inform the review, but they are not an automatic ranking checklist. Record pass, revise or blocked for each dimension rather than claiming a validated universal scoring formula.
For a formatting-focused draft, compare the spacing tool with its methodology, and ensure the article describes the actual behavior.