Blog post checklist: review the answer, links, and live page before publishing

Save the Markdown file with the article’s review record or copy it into your editorial tool. Assign a reviewer and mark unresolved issues explicitly. If a check does not apply, record why; that is more useful than ticking every box without inspecting the result.

# Blog post checklist

Article URL or planned slug:
Primary keyword, KD, market, and research date:
Writer:
Reviewer:
Planned publication date:

## Reader and evidence
- [ ] The opening answers the article's specific question.
- [ ] Each section helps that reader complete the intended task.
- [ ] Product facts, numbers, and instructions match approved sources.
- [ ] Unsupported claims and repeated off-topic blocks have been removed.

## Search and publishing fields
- [ ] The primary keyword is naturally in the H1, a relevant H2, and first sentence.
- [ ] The planned slug is the hyphenated primary keyword.
- [ ] The page title includes the primary keyword and accurately describes the page.
- [ ] H1 and page title have their own wording while describing the same article.
- [ ] Summary and meta description are separate, page-specific fields.
- [ ] Author, category, and tags are correct.

## Links and images
- [ ] Every recommendation reaches the relevant live product or collection.
- [ ] Supporting links answer a useful next question.
- [ ] The cover and inline images are accurate, sharp, and correctly cropped.
- [ ] Filenames and alt text describe the images in context.

## Live page
- [ ] The final URL loads the intended article.
- [ ] The title, headings, images, tables, and links work on a phone.
- [ ] The delivered page metadata matches the reviewed fields.
- [ ] Downloads open the promised files.
- [ ] The page appears in the intended blog navigation.
- [ ] The inventory, evidence record, and follow-up plan are updated.

Issues requiring correction:
Live checks completed by and date:
Follow-up observation window:

Read the title and opening together. Can a visitor tell what the article will help them do, and does the first section begin doing it? For a sock-material comparison, the useful work is comparing the relevant product characteristics and their tradeoffs. A long introduction about the importance of comfortable feet delays that decision.

• The opening gives a direct, qualified answer rather than restating the question several times.
• Each heading introduces a distinct part of the explanation.
• Examples fit the topic and the intended audience.
• Repeated authenticity, care, or buying blocks appear only where they answer a real question.
• The final next step follows naturally from the advice.

Google’s people-first content guidance is a useful reference for evaluating whether a page helps its audience. Keep the review centered on that usefulness rather than an arbitrary article length or a promise that a checklist guarantees rankings.

Check material composition, sizing, care instructions, availability claims, and any other detail that could affect a purchase. Use the approved source for the product being discussed. A plausible general statement is not a substitute for an exact specification when the recommendation depends on that specification.

For the fictional comparison, a reviewer might discover that the introduction refers to one fabric blend while the table uses another. Resolve both against the current product information, then save the source and date checked. Reviewing sentences and tables together catches inconsistencies that a spelling pass misses.

For the keyword placement check, use one verified primary phrase naturally in the H1, a relevant H2, the opening sentence, and the page title; use its hyphenated form as the planned slug. Keep the H1 and page title separately written around the same subject. This is an editorial consistency rule, not an instruction to repeat the phrase in every heading or image description.

Google can generate a different title link or snippet in search. Check the fields you publish for accuracy without promising a fixed search-result display. For an established URL, review any proposed address change as a migration task rather than a cosmetic edit.

Click each product and collection link. Confirm that the destination matches the item, audience, material, and use case discussed in the surrounding paragraph. A working URL can still be the wrong recommendation, so a status-code check alone is insufficient.

• A named item reaches that item’s current product page.
• A range comparison reaches an appropriate collection when that is the useful next step.
• Supporting articles explain a relevant remaining question.
• Link text makes the destination understandable.
• Unavailable products are handled with an accurate note, a verified alternative, or a removed recommendation.

Use the ecommerce internal linking workflow for a deeper review. When automatic matching is involved, inspect the suggested products before approval and check the delivered links again on the storefront.

Check the cover at both article and archive sizes, and inspect inline pictures at the point where they support the explanation. A generated editorial illustration should not imply that it is a verified photograph of a specific product feature. Write alt text that describes the image in context and review the filename before upload.

Set the intended author or editorial team, use the approved category and tag names, and check the publication date. These details are easy to overlook when the body is generated or delivered automatically. The Shopify image-size guide and blog category guide explain those two checks in more detail.

Open the final address in a fresh view. Confirm that the intended article loads, the headline is correct, the image appears, and recommendations still reach the reviewed destinations. Check the page on a phone, including long headings, tables, navigation, and any download links.

Compare the delivered metadata with the approved fields. If delivery transformed the document, verify that the summary, description, and heading were not merged or copied into the wrong places. Record any discrepancy as a concrete correction rather than assuming a successful publishing job proves every field is right.

Add the live URL and reviewer to the content inventory. Save the evidence and a follow-up plan, then use the content decay guide if an established article later loses search performance. A maintained publication record makes that later investigation more useful.