# Content Verification Policy

Yoruba.ca is a public learning resource, so uncertainty must be visible. Content is never treated as authoritative merely because it appears on the site.

## Statuses

- `draft`: proposed content that has not completed basic editorial checks.
- `needs-native-review`: structured content awaiting native-speaker, teacher, or qualified linguist review.
- `verified`: the exact spelling, tones, meaning, usage, and relevant context were reviewed for the stated scope.
- `disputed`: credible contributors disagree or the evidence cannot support one uncontested form.
- `deprecated`: retained for history or migration but should not be used as current guidance.

A status applies to the exact entry or lesson. Verification of one word does not verify every example in a lesson.

## What a review should cover

Reviewers should identify what they can assess and leave the rest open:

- spelling, Unicode characters, and tone marks;
- pronunciation, ideally with a speaker or rights-cleared audio reference;
- English translation and any literal gloss;
- register, age, relationship, and cultural context;
- dialect, regional, historical, or family-specific variation;
- source quality and whether the source supports the claim;
- consent and rights for audio, images, or quoted material.

## Sources

Sources should be specific enough for another contributor to inspect. A source may be a published book, dictionary, archive, community organization, teacher, speaker, or rights-cleared recording. Record the title, author or contributor, year where known, URL where available, and a note about what it supports.

A source is not a guarantee of correctness. Older or regional sources may use different orthographies or conventions. Preserve those differences and explain them.

## Review queue

Unverified items remain available to contributors through the structured data and the site's visible review labels. Do not hide an uncertain translation, silently normalize a dialect form, or upgrade an entry to `verified` without recording the review.

To review an item:

1. Open an issue or pull request with the exact entry ID.
2. State the proposed correction and the source or lived expertise behind it.
3. Ask the contributor to identify the scope of their review.
4. Have a second reviewer resolve material disagreements where practical.
5. Update the metadata and changelog with the result.

If a disagreement cannot be resolved, use `disputed`, preserve both sourced forms, and explain the context.

## Editorial boundary

The platform does not generate authoritative language content. It can organize, search, and present submitted material, but a missing field should remain missing until a human contributor supplies and reviews it. Audio is optional; no text entry should imply that an audio recording exists.