When an Article Feels Like AI Filler: A Five-Point Editorial Audit

1. Does the opening name a real reader problem?

A generic opening often spends several sentences announcing that a subject is important, complex, or changing quickly before telling the reader what the page will help them do. The same introduction could sit on dozens of unrelated pages. That is a sign to check whether it establishes the reader’s task, not proof of how the passage was written.

For a page about comparing two desk lamps, an opening such as “Lighting is an essential part of modern life” delays the useful question. A more purposeful opening might say: “If you are choosing between two desk lamps, compare the light direction, controls and fit on your desk before choosing by appearance.” It defines a task and previews decision criteria.

As an editor, mark the first paragraph and ask: Who is this for? What are they trying to decide, understand or do? Does the next section help with that? Cut broad throat-clearing when it does not set up the answer. Keep context that changes the advice—for example, a relevant constraint or prerequisite.

2. Can each factual claim be traced to evidence?

Fluent, confident sentences can still contain claims that are too broad, imprecise or unsupported. Audit numbers, dates, product details, quotations, causal statements and claims about what people generally prefer. For every consequential factual claim, identify a source that actually supports its wording and scope. A source about one product version or one group does not establish a claim about every version or every reader.

Try a claim-by-claim check: underline the factual statement; open the cited source; confirm the source is accessible and current enough for the claim; then compare what it says with what the page asserts. If the source supports only a narrower point, narrow the sentence. If no suitable source is available, remove the claim or make clear that it is an editorial suggestion rather than an established fact. A citation beside a paragraph is not enough if it does not support the specific statements in it.

Google’s helpful-content questions explicitly ask about clear sourcing and evidence that helps readers assess trust. That supports a practical editorial habit—checking claims against sources—but it does not mean that adding citations alone makes a page complete or useful. ([Google’s helpful-content questions](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content))

3. Are the examples doing new work, or just taking up space?

An example earns its place when it makes a distinction easier to see, tests a recommendation against a real constraint, or shows how a reader can apply a step. A recycled example repeats the same general point with different names or surface details. A familiar scenario can still be useful, but only if the page explains what the reader should notice or do in it.

Look for paragraphs that start with “For example” and ask what the example proves. Does it show a boundary, a trade-off or a next step? Could a reader make a better decision after seeing it? If the example merely restates the previous sentence, replace it with one that reveals a useful distinction or delete it.

Fictional before and after: choosing a desk lamp

The following is an invented editorial illustration, not a reported test or a claim about a real product.

**Before:** “A good desk lamp should be bright, stylish, and easy to use. Choose one that fits your needs and makes your workspace comfortable.”

**After:** “If you read paper notes beside a laptop, first check whether the lamp can point at the page without shining directly into the screen. Then check that its base fits the desk space you have available. Those two checks can rule out a lamp that looks appealing but does not suit this setup.”

The revised version adds decision details: what to inspect, in which order, and why a constraint matters. It does not pretend to report hands-on testing. If the page wanted to make a claim about a particular lamp’s reach or base size, the editor would need an appropriate source or direct, clearly described observation to support it.

4. Do the headings move the reader forward?

Headings should divide the task into questions the reader needs answered. If several consecutive headings all say, in different words, that choosing a lamp can be difficult, they are repeating the premise instead of advancing the explanation. A simple outline check reveals this: read only the H2s and H3s. Can you tell what the reader will learn at each step?

For a buying guide, sections might progress from “What must fit on your desk?” to “How should the light be aimed?” to “Which controls will you use?” Each answers a different question. If a heading does not introduce a distinct answer, combine it with a neighboring section or change it to name the missing question. Then verify that the section beneath actually answers its heading; a useful label cannot rescue unrelated copy.

5. Is there an observation or useful detail behind the advice?

Advice often feels interchangeable when it never gets more specific than “consider your needs” or “choose what works for you.” A page becomes more useful when it identifies the conditions that change the choice: a measurement to take, a feature to compare, a prerequisite to check, a trade-off to accept, or a reason one option might not fit.

Specificity must be honest. If the editor or author has not used a product, visited a place or performed a comparison, do not imply first-hand testing. Instead, give an evidence-based method the reader can apply, cite reliable documentation for product facts, or state the limits of what is known. When a real observation exists, describe what was observed and under what conditions; do not inflate one observation into a universal conclusion.

Google’s people-first questions ask whether content demonstrates first-hand expertise and depth of knowledge, giving actual use or a visit as examples. The appropriate evidence depends on the subject: an editor can add value through a transparent procedure or careful synthesis where direct experience is not relevant, while avoiding claims of experience they do not have. ([Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content))

Turn the audit into a revision plan

Review one page at a time. Write down the intended reader and the concrete task the page supports. Then check the opening, claims, examples, headings and decision details in that order. For each weakness, note one specific change: replace the generic lead with the task; verify, narrow or remove an unsupported claim; make an example demonstrate a distinction; give each heading a separate job; or add an honest observation or usable decision step.

Finish by reading the revised page as that reader. Can they tell what to do next? Are the important conditions visible? Does each factual statement have evidence that supports it? Does the page offer original information or a substantial explanation beyond repeating familiar advice? Google presents these as questions for evaluating helpful content, not a scoring formula. The editorial result should be a clearer, better-supported page whose value can be understood from the page itself. ([Google’s helpful-content questions](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content))

Keep exploring this topic