Sources and verification
Scholarship eligibility, amounts, deadlines and renewal conditions should be checked against the sponsoring organization’s official materials. A directory can help identify a lead, but it should not replace the provider’s instructions when those instructions are available.
Each time-sensitive program record should identify the application cycle and the date it was checked. If a program’s next cycle is unconfirmed, the article should say so rather than labeling it open. A missing amount or deadline should be reported as missing, not inferred from an earlier award.
Clear eligibility categories
An article should distinguish an award that requires a particular background or activity from a broader award for which that experience may be relevant. A scholarship’s placement on a topic page should never be treated as proof that every reader qualifies.
Information about citizenship, disability, heritage, financial need or other personal characteristics should be explained only to the extent needed to understand a provider’s criteria. We should not ask readers to disclose sensitive information merely to read an article.
Writing and examples
Original examples should be labeled hypothetical when they describe invented students, budgets or outcomes. Content should not fabricate applicant success stories, author expertise, testing experience or firsthand experience.
A practical example should explain a decision rather than imply an award is guaranteed. Financial-aid and admissions guidance should identify when a school-specific answer is required.
Human accountability and AI assistance
If AI-assisted drafting is part of the actual workflow, it should not replace source verification or accountable editorial review. An editor should be responsible for the final claims and for removing unsupported details.
Commercial relationships
Any material sponsorship, affiliate relationship or other relevant commercial interest should be disclosed clearly where readers encounter the recommendation. Editorial copy should not imply independent testing or evaluation that did not occur.
Disclosures must match the actual relationship; a recommendation alone does not establish that a partnership exists.
Updates and corrections
Time-sensitive pages should have a defined review owner and review trigger. A visible update date should reflect a meaningful check or edit, not an automatic freshness label.
When a consequential error is identified, the responsible editor should correct it and determine whether readers need an explanation. Readers can report a correction through the contact page.
Before acting on an article
Readers should use the official provider’s current instructions for submission. An article can explain and organize information, but it cannot change a provider’s requirements or decide an individual aid or admissions outcome.
