Publication status
Plantwise publishes care and troubleshooting guides that meet our sourcing, review, and completeness checks. Plant profiles are reviewed against the same standard, and every published page shows its writer, its reviewer (when review is complete), its update date, and the sources behind its recommendations.
Define the reader's decision
Each guide starts with a specific question a home grower can actually ask — "why are my pothos leaves turning yellow," "how often should I water a monstera," "is a snake plant safe for cats." The editorial lead assigns the question, the writer, and the reviewer before drafting begins, so the guide stays focused on a decision the reader needs to make rather than a generic encyclopedic entry.
We plan guides around observable signals the reader can check at home: leaf texture, new growth size, soil moisture, root condition, and the plant's recent history. A guide that asks the reader to measure something they cannot observe does not get published.
Use sources with accountable expertise
Priority sources include university cooperative-extension programs, botanical gardens, government guidance, professional associations, and relevant peer-reviewed literature. Source links appear on the guide itself so readers can check the evidence.
Plant toxicity claims are matched species-by-species against ASPCA toxicity data, Royal Horticultural Society guidance, and primary botanical literature — never stated generically across a genus. Pet-safety conclusions are tied to the exact botanical species named on the profile, because closely related plants can differ in toxicity.
Write for what the reader can see and do
Writers draft guidance in plain language, grounded in the observations a home grower can safely make. Each guide includes the key takeaways up front, a step-by-step procedure, the common mistakes to avoid, seasonal or environmental differences, and a clear stopping point — when to isolate a plant, when to discard it, or when to call a local extension service.
We avoid fixed schedules. A watering guide teaches the reader to test soil moisture and watch the plant, because the same species can need water twice a week in one room and every ten days in another. Where a range is given, the guide explains what changes the answer.
Separate writing from review
The person who drafts a guide is not the person who signs off on it. A reviewer checks the horticultural accuracy, the diagnosis logic, or the toxicity claims — depending on the guide type — before publication. Reviewers sit on the Plantwise horticulture review board, and their scope is matched to the content.
A reviewer credit appears on a guide only when that review has been completed and documented. Guides that have not completed review are attributed to the editorial team and carry no reviewer name, so the presence or absence of a name always tells you something true about the guide's status.
Fact-check against the cited source
Fact-checking runs alongside review, not as a substitute for it. A fact-checker verifies each recommendation against its cited source, checks that plant names and dates are correct, confirms that source links resolve, and flags anything the source does not actually support. A claim that cannot be tied to a checked source is removed or rewritten to say what is and is not known.
For pest and disease guides, fact-checking also confirms that a recommended treatment is labeled for the pest, the plant, and the indoor location — and that the guide tells the reader to test on a small area first.
Keep guides current
Each guide shows its last-updated date. Content has a review-due interval based on its type — plant profiles and basic care around 18 months, pests and toxicity around 12 months, product roundups quarterly, seasonal content ahead of its season. Overdue guides show an update flag internally until they are refreshed.
When a source is updated, withdrawn, or superseded, the guide is revisited and its recommendations adjusted. We do not leave a stale recommendation on a page simply because it was once published.
Keep corrections visible
Even reviewed guides can become outdated or contain an error. Each guide shows its update date, and every guide links to our corrections process. If you find a factual issue, a broken source, or a safety concern, email corrections@plantwise.top with the page URL and the passage in question.
Material corrections are reviewed by the editorial team and, where the issue concerns care, diagnosis, or toxicity, by a board reviewer. We update the guide, refresh the update date, and keep a record of the change. When a correction is substantial, we note it on the page so readers can see what changed and why.
How we use AI tools
Plantwise may use tools to help with structure, formatting, internal link suggestions, and spelling or grammar checks. But every published guide is written and reviewed by the named people on our team page. We do not publish unedited machine-generated content, and we do not invent expert quotes, test results, or reviewer credits.
Plant toxicity conclusions, pest diagnoses, and treatment steps are never based on automated output alone. They are checked against cited sources and, where a guide carries a reviewer credit, by the named specialist on the review board.