Editorial standards

Useful local guidance needs evidence, limits and accountable review

This policy explains what the Australia package publishes, how it distinguishes fact from synthesis and what must happen before a version can be described as reviewed.

Version status: Ceferin has approved this package editorially. It does not claim independent agronomic or native-language review or local validation.

1. Utility before page volume

A page must answer a distinct gardening question, explain a decision or help a person observe their site. We do not create indexable pages for every postcode, month, crop or generated combination.

2. Original writing and responsible use of tools

The copy, data structure and explanations are written for this project. External sources are used to check facts and boundaries; they are not copied, lightly reworded or treated as a substitute for local analysis.

Automated and artificial-intelligence tools may assist research organisation, draft writing, code, testing and editorial illustrations. Their output is not evidence, agronomic authority or botanical identification. Material remains versioned and subject to human review.

3. Four different kinds of material

Attributed fact
Information linked to a named source, date and geographic scope.
Editorial synthesis
An original interpretation that combines evidence and project criteria while stating its review status.
Planner rule
A versioned value used to compare a crop with a person’s answers. It must be visible and explainable.
Local report
An individual observation that can prompt investigation but does not automatically become a rule.

4. Sources, rights and geographic limits

We prioritise Australian public institutions and material with clear provenance. Before a source supports published data, the project records its permitted use, attribution, derivative limits and relevant region. A calendar for Adelaide, Darwin or Queensland is not presented as a national table.

A research source with unclear or incompatible reuse rights may inform what to investigate, but its table, map, image or wording is not republished and it cannot silently become a product dataset.

5. Editorial publication decision

Ceferin makes the final publication decision for each complete market package. This version does not claim independent agronomic or native-language review. A material change to content, rules, sources or routes requires a fresh editorial decision before release.

6. Uncertainty and safety

We use terms such as “reference window”, “strong match” and “may need attention”. We do not promise germination, yield or harvest. The project does not diagnose pests or disease, prescribe pesticides, replace current weather warnings or provide individual agronomic, medical, nutritional or food-safety advice.

7. Corrections

A correction should identify the affected page or rule, location, date, reason and source. Accepted material is changed in version control and re-enters the applicable review gate. Send a correction through the public contact channel.

8. Editorial independence and future advertising

The current version has no ads, sponsored links or affiliate placements. If advertising is authorised later, it will be visually separated from content and controls. Advertising cannot change crop scores, ordering, sources, conclusions or review decisions.