Assessing Quality on Physiopedia Pages

Top Contributors - Alexandra Stead and Vidya Acharya

Introduction

With almost 6,000 pages to maintain and review for quality, we must be strategic about which pages we edit, prioritising those that require the most urgent updates. To support this, our editorial team follows a monthly quality rating process to identify priority pages for updating. Poor-quality content can confuse learners, spread misinformation, damage our credibility, and waste both learner time and organisational resources. We pride ourselves on a stringent review process, ensuring our content remains accurate, current, and trustworthy for every learner who relies on it.

Quality assessment traffic light System

To bring clarity and consistency to our quality review process, we use a simple traffic light rating system that allows our editorial team to quickly identify where attention is needed:

Quality Rating	Criteria	Actions
Quality assessment traffic light scoring
Green: Content meets quality standards	Accurate and up-to-date information Clear, engaging writing with proper structure Effective use of examples and visuals Inclusion of clinical applications Minor typos or formatting adjustments only High Quality evidence used	Minimal or no editing needed
Orange: Content has some quality issues that impact effectiveness	Information gaps or unclear explanations Inconsistent tone or organisational problems Missing or inadequate examples Accessibility or readability concerns Outdated references or statistics	Requires targeted editing
Red: Content has significant quality issues	Inaccurate or misleading information Poor structure that hinders comprehension Missing essential content or learning objectives Multiple factual errors or broken links Low quality evidence used or absent evidence	Requires priority editing

Summary

Pages identified as Orange or Red will receive priority attention from our editorial team, who will use the quality review checklist to carry out the necessary updates.