Editorial Standards

A short list of rules we hold ourselves to. None of this is novel — but most phone-review sites violate at least half of it, so it bears writing down.

Plain English first. Every article opens with at least one paragraph readable to a first-time visitor who does not know what LTPO, mAh, refresh rate, or "computational photography" mean. Jargon is defined on first use or linked to the Before-You-Buy Checklist glossary.
Single clear pick. Every buying guide names ONE best phone for the audience. Runners-up are runners-up — not co-winners. Wishy-washy is worse than wrong.
Refuse to recommend a phone we wouldn't buy our own family. If we genuinely wouldn't put it in our kid's hand or our parent's hand, it doesn't go in a buying guide — even if it'd be a high-commission affiliate link.
Show our work on the math. Every cost calculator's assumptions are documented at /methodology. Every support-lifespan number cites the manufacturer page.
No spec-sheet tables without a verdict. If we publish a comparison table, the column on the right is "which one to buy, and for whom." Not "draw your own conclusion." We did the homework so you don't have to.
Honest about flaws. Every pick has a "Flaws but not dealbreakers" section. If we can't think of any, we haven't lived with the phone long enough.
Update dates, visibly. Every guide shows when it was last reviewed. If a phone we recommended got worse (battery problem, security patch dropped), we update the recommendation — not bury it.
Disclose every affiliate relationship. Full list at /disclosure. Updated whenever a new program is added.
Publish corrections. Every correction we issue lives at /corrections, including a note on what was wrong and how we caught it.
Don't review a phone we haven't held. Hands-on use beats spec-sheet analysis every time. We borrow, buy, or trial every phone before recommending it.

See something on the site that violates one of these rules? Email editor@smartphonesreview.com — we'll fix it and post the correction.