A resource section editor working on “Remove a broken resource without adding an unrelated substitute” needs a clear boundary between a supported correction and an assumption. The useful result is a public detail that can be explained from approved destination list and observed link behaviour, together with a note of anything that remains unresolved.
What matters for directory links
For this task, choose a destination because it serves the article's reader, and label it so the next step is understandable. The immediate aim is to remove a broken resource without adding an unrelated substitute; expanding the review to unrelated fields makes it harder to see whether this correction was justified. Identify the exact public wording or stored value before deciding what to replace.
Prepare the resource section editor’s evidence
Gather approved destination list and observed link behaviour and identify which part supports “Remove a broken resource without adding an unrelated substitute”. Keep the source value, the proposed public version and the person responsible for confirmation distinguishable. Review the final subject after redirects; a familiar domain name is insufficient if the destination has changed ownership or purpose. If the supplied material does not establish the affected detail, retain that question rather than filling it with a plausible guess.
The mistake to look for
For “Remove a broken resource without adding an unrelated substitute”, consider this hypothetical review: several directories can repeat the same old claim because they copied one source. Agreement among copies is weaker than independent accountable confirmation. The example illustrates a decision risk, not a verified business record. For the resource section editor, the important comparison is between the intended meaning and the impression created by the current listing.
Make a bounded correction
The correction for “Remove a broken resource without adding an unrelated substitute” should change only the unsupported or misleading part. Record origin and date, and preserve unresolved disagreement rather than counting repeated claims. Keep any operating limitation beside the detail it qualifies. If the platform cannot represent the distinction in its structured fields, use a concise explanatory note where supported instead of inventing a field value.
Check the public result
After the edit, revisit the public record used for directory links and read it from a first-time visitor’s perspective. Compare it with approved destination list and observed link behaviour; also check that saving or exporting has not shortened, reformatted or displaced the important detail. Record what is visible now and what still requires a separate check. Completion of “Remove a broken resource without adding an unrelated substitute” means the specific correction can be demonstrated, rather than merely that an edit was submitted.
| Keep separately | Purpose for this task |
|---|---|
| Source | approved destination list and observed link behaviour |
| Public change | Remove a broken resource without adding an unrelated substitute |
| Responsible role | resource section editor |
Before marking this task complete
- Is the purpose of “Remove a broken resource without adding an unrelated substitute” clear in the published result?
- Does the affected detail agree with approved destination list and observed link behaviour?
- Has the resource section editor retained unresolved questions separately from approved wording?