We are a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, as indicated on our About Us page: http://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/

The first sentence in the ‘About Us’ section leaves no doubt about what this site is about. Well-done.

https://www.factcheck.org/archives/

As I mentioned last year, having the archives link on the top navigation is smart, although the drop-down menu seems a bit stale (ie: no mention of Robert Mueller or Russia investigation.)

We fact check the statements of major U.S. politicians, answer reader questions, debunk fake news stories, and write Q&As on important public policy issues. Here are 10 links from 2018 that show the scope of our work:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/qa-the-death-penalty-for-drug-trafficking/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/factchecking-trumps-immigration-tweets/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/atf-rulings-on-bump-stocks/

/03/durbin-wrong-on-trump-democrats/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/sanders-uses-stale-gun-sales-stat/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trump-no-collusion/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/democrats-misleading-tax-line/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/tax-cut-ads-preview-midterm-elections-ahead/

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/facts-media-violence/

The links to the 10 fact checks were interesting because they showed the growth of the site and how the scope has grown beyond just fact-checking the statements of presidential candidates into a site more focused on issues. Yet there is a certain lack of consistency in that many of these pieces are dense, long and difficult to read with headlines that don’t let the reader know what they’re getting. Headlines like ‘Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint’ and ‘Trump: No Collusion’ don’t really tell me about the fact-checking situation. Editors should consider some sort of design element that lets the reader know immediately what they’re getting. Better headlines and shorter stories will also help with reader understanding. 

We have a policy that staffers and students must sign that clearly states that they cannot be involved in any political or advocacy organizations, and they cannot make any contributions to such organizations. I can email or upload a copy, if necessary. 

The ‘Our Process’ page is a significant upgrade from last year and is a true exercise in transparency. I especially like the Facebook video -- not only is it a strong explanation of the process but it also humanizes the editors. However, missing from the page and the video is any reference to policies for involvement in political parties or advocacy groups. Especially in today’s ‘fake news’ environment, such a policy and explanation should be published on the site. Having a video explaining why editors and writers don’t take part in advocacy would be an excellent addition to the site’s transparency. 

We provide links embedded in our stories to all sources that we use in writing our Wire stories. For Featured Articles and Ask FactCheck items, we list sources at the end of the stories. These links are used by our staff to fact check each and every fact that we use in our story before it is published -- ensuring that our readers replicate the fact check, too. 

This is a strong feature of the site. Within their Fact checks and other features, staffers regularly link out. There are also lists of sources if readers are interested in doing their own research. 

We publish quarterly financial reports on our website that explain in detail the types of funding that we do and do not accept: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

As I mentioned last year, the transparency on FactCheck’s funding page is exceptional. 

https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/

One suggestion would be to link to bios of the individuals listed so that readers can get a sense of who these people are. There is also a strong effort to let readers know about their staff and their backgrounds.

We provide links at the top and bottom of our homepage where readers can contact us: https://www.factcheck.org/about/contact-us/ and we provide two links at the top of the home page for them to ask us a question: https://www.factcheck.org/ask-factcheck/ask-us-a-question/

One concern last year was that the ‘Contact Us’ section was getting lost. It looks like the editors have addressed that and the ‘Contact Us’ feature is more prominent throughout the site. An excellent change!

https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/ and https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/its-international-fact-checking-day/

Again, the outlining of the methodology is exceptional here, mostly because the editors have taken the time to explain their process via video. This makes the editors much more personable and relatable and makes the process much more understandable.

https://www.factcheck.org/ask-factcheck/ask-us-a-question/

 The interactive sections of the site are clearly marked and readers quickly find out how to proceed.

Our corrections policy is explained on "Our Process" page: https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

While the corrections policy is clearly state on the ‘Our Process’ page, the corrections themselves are hard to find, buried at the end of the story. It would be more transparent to have corrections at the top of the story, where they are easily found.

In an October 2017 story on President Trump's announcement that he would not certify Iran's compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, we originally wrote that Trump was referring to the Parchin military site when he criticized Iran for not allowing IAEA inspections of military sites. For that story, we interviewed David Albright, an adviser to the president. Albright contacted us the next day and told us that Trump was referring to inspections at all military sites, not just Parchin, to ensure that Iran is in compliance with Section T of the JCPOA. That section covers the development of dual-use equipment that can be used for civilian and military purposes. We corrected out error the same day we learned of it.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-irans-multiple-violations/

In an August 2017 story, we misidentified the military branch that operates the long-range bombers. It is the Air Force -- not the Navy, as we originally wrote. We were informed by a reader about our error a day after the story appeared and we corrected it the same day.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/trump-misfires-nuclear-weapons-boast/

The evidence submitted is sufficient.