Fact-Checking Policy

Getting the details right is the whole job. In gaming coverage, the details are relentless — developer credits, release facts, patch histories, mechanics, tournament formats, deck rules, card interactions, business events — and each one is a place a piece can quietly go wrong. Pro Slot Games publishes this fact-checking policy so readers know exactly how we try not to. It describes how we verify claims, what counts as an acceptable source, and the checks every article must pass before it goes live.

Fact-checking is not a separate department here; it is a stage every piece moves through as part of the workflow described in our editorial policy. Between “Edited” and “Ready,” an article’s factual assertions are verified against their sources, and anything that cannot be verified is removed or rewritten before publication.

How we verify gaming claims

Verification starts with identifying the checkable claims in a piece and tracing each one back to a source we trust. A “checkable claim” is any statement of fact a reader might reasonably rely on: who made a game, when it released, which studio owns which franchise, how a mechanic or format actually works, what a company did or announced. Framing, opinion, and interpretation are the writer’s to argue; the facts underneath them are ours to confirm.

For each claim, we ask three questions. Where did this come from? Is that source in a position to know? And does an independent, credible source corroborate it? A single claim we cannot answer those questions for does not survive to publication as a stated fact. Where something is genuinely contested or uncertain, we say so plainly rather than picking a side we cannot defend — “widely reported,” “according to,” or “commonly attributed to” is preferable to a false certainty.

We are especially careful with numbers. Sales figures, player counts, and performance stats are easy to state and hard to ground, so we cite a number only when it is genuinely well-established and correct. When a precise figure cannot be responsibly grounded, we describe the reality qualitatively — “one of the best-selling games of its generation” — rather than inventing a statistic that looks authoritative but is not.

Sourcing standards

Not all sources are equal, and our verification reflects that. We work from a rough hierarchy.

Primary and official sources sit at the top: a studio’s own site, a publisher’s announcement, an official rules document, a storefront listing, a first-party technical spec. When a fact can be confirmed at its origin, that is where we confirm it.

Established, reputable outlets come next — the recognised gaming press and general reference works with editorial standards and a track record. These are excellent for corroboration and context, and often for facts we cannot reach a primary source for directly.

Everything else — forums, social posts, unverified aggregators, anonymous tips — is treated as a lead, not a fact. Such material can point us toward something worth confirming, but it never stands on its own as the basis for a published claim. A rumour remains a rumour until a source that can actually know it says otherwise, and we label it accordingly.

Every article closes with a sources block listing real, verifiable references a reader can follow. We prefer canonical homepages and official roots over deep links we cannot vouch for, and we do not manufacture citations to lend a piece unearned authority.

Pre-publish checks

Before an article is marked “Ready,” it passes a defined set of pre-publish checks. In practice, an editor confirms that:

Names are correct — games, studios, developers, publishers, players, and products are spelled and attributed accurately. Release and factual details are verified against a source. Mechanics, formats, and rules are described correctly, as someone who genuinely knows the game would recognise them. Any numeric or quantitative claim is either well-grounded or restated qualitatively. Every source in the closing block is real and points where it says it does. And the framing of the piece does not overstate what the facts support — an analysis is presented as analysis, not as first-hand testing or an authoritative verdict we did not earn.

Where a check fails, the claim is fixed or cut. A piece does not publish with a known gap papered over.

When we still get it wrong

No verification process is perfect, and we do not pretend ours is. Facts change, sources err, and checks occasionally miss something. What we can promise is what happens next: when an error survives to publication, we correct it in the open through the process on our corrections page, with a note explaining what changed. Readers who spot a mistake are a genuine part of how we keep the record straight, and we ask them to tell us at corrections@proslotgames.com. Questions about how we verified a particular claim can go to editorial@proslotgames.com — showing our work is part of the standard, not an imposition on it.