Editorial standards
Separate the question before choosing a source
We treat ingredient identity, food preparation, traditional explanation and clinical evidence as different editorial questions. A botanical record may support a name and an edible part; it does not establish a therapeutic effect. A food-safety agency may explain refrigeration; it does not confirm a traditional nature. A traditional materia-medica entry can document a classification without proving that eating the ordinary food produces a measured benefit.
Each factual article section links to the source used for its claims. We prefer the relevant government, university, food agency or original publication over a general “authority” link that says little about the paragraph. A source is included for what it actually supports, not as decoration or an endorsement of the entire website.
What “accessed” means
The source record stores a title, publisher or author, original URL, language, access date, publication date when confirmed, source type, access status, supported fields and limitations. “Accessible” means the relevant content was actually read. It does not mean peer review, independent laboratory verification, or a licence to reproduce the full publication.
If the relevant body cannot be read, a search title or snippet is not enough. An unavailable reference may remain recorded as a research lead, but it must not be used to support a published factual section. Dates distinguish when the editor accessed a page from when its author published it; an unknown publication date stays unknown.
How a page becomes publishable
An ingredient page must make its naming problem clear, describe the relevant food form and offer traceable kitchen guidance. Traditional properties need explicit source links. Evidence language must identify the preparation being discussed and avoid treating a cell, animal or extract finding as a result for an ordinary meal. Guides must answer their title with understandable explanations and usable next steps.
Completeness is judged by questions answered, not a fixed word count. A long list of vague precautions is not depth; a clear distinction, a labelled example or a reason behind a preparation step can be. If a fact remains uncertain, the options are to narrow the wording, explain the uncertainty or omit it—not manufacture a number, scientific name or confident consensus.
Differences, translations and images
When sources disagree, we retain the named positions and their limits rather than averaging them into a new conclusion. A regional food name may cover several species or processing forms. The translation should preserve that uncertainty; a tidy English label is not permission to erase the distinction.
English and Traditional Chinese are edited separately against shared facts and references. Material factual edits trigger a synchronization check for the counterpart edition. Photos need a source, creator and clear reuse licence. The homepage yam images have visible credits and recorded transformations; where no appropriate image has been obtained, the ingredient page states the text-only limit. We do not use generated images as identification photographs.
Corrections and the limits of editorial review
A good report names a page, identifies the exact statement, explains the problem and supplies a readable source. The editor can compare that evidence with the relevant section, correct or narrow the text, and check the counterpart translation. Stored revisions support restoring an earlier version as a draft; a prior version is not automatically republished.
Editorial checking is not clinical review. The site does not invent a medical reviewer, professional qualification or a claim of exhaustive literature coverage. If you need advice about personal symptoms, interactions, prescribed treatment or exercise suitability, that question falls outside the correction workflow.