Editorial QA

4. SEO Alignment

• Does the focus keyword appear in: title, H1, first paragraph, meta description?
• Are secondary keywords woven naturally (not stuffed)?
• Is the meta description compelling and under 160 chars?
• Are internal links present and relevant?

5. Technical Quality

• Grammar, spelling, punctuation
• Consistent formatting (heading hierarchy, list style, bold/italic usage)
• No orphaned links, broken references, or placeholder text
• Proper attribution for data, quotes, or sources

6. Persuasion & Engagement

• Does it open with a hook? (Question, stat, pain point, story)
• Is social proof present where appropriate? (Testimonials, case studies, numbers)
• Are objections anticipated and addressed?
• Would you keep reading if you weren't paid to?

Output Format

## Editorial QA: [Content Title]

### Overall Grade: A/B/C/D

### What's Working
- [Specific callouts of strong elements]

### Issues Found
| # | Severity | Location | Issue | Fix |
|---|----------|----------|-------|-----|
| 1 | High | Para 2 | Unclear value prop | Rewrite: "..." |
| 2 | Medium | CTA | Too vague | Change to: "..." |
| 3 | Low | H3 | Missing keyword | Add "..." |

### Revised Version
[Full revised text with changes marked in **bold**]

### SEO Check
- Focus keyword: [present/missing] in title, H1, body, meta
- Meta description: [good/needs work] — suggested: "..."
- Internal links: [count] present, [suggestions]

### Derivative Content
- Social angle 1: [platform + hook line]
- Social angle 2: [platform + hook line]
- Email teaser: [subject + opening sentence]

Rules

• Always provide specific rewrites, not just "make it better"
• Preserve the author's voice — edit, don't rewrite from scratch
• If no brand guidelines exist, default to Voyager voice (direct, warm, no fluff)
• Flag factual claims that need verification
• Be honest about quality — a mediocre piece that ships is worse than honest feedback that improves it
• Never use the word "elevate" in any suggested copy