This policy explains how TourDeFrance.online should research, write, update and correct its editorial content.
Source hierarchy
For facts controlled by an official body, use the closest authoritative source available. Tour de France/A.S.O. material is preferred for the official route, classifications and organizer announcements. UCI publications are preferred for regulations and team status. Team announcements are preferred for final rider squads. Host authorities are preferred for local closures and spectator information. Rights-holder announcements are preferred for TV and streaming availability.
Secondary sources can be valuable for reporting, quotes, independent analysis and details not fully explained by a primary source. When two reliable sources conflict, the article should either resolve the discrepancy with a stronger source or explain it.
Fact-checking
Dates, distances, rider names, team names, final times, gaps, points and historical records should be verified before publication. Tables are treated as editorial content, not decoration. A single wrong number in a table can be repeated by other sites and mislead readers for years.
Historical pages use final classifications where possible. Live standings should not be copied into a “final results” article before the race is officially complete.
Confirmed information, expectations and rumors
These are different editorial categories.
Confirmed means supported by an official or otherwise authoritative source appropriate to the claim.
Expected means there is credible evidence of a plan or likely outcome, but the event or selection is not final.
Prediction/analysis means our interpretation of available evidence.
Rumors should not be upgraded into factual headlines. If a rumor is ever important enough to report, the uncertainty and source quality must be visible.
Living pages
Many event pages are created before every detail is known. That is intentional. A useful early route page can publish the confirmed Grand Départ while clearly identifying what is still pending.
When new information arrives, update the established URL. Do not create chains such as “2027 teams,” “confirmed 2027 teams,” “final 2027 teams” and “updated 2027 teams” unless separate search intent genuinely requires separate pages.
Corrections
Material factual errors should be corrected promptly after verification. A significant correction can be noted on the page if the original mistake could have affected a reader's understanding. Small spelling, grammar or formatting fixes do not need a public correction note.
Do not alter an old race result simply to make a historical page appear fresh.
Originality and plagiarism
Facts can be reported by many publishers; another publisher's wording, organization and analysis should not be copied. Research should be transformed into original explanation, tables, comparisons and context.
Direct quotations should be used sparingly, attributed and kept only as long as necessary to support the point. The default is paraphrase and explanation.
AI-assisted work
Automated tools may assist with research organization, outlining, data cleanup, drafting and quality checks. Generated text is not evidence. Any factual claim that matters must be checked against a reliable source.
We do not invent first-hand experience, fake interviews or fictional expert biographies. If an author did not attend a race, the article should not imply that they did.
Authors and expertise
The site may use the organizational byline TourDeFrance.online Editorial Team when a real named author is not provided. It should never create a fictional former-professional or “cycling expert” identity simply to look more authoritative.
Trust comes from accurate sourcing, clear corrections, transparent dates and useful content rather than exaggerated credentials.
Commercial independence
Advertising, sponsorship or affiliate relationships must not decide editorial conclusions. Sponsored material, if introduced, should be labeled clearly enough that a reader can distinguish it from independent coverage.
Handling conflicting sources
When two reliable sources give different numbers, the disagreement should not be hidden. Editors should check publication dates, whether one source reflects a later route change, whether measurements use different definitions and which organization has authority over the fact. If the conflict cannot be resolved confidently, the article should explain the difference and avoid presenting one number as certain.
The 2026 Tour distance is a good example: the route page and final classification page show different totals because the route changed during the event. Explaining that is more useful than silently choosing one figure.
Headlines, metadata and search optimization
SEO should help the right reader find the right page, not distort the article. Headlines must remain accurate even when a more sensational phrase could attract clicks. Keywords should appear naturally and should not be repeated to satisfy an arbitrary density target.
Meta titles and descriptions should summarize the page rather than promise information the article does not contain. An article should not say “full route” when only three stages are confirmed.
Reader feedback
Readers are encouraged to report errors and provide evidence. Useful feedback should be reviewed rather than dismissed because a page has already been published. A reference site becomes more valuable when its corrections process is visible and consistent.