Why we review
Memorial platforms carry a particular kind of trust. Families come here looking for genuine traces of their relatives' service; visitors absorb what they read as historical record; partner institutions and researchers cite material from the archive in their own work. Each of those uses depends on the assumption that what appears on the platform has been considered, not merely posted.
For that reason every submission passes through editorial review before it appears on featured surfaces or is treated as canonical by the registry. Review is not bureaucracy. It is the act of asking, before publication, what we know about the material in front of us and what level of confidence it warrants.
Source confidence — four tiers
Every veteran profile and every article on the platform carries an internal record of how the source material was obtained. That record is reflected in how the entry appears across the site — which surfaces can feature it, whether engagement (candles, comments, family contributions) is open on it, and how it is presented to researchers.
Verified
An archival source or primary documentation has been cited. This includes references to ЦАМО (Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence), ГАРФ (State Archive of the Russian Federation), the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC), the OBD Memorial database, the National Archives, regimental records, or contemporary press. Verified entries are eligible for hero surfaces, featured rotation, and editorial citation.
Family submission
A family member has provided a photograph and biographical material, with the family relationship documented. Family submissions are the heart of the registry — they are what makes the platform a memorial rather than a list. They are eligible for featured surfaces with family attribution.
Community submission
A non-administrative contributor — a neighbour, a researcher who knew the veteran, a member of the wider community — has submitted a profile with photograph or biographical information. Community submissions are visible across the registry and on search, and are surfaced on featured layers after further verification by an editor or by a family.
Research in progress
Material whose direction is grounded — a name, a unit, a cemetery, an archival lead — but for which per-claim citation is still being assembled. Research-in-progress entries are visible to contributors and to the community precisely so that families, historians, and archives can help complete them. They are not hidden, but they are clearly framed as ongoing work rather than settled fact.
Below these four tiers, the platform also marks administrative placeholders used during the early scaffolding period of the registry. Placeholders are not visible on public surfaces and cannot accumulate candles, comments, or family contributions. They exist only as internal records that an entry has not yet been replaced by a real submission.
Corrections, not silence
Historical accuracy is not a one-time act. It is a discipline maintained over years. Where we have published something that turned out to be inaccurate, we correct it publicly rather than quietly. We update the original entry, mark what changed, and — when it matters — write down what we did and why.
Some records may evolve as families, researchers, and archives contribute additional material over time. A profile that started as a research lead may, years later, become a fully cited verified entry. A community submission may receive a family photograph. An archival reference may surface that confirms — or amends — a previously published claim. These changes are part of the work, not exceptions to it.
We would rather a memorial platform have visible gaps than invisible inaccuracies. Trust comes from discipline, not density.
Historical research and operational confirmation — two different questions
On a memorial platform, two different kinds of factual claim coexist, and they need to be evaluated differently.
Historical research asks: was this true in the past? Did this person serve in this unit? Was this soldier buried in this cemetery? Did this convoy sail on this date? Questions of historical fact are resolved against the archival record — the four tiers above describe how strongly that record supports any given claim.
Operational confirmation asks a different question: is this current claim about the platform itself accurate? Did this event happen on the announced date? Does this partnership with this named organisation exist? Did this person participate in this role? Has this milestone been reached? Questions of current operations are resolved by the operator, the Council, or a documented partner — not by archival reasoning. We do not announce events that have not been agreed, partnerships that have not been confirmed, or counts that have not been measured. Operational details are not published without human verification and editorial approval.
Both kinds of verification matter on a memorial platform. A profile with strong historical sourcing but a fabricated current-events tie-in is no more reliable, in the public eye, than a profile with weak sourcing. The two disciplines work together.
How contributors can improve records
The archive is built from the inside out. Almost every profile worth keeping was improved at some point by someone who knew more than the editors did. There are several ways to participate:
- Submit family material. A photograph, a letter, a service record, a name a family has carried for three generations. Family material is the single most valuable contribution to the archive. Submit a veteran →
- Cite an archival source. If you have an archive reference, a CWGC link, a regimental record, or a published source for an existing entry, send it to us and we will add it to the record. A research-in-progress entry can become a verified entry through one well-attributed citation.
- Collaborate on research. Cemetery researchers, historians, archivists, translators, regional coordinators — the platform actively builds a network of contributors who hold knowledge that no single editor could replicate. If you are working in this field, we want to hear from you. Volunteer →
- Report an inaccuracy. If you see a claim that does not match what you know to be true — a date, a unit, a relationship, a cemetery — write to us. We treat correction requests seriously and respond.
Stewardship over scale
A memorial archive is not measured by how quickly it grows. It is measured by whether what it contains can be trusted years from now by the families it serves. We grow the platform as we can grow it carefully — through authentic family submissions, archival research, regional coordinators, partner institutions, and contributors who care about the substance of the work.
That commitment is what these editorial standards exist to support.
For researchers, partner institutions, and journalists evaluating the platform: a record of substantive editorial corrections and the governance principles introduced over time is maintained in the project archive. Available on request from info@moypolk.uk.