Carey Gill

Carey Gill is the editorial pen name of the openpwa.net editorial desk. It is not the name of an individual person. Entries across the reference, guides, ecosystem, compatibility and news areas carry Reviewed by Carey Gill in their visible provenance block and in their structured data; the name identifies the desk that signed off on the entry, and the desk answers for it.

Why a pen name

OpenPWA is maintained as a continuous editorial function rather than by a fixed set of named writers. A single, stable byline gives every entry one accountable signature that does not change when the people on the desk do, and it lets a reader find every page reviewed under the same process in one place. The name is used consistently and only here; it is never attached to a photo, an employer, a location or an outside profile.

What the review step covers

Review is a human judgement, made after the automated gates have already passed, on three questions:

• Is each claim supported by the sources the entry cites? Not “is there a source”, which the gates check, but whether the cited document actually says what the entry says it says.
• Is the framing fair? In particular, whether a vendor’s announcement has been reported as a vendor’s announcement rather than as a settled fact, and whether a capability’s caveats are given the same prominence as its availability.
• Does the Chinese version say the same thing as the English one? Both locales ship as one unit; a translation that drops a caveat is a correctness defect, not a style issue.

Review does not re-run the deterministic checks. Source reachability, browser-compatibility agreement with browser-compat-data, depth-standard coverage, bilingual pairing and publication metadata are all verified automatically before review, and a failure there withholds the publish outright. The status and confidence definitions those checks use are on the Methodology page; the full sequence is under Editorial process.

Corrections

When a published fact is changed, the change is recorded in the site changelog with the date, the page and a one-line summary of what was corrected, so that a correction is visible rather than silent. The changelog is published at /changelog/ and as a feed at /changelog.xml.

Raising a correction

If a specific claim looks wrong, the useful report names the page, quotes the claim, and gives a source. That is enough to act on without a round trip. Routes are listed under Report a problem.

← Back to the About overview.