Guides
Factory tour correction records: how owners can prevent repeated mistakes
Factory tour correction records settle disputed dates, access claims, and photo credit disputes, so a later editor never restores an error the site already fixed.
A correction record settles a disputed sentence about a plant tour. It holds the two sources that disagree, the wording you published, and the reason you chose one.
What to take away
- Write the conflict into the record, not just the outcome. The next editor needs to see why 1891 beat 1889.
- Five events force a recheckseason change, broken URL, operator update, reader error report, listicle reuse.
- Keep the replaced sentence verbatim. A later editor who cannot see it will restore it.
- Name the editor who owns the next check before you schedule any reuse.
Resolving two conflicting dates
A furnace may be dated 1889 on a county historical marker and 1891 in a company history. Averaging them produces 1890, a year nothing happened. That is the failure this method prevents.
Pick the source that is more specific about the thing you are claiming. A company history that names the first cast is stronger evidence for a first-cast date than a marker erected a century later. A National Register nomination that cites its own sources beats both.
Then publish the chosen date and the reason in one sentence. "The first cast ran in 1891, per the company's centennial history; a county marker gives 1889." A reader can check both. A record that says only "1891" cannot be audited.
If neither source resolves it, qualify the claim or cut it. "Dating from the early 1890s" is honest. "Founded in 1890" is not.
The five refresh triggers
| Trigger | What to recheck | Who usually holds the answer |
|---|---|---|
| Season change | Hours, shutdown weeks, whether the line is running | The operator's visitor page |
| Broken URL | Whether the claim still has any source at all | Your own link checker, then the site |
| Operator update | Tour format, booking window, escort ratio, PPE rules | The operator's press or booking page |
| Reader error report | The exact sentence the reader challenged | The source behind that sentence |
| Listicle reuse | Every live claim the reused copy carries | The record for each claim |
A season change is the most common trigger and the easiest to miss. A plant that runs public tours in July may be dark in December for maintenance, and the page you cited in spring will not say so.
Five refresh triggers
- Season changerecheck hours, shutdown weeks, line running
- Broken URLdoes the claim still have a source
- Operator updatetour format, booking window, PPE rules
- Reader error reportthe exact sentence challenged
- Listicle reuseevery live claim the copy carries
What the record holds
Keep the original sentence, both sources with their dates, the decision, the replacement wording, and the next review date together in one file. The regional industrial interpretation checklist covers what a site page should carry; the record covers how you defend each line of it.
The file is a table or a plain field list, one row per claim:
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Claim | One line naming what the sentence asserts, for example furnace first cast |
| Published | The sentence as it ran, verbatim |
| Source A | Title or URL, publication date, what it says |
| Source B | Title or URL, publication date, what it says |
| Decision | Which source won, and why, in one sentence |
| Replacement | The wording that replaced the published sentence |
| Review by | Date of the next check, and the editor who owns it |
The HABS historical-report guidelines are the professional model here. They require a clear account of sources and methods, which is exactly what a two-source conflict needs: both sources named, both methods stated. The National Park Service visitor conditions guidance makes the same point about live terms.
The National Archives' records-management fundamentals explain why traceable decisions matter more than the decision itself. The National Park Service Museum Handbook is a museum reference, not a publishing system.
Worked example: the 1889 or 1891 furnace
An editor drafts "the furnace first fired in 1889" from a roadside marker. A reader sends the company's centennial history, which dates the first cast to 1891.
1889 or 1891 furnace dispute
- 1889Roadside marker date used in draft
- 1891Company centennial history first cast
- DecisionPublish 1891, note marker
- NextReview date set in record
The record then holds those fields, with 1891 as the date you publish and the marker named as the losing source.
Keep sponsorship out of the evidence field
A request to add a business is not evidence about that business. Store the request, the disclosure wording, and the evidence in separate fields. A sponsor can supply a lead; it cannot confirm access, timing, or a public program. Check any page a sponsor supplies against the exact wording you plan to publish.
Before you schedule reuse
Open the record. Compare each live claim with the page that controls it, then update the title, description, table, caption, and body together, and note who made the call.
Give the next check to a named editor. That editor verifies the exact claim, not the draft's general drift, and logs the result before the refreshed article publishes.
Common questions
Should I average two conflicting dates?
No. Publish the more specific source and say why it won.
What if neither source resolves the conflict?
Qualify the claim or cut it. "Dating from the early 1890s" is checkable; a precise year you cannot support is not.
Which source wins when both look credible?
The one more specific about the claim. A company history naming the first cast beats a marker erected a century later.
How long do I keep the record?
For the life of the article, and longer if your organization's records-retention schedule requires it.
