Snapshot 2026-09-30
Data quality
Every record is checked for structural consistency. Historical claims still need source review. This report keeps those two kinds of work visible.
- Structural errors
- 0
- Dated claims with direct sources
- 700 / 700
- Cached Wikipedia articles
- 324
How to read this report
A direct source is attached to a phase, house period or reign. Its presence makes the claim reviewable; it does not prove that the source supports every detail. General polity bibliographies and Wikipedia extracts are background reading. Review items may overlap on the same record.
The automated checks cover IDs, required fields, references, dates, institutional gaps, relationship endpoints, state-union inputs and extract provenance. They cannot settle disputed chronology, confirm territorial control or replace a historian’s review.
208 of 700 dated claims also have a specialist, scholarly, institutional or primary source attached. The others rely on general references such as Wikipedia. Source classification is an editorial judgment, not an automated assessment of accuracy.
Download the full JSON report · Read the source policy
Editorial review queue · 0 items
No outstanding automated review flags. Human review is still required.
Reproduce the checks
Run npm test for structural and behavioral regressions, npm run report:data for this review queue, and npm run validate:strict to require the queue to be empty. Normal builds fail on structural errors; strict validation also fails on unresolved editorial items.