1
Topic brief
The writer starts from a topic brief that names the reader's question, the reading it will lean on, and the primary sources that will be checked at the factual pass.
About the writing
An editorial practice that prefers reading to reach
Built around a single reading-first principle: every piece is written to be re-readable, and the editorial pass is built to catch the failure modes that break re-readability.
A reading-first reference for the Come Sports brand
The publication exists because cricket coverage online tends to drift toward short-cycle content. The writing's mission is to give readers material they can return to in twelve months and still find useful.
Why the scope stays narrow
The reading deliberately covers five subjects rather than thirty. Cricket, fantasy formats, match analysis, player and team reading notes, and responsible-play guidance. Every subject gets enough room for depth, but the breadth stays small enough that the writing can actually keep up with revisions.
Sticking to the narrow scope also means the writing develops an internal vocabulary. The same terms show up in the same way across guides, which makes the reading easier on a second visit — a reader who learned how role impact is used on one piece will recognise it on the next without rereading the glossary.
How the checks are split
A piece moves through separate checks rather than a single author pass: a structural edit, a factual review, and a voice check against the brand voice guide. The split is intentional — checks work better when the person catching the issue is not the same person who introduced it.
From topic brief to published guide
The full editorial process is described in the editorial policy. The six steps below cover how a piece moves from idea to publication.
2
Draft
The draft follows the four-step reading frame: anchor the question, set the frame, walk through the working, land on a takeaway. Headings carry the argument; tables carry the numbers.
3
Structural edit
The structural edit looks at scannability, reading flow, and how the piece compares against the brand voice guide. Pieces that fail the voice check return to the writer, not to publication.
4
Factual review
Every claim is checked against a primary source. Numbers are confirmed; format versions are confirmed; quotes are confirmed. Pieces that fail the factual review also return to the writer.
5
Voice review
A separate voice check reads the piece against the brand voice guide. Hype vocabulary and promotional phrasing are removed. Sentences that do nothing are cut.
6
Publication
The piece is published with a publication date, an editorial note where the topic needs one, and a clear signpost to the next piece in the reading. Periodic reviews begin from the publication date.
What the writing holds itself to
Six short principles. They are deliberately short so they actually get read.
Factual first
Every claim checked against a primary source before publication.
Hype-free
Vocabulary that adds no information is removed at the edit pass.
Plain language
Terms are defined on first use. The reader is treated as new to the topic in every piece.
Re-readable
Articles should make sense on a second read a year later. The frame survives the news cycle.
Reader-first
The reader's question leads the piece. Format and structure follow the question, not the other way around.
Honest limits
The publication will not invent numbers, accuracy claims or user counts to look authoritative. The limits are named out loud.
How often the writing is revisited
Static reference pieces and newsier pieces run on different review schedules. The split keeps the writing's bandwidth aligned with how fast the underlying topic actually moves.
| Piece type | Example | Review cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Static reference | Glossary, points system, format explainers | Quarterly |
| Frame-based analysis | Match analysis frameworks, role-impact notes | Twice yearly |
| Tied to a tournament | Tournament previews, player notes for a series | Once per series or monthly |
| Reference notes | Editorial policy, disclosure, privacy | Twice yearly and on legal change |
| Come Sports | Brand pillars, voice guide | Yearly |
How corrections are handled when something slips through
Even with three checks per piece, things slip through. The publication has a short written rule for what happens next.
Material corrections are footnoted
If a published piece needs a material correction, the piece is edited, then a footnote is appended at the bottom of the reading that names the change, the date it was made, and a short description of what was wrong. Silent overwrites are avoided because they make the older version impossible to check.
Reader-submitted corrections are logged
Reader-submitted corrections sent via the editorial inbox are logged against the affected piece and reviewed within a reasonable turnaround. If the correction is material, the footnote treatment above applies. If the correction is a wording or clarity issue, the writing responds with a short note about the change made.
Link rot is treated the same as a fact check
If a piece's primary-source link goes dead, the link is replaced with an archive copy and the change is footnoted in the same way. Treating link rot as a fact check means the older version of the source stays checkable.
Where income comes from — and where it does not
The full picture sits in the commercial-disclosure note. The short version fits here.
The publication does not
- Accept wagers or hold player funds.
- Run paid fantasy contests or leaderboards with cash entry.
- Take affiliate commissions from betting operators.
- Sell advertorial slots tied to specific match outcomes.
- Run paid sponsorships that frame any piece as endorsement.
The publication may
- Display clearly-labelled contextual advertising on certain entries of the reading.
- Carry a small, editorial credit to a sister brand where the relationship is editorial rather than commercial.
- Accept editorial sponsorships that are clearly marked in an opening editorial notice.
- Run a newsletter whose subscription is free and never gated.
- License quotations of its pieces to other publishers, with attribution.
Want to send a note?
The fastest path is the editorial inbox. Corrections, republishing requests, partnership queries and reader feedback all use the same form.
Who the writing is for
The publication's writing targets three reader types. Knowing which one a piece is for changes the depth, the vocabulary and the links the piece carries.
The new reader
The new reader is curious but not yet committed to cricket. Pieces for this reader define terms on first use, walk through the basic frame, and avoid assumed context. Most glossary and how-to-play content lives here.
The regular reader
The regular reader follows the cricket calendar and reads the publication's match-analysis frameworks between series. Pieces for this reader assume basic vocabulary, push into role-impact and matchup reading, and link forward to deeper guides.
The returning reader
The returning reader is checking how a particular topic has been treated in the past or wants the desk's take on a current event. Pieces for this reader lean on the framework rather than re-explaining it, and reference the historical record explicitly.
Four behaviours the writing prizes above speed
Speed is what the cricket calendar asks of any cricket publication. The four behaviours listed here are what the writing prizes above speed, because they survive the news cycle.
Reading the question twice before answering
A surprising number of editorial errors begin with writing that addresses a slightly different question than the one a reader asked. The first half of every brief is restating the question in the writer's own words, then having the structural edit and the factual review restate it independently before the draft begins.
Showing the working
Tables, step lists and side-by-side comparisons are how the writing signals that the argument can be checked. Where a piece hides the working — “trust us, this is the right answer” — it is treated as a draft-stage failure.
Defining a term the first time it shows up
Glossary entries are not a back-of-the-book feature. They live inside the body of the piece where a term first appears, so a reader who finishes one piece never needs to consult the glossary to read the next.
Closing with a takeaway
Every piece closes with one paragraph that names what the reader should carry forward. Soft sign-offs, hedges and “hope this helps” language are removed at the edit pass because they make the takeaway less reliable.