Drafting and Structure

List Article Evidence Planner

Ensure every item in a list article has a transparent selection reason, useful explanation, relevant evidence, boundaries, and consistent evaluation.

Free editable Markdown · Writers, editors, and SEO teams · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

List method

Reader and decision: [Who is choosing what?]
List promise: [Comprehensive / Selected / Tested / Illustrative]
Eligible universe: [Define]
Inclusion criteria: [List]
Exclusion criteria: [List]
Evidence cutoff: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Commercial relationships: [Describe or None]
Ordering method: [Alphabetic / Task / Score / Other]

Evaluation criteria

Criterion and reader reason: [Enter]
Evidence required: [Documentation / Test / Independent source]
Measurement or scale: [Define]
Weight: [If used, justify]
Unknown handling: [Explain]
Disqualifying condition: [Enter]
Reviewer: [Name/role]

Item card

Duplicate for every candidate.

Item, plan, and version: [Enter]
Eligibility evidence: [Reference]
Best-fit reader or task: [Describe]
Relevant evidence by criterion: [Enter]
Test performed: [Method/result or Not tested]
Limitations and poor-fit case: [Describe]
Price and availability checked: [Date/market/source]
Commercial relationship: [Enter]
Decision: [Include / Exclude / Pending]
Reader-facing reason: [Write distinctly]

Final quality and maintenance

Update owner and triggers: [Price, release, relationship, evidence]
Last full recheck: [Date]

Headline and introduction accurately describe the method.
Every included item meets the same eligibility rules.
Vendor claims and independent findings are distinguished.
Scores and rankings can be reproduced from the stated method.
Disclosures appear where readers will see them.
Plans, markets, versions, and comparison periods are equivalent or qualified.

How to use this template

Define the reader task, eligible universe, selection criteria, evidence cutoff, and disclosures.
Research each candidate with the same evidence fields and testing method where applicable.
Decide inclusion, fit, limitations, and comparison language from recorded evidence.
Choose an honest ordering method and write distinct, reader-specific item explanations.
Verify the final list, publish the method, and schedule feature, price, and availability checks.

Publish the selection method before choosing winners

Define the reader task, eligibility rules, evidence cutoff, evaluation criteria, and reasons an item may be excluded. State whether the list is comprehensive, illustrative, editorially selected, tested, surveyed, or based on public documentation. “Best” requires a defined audience and basis; without them it is an unsupported superlative. Record how sponsorship, affiliate relationships, free samples, or vendor access affect the workflow and disclosure. A transparent list may contain fewer items, but each should help the reader understand why it belongs.

Give every item comparable evidence and useful context

Use a consistent card for factual description, fit, limitations, price or availability date, and evidence. Open primary product sources and attribute vendor-reported claims. If the team tested items, publish enough method—tasks, environment, sample, date, scoring, and constraints—for readers to interpret the result. Do not award numerical precision unsupported by the test. Explain which reader or situation each item serves instead of rewriting the same generic praise. If evidence is missing for one criterion, mark it unknown rather than borrowing an assumption from a similar item.

Order and maintain without manufacturing authority

Choose an ordering method that reflects the page's promise: alphabetic, task-based, scored under published criteria, or grouped by audience. Do not shuffle items to reward commercial terms unless the relationship is prominently disclosed and the editorial claim remains accurate. Check that the introduction and headline match the method and that comparisons use equivalent plans, versions, and periods. Give changing prices, features, and availability an owner and review trigger. Remove or qualify an item when evidence expires; merely updating the page date does not make the research current.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: offline note applications

PinePad, HarborNote, and all features below are invented and are not product recommendations.

Method: Include imaginary desktop apps whose public documentation confirms offline editing as of the fictional cutoff.
Criteria: Export control, operating-system support, and recovery documentation; no speed ranking is claimed.
Item fit: PinePad suits a fictional single-device user but lacks documented team synchronization.
Unknown: HarborNote's recovery period is not published, so the list marks it unknown instead of guessing.
Order: Group by individual and team task rather than presenting a false universal “best.”

Frequently asked questions

How many items make a good list?

The number should follow the eligible evidence and reader task. Do not add weak entries merely to reach a round number.

Can products be ranked without hands-on testing?

You can compare documented properties with clear attribution, but do not imply independent performance testing or experiential judgment that did not occur.

How should affiliate links be handled?

Disclose the relationship clearly and preserve independent selection, evidence, and limitations under applicable policy.

What if one item changes after publication?

Recheck the affected comparison, update or remove it, record the change, and review claims that depended on the prior state.