A new date does not automatically make an old article current. A refresh needs an identifiable reason: a changed process, an inaccurate statement, a recurring new question or an explanation readers misunderstand. Begin with that gap rather than a desire to make the page look newer.
Read the complete article and identify statements that still apply. Fundamentals may remain stable while screen descriptions or product conditions become outdated. Correct paragraphs do not need rewriting merely to produce different wording.
Identify the kind of change
Distinguish factual corrections, additions and structural improvements. An incorrect claim needs correction. A missing requirement needs explanation. A confusing sequence may need reordering. These tasks require different checks.
For technical platform statements, consult current official documentation. Old screenshots or remembered menu positions are insufficient when features may have changed. Record which particular claim the source supports. The rest of the article should still provide an original explanation rather than simply retelling documentation.
Check figures and examples against their assumptions. Fictional arithmetic can remain unchanged if it is correct and clearly labelled. A current price claim needs current evidence. Do not treat those two types of number as interchangeable.
Add answers without losing the topic
Repeated follow-up questions may reveal an underexplained step. Add the information that is actually missing. If readers do not know how to check an export, a short verification process may help. A long introduction to the entire tool may be unnecessary.
Ask whether each new section belongs to the article's main task. A related but distinct decision may deserve its own piece. Updating should not turn the page into a collection of every neighbouring subject.
Keep useful examples while they explain the right task. Replace them when requirements change or they show a process that is no longer accurate. A new illustration does not substitute for a factual correction.
Review the surrounding elements
A change to the body can make the title, description, caption or further-reading links inaccurate. Read them together. A preview still promising the old scope creates the wrong expectation even when the article itself is corrected.
For two languages, transfer factual changes to both versions. Record affected passages so a translation does not silently retain the old information. Language links should continue to connect equivalent content.
Inspect other pages that recommend the article. A changed focus may require revised link wording or recommendations. A technically working link can become editorially inappropriate.
Close the work with a traceable check
Save the previous version and record substantive changes internally. If an update date is displayed publicly, it should represent a real review or content change rather than a daily decorative refresh.
Inspect the published version afterwards. Are paragraphs complete, links correct and images present? Open a narrow screen view when new lists or longer examples have been added.
The refresh is complete when the original gap is resolved and the page remains coherent as a whole. A larger word count is not necessary evidence. Sometimes the most useful improvement is removing an obsolete recommendation and explaining its limitation. Schedule another review according to the volatility of the subject rather than applying the same interval to stable principles and rapidly changing product instructions.
