Analysis
Contact
Contact route for corrections, source submissions, privacy requests and organisational enquiries.
Use the editorial email in Features for corrections, source submissions, privacy requests and media enquiries. This MVP does not submit or store contact forms.
Researched evidence
What the current sources show
These cards summarize official or primary sources. Open each source for publication dates, limitations and what the source does not prove.
Analysis
A contact page is part of editorial accountability
IFCN and IPSO standards both treat public contact and complaints routes as part of trustworthy publishing, not a decorative footer item. For this site, the contact page should separate corrections, source submissions, privacy requests and media enquiries so urgent evidence updates, legal issues and routine questions do not collapse into one inbox.
Analysis
Source submissions need enough detail to verify safely
The current standards point to source detail, replicability and safety limits. A submission route should ask for the claim affected, original URL or document title, publication date, archive link if available, why the source changes the page, and whether naming a person, child, witness or vulnerable source would create risk. Ordinary email should not invite confidential testimony unless a secure workflow exists.
Analysis
Privacy requests need a named workflow
GDPR and ICO guidance make the contact route operational: readers need to know who receives a request, what data the site may hold, how deletion or correction can be requested, and what identity checks may be needed. Because the MVP currently does not submit forms, the contact page should say that clearly while still giving a route for privacy questions.
Analysis
Reporting channels must be secure and accessible
Security and accessibility sources point to two separate requirements: people must be able to reach the site without barriers, and sensitive reports must not be handled casually. Contact forms need labels, clear errors and keyboard access; vulnerability reports should have a dedicated security contact or security.txt-style route before the site asks people to send risky technical or personal material.
Sections
Analysis
Corrections
Correction messages should identify the exact page, sentence, figure or source record that may be wrong. IFCN and IPSO standards both make correction access part of editorial accountability: readers need a practical way to challenge wording, numbers, attribution and interpretation.
A useful correction request should include the old claim, the proposed replacement, the source that supports the change, publication or access dates, and whether the issue affects a chart, download, social graphic or translated page. Significant changes should be logged rather than hidden inside a silent rewrite.
Key points
- Ask for page URL, quoted text and source evidence.
- Separate typo fixes from material factual corrections.
- Record whether confidence, wording or source attribution changed.
- Update related graphics, downloads and translations when a correction affects them.
Analysis
Source submissions
Source submissions should make verification possible without asking editors to trust a summary. IFCN standards point toward enough source detail for readers and reviewers to reproduce the work where safe, while the site’s war-related subject matter requires extra care with people who could be identified or harmed.
A strong submission should include the affected claim, source title, publisher, publication date, original URL, archive URL if available, relevant excerpt or page number, and a short explanation of what the source proves and what it does not prove. Anonymous or sensitive testimony should not be invited through ordinary email unless a secure process is available.
Key points
- Prioritise primary documents, official releases, datasets and named expert publications.
- Ask submitters to state the exact claim the source supports or contradicts.
- Do not publish identifying details about children, witnesses or vulnerable people without a safety review.
- Use secure-submission planning before requesting confidential files or testimony.
Analysis
Privacy requests
Privacy contact must be operational rather than symbolic. GDPR and ICO guidance require clear information about who handles personal data, why it is collected, how long it is kept, who receives it and how people can exercise rights such as correction or erasure in applicable circumstances.
Because this MVP currently does not submit or store form entries, the contact page should say that plainly. If submissions, newsletters or analytics are later enabled, the contact route should explain what records may exist, what identity checks are needed, expected response times and how deletion or correction requests are handled.
Key points
- State whether the site stores form submissions, newsletter data or analytics identifiers.
- Provide a working privacy contact route.
- Explain deletion, correction and review requests in plain language.
- Avoid collecting sensitive war-related personal data unless the workflow is published and justified.
Analysis
Media enquiries
Media enquiries should be routed separately from corrections and source submissions because they have different risks. A journalist may ask for comment, reuse of material, interviews, data notes or confirmation of methodology, but those requests should not bypass correction review, privacy checks or source limitations.
The page should tell media users how to cite the project, which claims require source review, what can be reused, and which topics cannot be answered from the current evidence. If an enquiry involves a named person, child, witness or vulnerable community, privacy and safety review should come before speed.
Key points
- Keep press requests separate from correction and privacy requests.
- Answer with source-bounded language and confidence labels.
- Do not provide private contact details or testimony without consent and safety review.
- Direct journalists to source records rather than unsupported single-site opinion.
Features
- Editorial email
- Data deletion route
- Correction process
- Secure submission planning
Analysis
Editorial email
Use admin@thecostofwar.net for corrections, source submissions, privacy questions and organisational enquiries. The address is read from the site environment so production, staging and local builds can publish the correct inbox without changing page copy.
Messages should include a clear subject line, the relevant page URL where possible, and whether the request concerns a factual correction, source review, privacy issue or media enquiry.
Key points
- Publish one configured editorial inbox for routine contact.
- Route urgent factual issues and privacy requests through the same visible address until dedicated workflows exist.
- Do not ask readers to send sensitive testimony through ordinary email without secure-submission review.
Analysis
Data deletion route
Privacy and deletion requests need enough context to identify the record at issue without collecting more personal data than necessary. A request should say which interaction, subscription, message or published item it concerns and what action is being requested.
The current MVP does not submit or store contact-form entries. If future forms, newsletters or analytics are connected, this route should identify what records exist, who handles them, response expectations and what identity checks may be needed before deletion or correction.
Key points
- Collect the minimum details needed to locate the record.
- Explain correction, deletion and review requests in plain language.
- Update privacy text when any form, mailing-list or analytics storage changes.
Analysis
Correction process
Correction requests should identify the exact sentence, statistic, chart, download or source record that may be wrong. The strongest requests include the current wording, the proposed correction, the supporting source and the date or period the source covers.
Material corrections should leave a trace through the corrections workflow rather than becoming silent rewrites. If a correction changes a translated page, chart or CSV download, those linked outputs should be reviewed at the same time.
Key points
- Ask for page URL, quoted text and source evidence.
- Separate typo fixes from factual corrections that change meaning.
- Track affected charts, downloads, translations and source records.
Analysis
Secure submission planning
Secure submission planning is needed before the site invites confidential documents, testimony, vulnerability reports or information about identifiable people. Ordinary email is suitable for public sources and routine editorial messages, but not for material that could expose a source to harm.
A secure workflow should define contact points, accepted material, encryption or transfer options, retention limits, access controls and safety review before publication. Until that exists, the page should ask readers not to send high-risk personal material through the general inbox.
Key points
- Keep ordinary editorial email separate from high-risk submissions.
- Define security and retention limits before collecting sensitive material.
- Use accessible channels and clear instructions for vulnerability disclosure.