What we review
Material factual errors, outdated provider details, incorrect attribution, broken verification sources and legitimate privacy or intellectual-property concerns.
What to include
Your name or organisation, the page URL, the current wording, proposed correction, evidence URL and an explanation of why the source supports the change.
Editorial standard
Evidence is evaluated against the same source hierarchy used for listings. Promotional claims, unsupported rank demands and requests to suppress accurate public-interest information are not automatically accepted.
A verified public submission address will be published on the Contact page when supplied. Until then, this page documents the information required for review without collecting data in-browser.