Every guide on this site is governed by a small set of editorial standards. Below is what those standards are, what the desk commits to, and the public correction log that records every change.
The editorial standards
Source-named
Every figure or claim on this site is paired with a source. Where no source is named, the desk does not publish the figure.
Date-stamped
Every guide shows the date it was last edited. Re-checks flip the status flag; the date is always visible.
Status-flagged
Three flags: Verified (operator page confirmed today), Provisional (likely correct, not yet independently confirmed), Watch (subject to frequent change).
No paid placement
No operator pays for the content of any guide. Affiliate routes elsewhere on the site are disclosed in the footer.
No invented offers
No invented bonuses, scores, win rates or operator claims. Where evidence is unavailable, the desk says so.
Correction log
Every public correction is logged with the date it was reported and the date it was fixed.
Sources the desk leans on
Public ball-by-ball feeds
For match data, venue notebook entries and role board numbers.
Operator official pages
For terms, KYC rules, withdrawal timing and bonus terms — always the operator’s own page.
Broadcaster match notes
For pitch notes, weather and confirmed XI.
State government publications
For jurisdiction and eligibility questions.
Independent public sources
For company registry, regulatory filings and ownership claims.
Open correction log
Below is the desk’s public correction log. Each entry records a reported issue, the date it was reported, the date it was fixed and a short note on the fix.
Public correction log
Updated on each verified correction| Date reported | Date fixed | Issue | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | No corrections filed | Desk open since 23 Jul 2026 |
Submitting a correction
If you spot an error, contact the desk via the contact page. Include the page URL, the paragraph or section, and the source you are citing. We verify and publish within 7 days.
Why we do not publish star ratings
A star rating collapses five axes (operator identity, app availability, KYC, scoring and responsible-play) into one number, and the collapse loses information. The desk’s review format keeps the axes separate; the reader’s job is to weigh them. A star rating makes the desk’s job easier at the cost of the reader’s information.
How we test a claim before publishing
Every claim on the desk passes through a four-step test: (1) is there a public source? (2) is the source authoritative? (3) is the source recent? (4) is the claim consistent with other public sources? If any of the four steps fails, the claim is not published. A claim that passes all four steps is published with the source visible.
How we write
We write in plain English, in short paragraphs, with concrete examples. We avoid AI-isms (“leverage”, “seamless”, “delve into”, “plays a crucial role”). We avoid SEO jargon (“hub”, “pillar page”, “topic cluster”, “category page”, “landing page”, “money page”). Every guide reads like a professional magazine article, not like a website template. We use headings, lists and tables where they help the reader scan; we use prose where the reader needs to think.
What we do when sources conflict
When two public sources disagree on a verifiable fact, the desk applies a tie-breaker: (1) the operator’s own page wins for terms, KYC and bonus rules; (2) the public registry wins for registered entity, address and regulatory filings; (3) the broadcaster’s match note wins for venue and weather; (4) the ball-by-ball feed wins for player-level statistics. If a fact cannot be settled by these rules, the desk publishes both with the sources and the date.
No AI-isms in editorial copy
The desk’s editorial style explicitly avoids AI-isms: “leverage”, “seamless”, “delve into”, “plays a crucial role”, “is designed to”, “robust”, “in order to”, “due to the fact that”. We also avoid SEO jargon: “hub”, “pillar page”, “topic cluster”, “category page”, “this guide”, “continue reading below”. Every guide reads like a professional magazine article. The writing is the editorial discipline made visible.
Why we do not embed aggregator feeds
Aggregator feeds (third-party news widgets, social media embeds, advertising feeds) introduce third-party trackers and inconsistent reliability. The desk publishes its own content; we do not embed third-party feeds. If a source is reliable enough to cite, we cite it with a link. If a source is unreliable, we do not embed it. The principle keeps the desk’s editorial surface clean.
Voice and style, in detail
The desk’s voice is plain English, short paragraphs, concrete examples. We avoid jargon; we avoid SEO phrases; we avoid AI-isms. We use tables where they help the reader scan (data tables); we use lists where the items are discrete (steps, FAQs); we use prose where the reader needs to think (methodology, captain frames). The style is the editorial discipline made visible; if a guide reads like a website template, the editor rewrites it.
How we name sources
Every figure on this site is paired with a source. The source naming convention: organisation name, document or page name, date accessed. For example: “Operator terms page, accessed 23 July 2026” or “Public ball-by-ball feed, IPL 2026 match 14, accessed 23 April 2026”. If a figure cannot be paired with a source, the desk does not publish it.
How we use images
Every page on this site has a hero image and at least three content images. Hero images are WebP, 1200px wide, with descriptive alt text and the page’s H1 as the alt value. Content images are WebP, 1200×675 or 1200×900, with descriptive alt text. We do not use placeholder images, decorative gradients or AI-generated illustrations as content images. Image filenames are descriptive; we never use raw generated names like “minimax-batch/UUID.webp” or “image-01-output-xxx.webp” in the public HTML.
Image discipline
Every page on this site has at least one hero image and at least three content images. Images are WebP, with descriptive alt text and meaningful file names. We do not use raw generated filenames (e.g. UUIDs, batch directories) in the public HTML; we use descriptive SEO-clean paths. The desk commits to the image discipline because the reader’s experience is part of the editorial standard, not separate from it.
Questions readers ask
Why no anonymous sources?
Anonymous sources are not used on this desk. Every claim is sourced to a public, verifiable record.
How are affiliate links disclosed?
Affiliate routes elsewhere on the site are disclosed in the footer, on every commercial CTA, and on every page that mentions an offer.
Can I republish a guide?
Yes, with attribution to 11Wickets Editorial Desk and a link back. We do not require permission for short fair-use citation; please do not reproduce an entire page.
How the correction log actually works
The correction log on this page is the desk’s public record of every verified correction. The log runs in reverse-chronological order, carries the date, the page corrected, the nature of the correction, the source of the correction and the editor who approved the change. Corrections are not silently merged into the page they affected; the page is updated and the log records the update. The log is on a 7-day commit window: a verified correction is published in the log within 7 days of receipt, and the page is updated on the same day.
The desk does not publish reader-submitted corrections without a verifiable source. The desk also does not publish corrections that would change the substance of a guide in a way the desk cannot defend — in those cases the desk restates the original claim with a footnote rather than replacing it. The footnote says what the original claim said, when it was published, why the desk has not replaced it, and what a reader should do to verify it on their own.
Reader follow-up
The editorial policy is also the desk’s contract with the reader. The policy is reviewed at least once per quarter. Reviews cover the correction-log commitment, the source-attribution requirement, the methodology-note requirement, the platform-review cadence, the responsible-play coverage and the helpline directory. The desk does not silently change the policy; the policy is updated and the open correction log records the change. The most recent review date is on the top of this page; the date is the desk’s most honest signal that the policy reflects the current desk position.
How is a correction verified?
A correction is verified when a reader submits a public source, when the desk reproduces the issue on a non-production test account, or when the operator’s own published record contradicts the original claim.
Can the desk publish a correction without a source?
No. Unverifiable corrections are not published in the open correction log.
Does the desk ever re-state a claim rather than correct it?
Yes — when a verified correction would change the substance of a guide in a way the desk cannot defend. The re-statement is a footnote, not a silent edit.
How do I send a policy comment?
Use the contact page. Verified policy comments are published in the open correction log within 7 days.
Open the editorial app entry
Verify the current offer in your own account, then play only what you can afford to lose.