How the review is written

This page sets out how entries in The Equipment Room are written, sourced, checked, and, when necessary, corrected. It is the standing reference for anyone reading the journal and for anyone who may one day write for it.

What we read. An entry begins with the object itself. The writer handles the item, examines its construction, tests it in conditions that match how it will actually be used, and compares it with what else occupies the same shelf. Marketing materials, press releases and brand-provided specifications are read as claims, not as facts. Claims are checked against the item in hand.

No paid reviews. The Equipment Room does not accept payment for reviews. No manufacturer, retailer or agency has paid, does pay, or will pay for an entry to appear, for it to be favourable, or for it to appear at a particular time. The journal has no advertising relationships with the brands it covers. A positive verdict is never the result of a commercial arrangement.

No affiliate pressure. The site carries no affiliate links. This means there is no financial incentive to recommend one product over another, to inflate a rating, or to include a "buy now" call to action. The absence of affiliate revenue is not incidental; it is structural. It is what keeps the verdict honest.

How sources are verified. When an entry makes a factual claim, about a material, a manufacturing process, a specification, a price, the claim is traced to its source wherever possible. Technical specifications are cross-referenced against the manufacturer's published data, but they are also checked against the item itself. A shaft that the manufacturer lists as 60 grams is weighed. A shirt described as 100% cotton is examined for the feel and weave of cotton. Where a claim cannot be verified, the entry says so.

Embargoes and access. The Equipment Room does not accept embargo conditions that restrict when or what it publishes. If a brand provides pre-launch access to a product on the condition that coverage be held until a specified date, the journal declines. It obtains the product on the same terms as any other buyer, or it borrows it without conditions, and publishes when the entry is ready.

Corrections policy. When an error is found in a published entry, by the writer, by a reader, or by the brand concerned, it is corrected promptly. The correction is noted at the foot of the entry with the date of the change and a brief description of what was altered. Corrections are not hidden or backdated silently. If a verdict itself is wrong, if, for instance, a club was tested with the wrong loft setting and the rating changes once the error is found, the verdict is revised and the reason for the revision is stated openly.

Conflicts of interest. Writers declare any personal or commercial connection they have to a brand before writing about it. If a writer has worked for, consulted with, or received hospitality from a manufacturer, that connection is disclosed at the top of the entry. Where the connection is substantial enough to call the entry's independence into question, the writer does not write the entry.

Tone and language. Entries are written for experienced golfers who want an honest read of the equipment. The language is direct. Hyperbole, marketing buzzwords and the inflated language of launch-day coverage are left at the door. A club is described by what it does, not by what the brand's campaign says it does.

Right of reply. When an entry contains criticism of a product, the manufacturer is given a reasonable opportunity to respond before publication, provided they can be reached. Their response is considered but does not override the writer's verdict. The journal's duty is to the reader, not to the brand.