How this site is researched, written, and corrected.

Guides and reference entries are built from primary and authoritative sources before they are written: standards bodies such as ISO, ASTM, and AATCC; regulators such as the U.S. FTC; industry bodies such as the Craft Yarn Council and GINETEX; and established craft and manufacturing references. Where a claim rests on a source, the page links it, and where a source has limits, the page says so rather than overstating it.

We prefer current primary sources to second-hand summaries, and we try to distinguish what a standard actually specifies from common practice built around it.

Every guide and cloth entry carries a visible evidence state. Source-reviewed means the page records a review date and scope, cites current sources where available, and states what those sources do not decide. Automation rejects a source-reviewed page when the review scope, citations, decision boundaries, or freshness checks are missing, so the label cannot be applied by hand as a shortcut. Evidence review pending is the explicit default for older pages not yet migrated to that standard; it is shown openly so a partial migration is never mistaken for completion.

A named practitioner reviewer is shown on a page onlywhen that person's review is explicitly recorded. Source review does not imply that a named expert has signed off, that a provider endorses the page, or that there is universal expert consensus.

A source-reviewed label is a statement about process, not a guarantee about your project. Textile work is specific to the fibre, the material, the machine, and the product, so our guides repeatedly tell you to confirm consequential decisions on your own materials — a test scrap, a gauge swatch, a lab dip, the actual care label. Our reference ranges, class tables, and use notes are navigation and starting points, not a substitute for seller data, manufacturer instructions, applicable regulations, professional advice, or your own testing.

Content is checked for technical accuracy against its sources, and we treat subject-matter review as part of publishing rather than an afterthought. When a reader or a review finds an error, the fix is made in the open and the page's review date is updated. We would rather correct a specific claim than quietly leave it in place.

If something is stale, unclear, or wrong, the correction route prepares a public evidence packet rather than hiding the change in a private inbox, and resource listings follow the published directory standards, which keep source type, check date, access, use case, and limitation separate. Corrections are welcome and are how the reference improves.

Reference and directory listings are included because they are useful and meet the directory standards, not in exchange for payment for placement. Where a page points to a paid service, including our own, it is labelled as such so you can tell guidance from an offer.