Editorial Standards

PetroEyes prefers primary and reputable sources for market claims, including EIA datasets, Baker Hughes rig counts, IEA and OPEC reports, company filings, and official policy releases.

When a page includes a named source list, we surface it separately on the article page. When a page does not yet include a named source list, that gap should be treated as editorial debt rather than hidden certainty.

PetroEyes uses named editorial roles so readers can see who reviews a page and what they are responsible for. Team bylines are used for source refreshes, archive maintenance, or pages that combine several market domains.

We do not invent credentials to make a page sound more authoritative. The goal is clear responsibility, not inflated titles.

PetroEyes does not sell favorable coverage, publish sponsored energy-stock recommendations, or promise readers a trading edge. Pages should distinguish reported data from interpretation and interpretation from speculation.

When an article includes a forecast, readers should be able to identify what would prove that forecast wrong and which source categories matter most to the thesis.

Energy data gets revised, and markets move faster than static pages do. PetroEyes article pages now show a review log with publication timing, update visibility, and current archive status.

If you believe a report contains a factual error, use the contact form and include the page URL plus the specific claim or figure you want reviewed.

PetroEyes may use automation for data collection, formatting, and visualization support. That is different from treating generated text as publish-ready by default.

Pages that feel thin, generic, or unsupported should be revised or archived rather than left in the public index. That standard applies whether the draft started with code, notes, or an AI tool.