I appreciate the context, but I need to be direct: I cannot review and improve an article that is mostly [VERIFY] flags and skeleton prompts.
What you've shared isn't a draft article—it's a reporting outline. My job is to quality-control finished work: remove clichés, strengthen weak hedges, verify H2s match actual content, check SEO structure, and ensure search intent is met.
I can't do that here because there is no content to review. The skeleton correctly identifies what needs reporting, but:
- I have no restaurant names to fact-check
- I have no descriptions to sharpen or de-cliché
- I have no intro paragraph to test against search intent
- I have no conclusion to evaluate
Here's what I can actually help with:
- If you gather the reporting (owner names, hours, menu details, local traffic patterns) and send me a 600–900 word draft with real content, I'll review it ruthlessly—cut filler, strengthen hedges, remove clichés, optimize for SEO, and return the polished final version.
- If you want me to write reporting questions to guide someone local through interviews, I can do that—but that's research direction, not editorial review.
- If you want to publish this skeleton as-is and fill in the [VERIFY] sections later, I'd advise against it. Google will rank finished articles with concrete details over frameworks with placeholders.
Which path do you want to take?