Components
Editorial review queues
Help operators decide whether proposed source material should enter the writing workflow.
On this page
Purpose and placement
Help operators decide whether proposed source material should enter the writing workflow.
Anatomy
| Part | Behavior |
|---|---|
| Queue navigation | Pending, writing and rejected categories. |
| Candidate | Source identity, topic/type, timing and score context. |
| Actions | Explicit review decisions and writing handoff. |
Configuration and contract
| Input or decision | Implementation |
|---|---|
| Source route | /admin/candidates. |
| Score | AI-assisted evaluation is contextual; source score range is 0–10, not a fabricated percentage. |
| Review record | A candidate has an independent lifecycle from a published story. |
States and feedback
- Four synthetic candidates with example.org source URLs.
- Review decisions and AI work are disabled in the capture copy.
Usage rules
- Keep a visible source link and distinguish score from editorial judgment.
- Do not equate a high score with publication approval.
- Provide a recoverable state when fetching or reviewing fails.
Accessibility and verification
Use named decision controls and readable candidate identity. Check focus after removing or moving a queue item and announce the actual result.
Source references
| File | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| app/admin/(shell)/candidates/page.tsx | Audited Townwell implementation; use this file when extending this interface. |
| lib/content-intake-review.ts | Audited Townwell implementation; use this file when extending this interface. |
Examples from the app
Actual Boise Today and Townwell UI with synthetic editorial, business, review, media metadata and analytics. Existing Boise imagery; no live data changes. Captured at 2× resolution or higher. Select an image to inspect it full size.
Related topics
Source audit: 2026-10-07 · Revision ce8bc72b96da · Documentation v0.1