Editorial Policy for Fix It Right Way

Fix It Right Way exists to give homeowners and landlords the knowledge they need to tackle repairs safely, meet legal requirements, and know when to call a professional. Home repair decisions can be expensive and dangerous—a single mistake in electrical work or roof assessment can create fire hazards, structural problems, or code violations that affect insurance claims and property sales. We publish detailed, research-backed guidance on how to evaluate repair problems, understand building codes, work with contractors, and complete projects that meet current safety and legal standards. Our editorial standards matter because bad information in this space doesn’t just waste money; it can hurt people or damage homes. That’s why every article we publish goes through the same rigorous verification process we’d use if we were staking our own contractor’s license on it.

Our Editorial Team

Mike Callahan has held a general contractor’s license in three states over the past twenty years and has overseen residential and light commercial construction projects worth more than $40 million in total value. That work includes new construction, major renovations, additions, foundation repair, and system replacements—the full range of work homeowners encounter. Mike has managed projects from permit application through final inspection, which means he’s spent two decades navigating building code requirements, working with inspectors, handling permit denials and amendments, and understanding why certain work passes inspection and other work doesn’t. Before becoming the lead editor at Fix It Right Way, he ran his own contracting company, and earlier in his career, he worked as a project manager for larger firms and as a site supervisor on high-volume renovation projects.

That background shapes what we publish here. Mike doesn’t write theoretical guidance about how things should work according to building code manuals. He writes about what actually happens on job sites, what inspectors actually require in practice, and what mistakes he’s seen cost homeowners tens of thousands of dollars. When we explain electrical safety, he’s drawing on years of working alongside electricians and watching what work passed inspection and what didn’t. When we discuss permit requirements, he’s actually obtained permits in multiple states under different jurisdictions. When we say “hire a licensed contractor for this,” it’s because he’s encountered homeowner work on that system type that created genuine hazards or violations.

Mike reviews every article published on this site for factual accuracy, construction knowledge, and practical usefulness. He determines whether a topic needs to recommend licensing requirements, whether our instructions align with code standards, and whether we’re being clear about the difference between guidance-level work and work that legally requires a licensed professional in most jurisdictions. He also reaches out to other licensed contractors and building officials when he encounters articles on specialized topics outside his direct experience, because his standard is that nothing leaves this site without verification from someone who does that work every day.

How We Research

Every article on Fix It Right Way starts with the same question: What does the governing code say? For electrical work, that means the National Electrical Code (NEC) as adopted by local jurisdictions. For structural repairs, it’s the International Building Code (IBC) as adopted locally. For lead and asbestos work, it’s EPA RRP program guidelines and state-specific regulations. For HVAC, it’s EPA and ASHRAE standards. We begin by obtaining the actual text of the relevant code or guidance document, not a summary of it from a website. This matters because code interpretation varies by jurisdiction, and we need to know what the actual requirement says before we explain it.

From there, we verify claims through multiple tiers of sources. First-tier sources are government agencies with direct regulatory authority: the EPA, OSHA, the International Code Council, the National Fire Protection Association, state building departments, and local building code departments. Second-tier sources are professional organizations that develop standards and best practices: the American Society of Plumbing Engineers, the Electrical Contractors Association, the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, and similar bodies. Third-tier sources are licensed practitioners—electricians, plumbers, roofers, and HVAC technicians who work under these codes every day and have published guidance on how code requirements work in practice. We also consult academic journals on construction science and materials testing when claims involve material performance or structural behavior. A claim that “asphalt shingles last 20-25 years” gets traced back to manufacturing specifications and independent testing data, not marketing materials.

When we write about why something matters, we work backward from the practical problem it solves. If we’re explaining proper attic ventilation, we research the actual moisture and temperature problems that occur without it, then trace those back to building science literature and code reasoning, then verify the calculation methods with practicing roofers and HVAC technicians. When sources conflict—and they sometimes do—we document the conflict and explain what each source says and why the difference exists. For instance, the recommended drywall mud application thickness varies slightly between drywall manufacturer guidance and certain contractor practices; we explain both and note which applies to different situations.

Lastly, we verify numbers and statistics by consulting original research whenever possible. If we cite a statistic about electrocution rates or house fire causes, we trace that back to NFPA or CPSC data directly rather than relying on secondary reporting. If we reference cost data, we use the most recent year available and note the source explicitly. The goal is that readers can follow our citations back to the original source and verify we’ve represented the information correctly.

Source Standards

We rely on the following categories of sources and reject others:

Sources we trust:

  • Federal regulatory agencies and their published guidance (EPA, OSHA, NIST, CPSC, Consumer Product Safety Commission)
  • International standards-setting bodies (International Code Council, NFPA, ASHRAE)
  • State and local building departments and their code adoptions
  • Trade associations that develop standards through consensus (National Association of Home Builders, American Society of Plumbing Engineers)
  • Peer-reviewed research in construction science, materials science, and structural engineering
  • Published guidance from licensed professionals with verifiable expertise (textbooks by licensed engineers, professional association guidelines)
  • Manufacturer specifications and testing data from reputable manufacturers
  • First-hand accounts and case studies from licensed contractors with verifiable credentials

Sources we don’t use:

  • Marketing materials or press releases from companies selling products
  • Unverified claims from blogs or forums, even if well-written
  • Secondhand reporting of research without access to original findings
  • Sponsored content or research funded by manufacturers without clear disclosure of limitations
  • Real estate or renovation websites that prioritize engagement over accuracy
  • YouTube content as a primary source (though we may watch and fact-check against primary sources)
  • Anecdotal advice not grounded in code, engineering, or professional practice
  • Websites claiming to explain code without actually citing the code language

The reason we’re this strict: homeowners making repair decisions based on bad information can create safety hazards, code violations, and expensive problems. A plumbing mistake can lead to foundation damage. An electrical mistake can cause a house fire. A structural repair done incorrectly can fail catastrophically. Our source standards exist because we’d rather say “we don’t know this well enough to explain it” than explain it wrong.

Accuracy and Fact-Checking

Every article goes through a multi-stage fact-check process. The author fact-checks while researching and writing, citing sources as they work. Mike Callahan then reviews the completed article specifically for accuracy: he checks that code citations are correct and complete, that technical explanations align with how that work is actually done, and that any statistics or figures are drawn from authoritative sources. If Mike isn’t an expert in the specific area (plumbing code details if he hasn’t worked with a plumber in five years, for example), he reaches out to someone who is and asks them to review that section. This isn’t a casual review; it’s a verification review by someone doing that work professionally.

When sources conflict, we document the conflict in the article itself. Building code often allows multiple acceptable methods for the same problem, and best practices evolve; we explain what the code requires and what alternatives exist. If different states have different requirements, we explain those differences and note that readers need to check their local code. When a statistic comes from an older study and we believe it’s still accurate but can’t find more recent data, we note the age of the source. The goal is transparency: readers should never finish an article wondering whether we’ve verified what we’ve said, because it should be obvious from the article that we have.

Keeping Content Current

Building codes change. Regulatory guidance changes. Product recommendations and best practices evolve as new materials are tested and new methods prove themselves. We commit to reviewing every article on an annual cycle to ensure that code references are current, that product recommendations still hold, and that best practices haven’t shifted. When a major building code update occurs (which happens every three years for the International Code Council), we prioritize reviewing articles affected by those changes within 90 days of adoption.

Beyond the annual review, we monitor regulatory and standards-setting bodies for significant guidance changes that require immediate updates. When the EPA releases new RRP guidance, when NFPA updates electrical code interpretations, or when state building departments issue new policy, we review affected articles for necessary updates. Each article displays a “last reviewed” date, and that date is meaningful—it tells readers when we last verified the information in that article against current code and practice. In a field where code changes and safety standards evolve, staying current isn’t optional; it’s fundamental to our credibility and responsibility to readers.

Corrections Policy

We aim for accuracy, but we don’t claim perfection. If you spot an error—a misquoted code section, a factual mistake, outdated information that we should have caught in our annual review, or a citation that doesn’t support what we claim—please report it using our contact form.

When we receive a correction request, we investigate within 48 hours. If the correction is warranted, we update the article within 7 days and add a correction note to the article explaining what was wrong and what we’ve changed. Significant factual corrections (anything that affects safety or compliance) get a prominent note at the top of the article. Minor corrections (like a typo or a clarification that doesn’t change the core information) may be corrected silently, though we still document the change internally. We take corrections seriously because they help us serve readers better and maintain the trust this site depends on.

Editorial Independence

Fix It Right Way earns revenue through Amazon affiliate links for tools and materials we recommend, and through display advertising. Neither of these revenue sources influences what we write or what we recommend. We recommend tools and products because they’re reliable and appropriate for the project, not because they’re affiliate-linked. We don’t change recommendations based on affiliate commission rates, and we don’t avoid recommending products because they’re not affiliate-available.

We carry no sponsored content, no paid placements, no “featured” recommendations, and no manufacturer partnerships. If a tool company wanted to pay us to recommend their product, we’d decline. If a roofing manufacturer wanted to fund an article about their shingles, we’d decline. Editorial decisions are made based on what research supports and what serves readers, not on what generates revenue. This isn’t a moral stance; it’s a practical one. Our credibility is worth more than any sponsorship payment could be. The moment readers suspect that we’re recommending something because we’re being paid to, our advice becomes worthless to them.

What We Don’t Do

  • We don’t diagnose problems in your specific home. Articles explain how to identify common issues and what questions to ask a contractor, but we don’t take a photo of your roof and tell you whether it needs replacement. If that requires a licensed professional’s judgment, we say so.

  • We don’t recommend specific products for specific situations without qualification. We explain what features matter in a given product category and how to evaluate options, but we don’t tell you “buy this exact drill” without knowing your actual needs and experience level. Recommendations come with context about why they matter.

  • We don’t provide personalized contractor recommendations. We explain how to find and vet licensed contractors in your area, what questions to ask, and what red flags to watch for. We don’t maintain a directory of recommended contractors because we can’t verify every contractor’s work quality.

  • We don’t advise you to skip permits or work around code requirements. If something legally requires a permit or a licensed professional, we tell you that clearly. We explain the actual cost and timeline of doing it right, not ways to work around it.

  • We don’t claim that any homeowner should attempt work beyond their skill level. We always include an “when to call a professional” section that’s honest about the complexity and risk involved. “You can do this” doesn’t mean you should do this.

  • We don’t cover insurance, financial, or legal advice. We might explain what code violations could affect an insurance claim, or why a contractor’s license matters legally, but we don’t tell you what your specific insurance policy covers or whether you should sue someone.

Last reviewed: January 2026. This page is updated whenever our editorial practices change.