Langues

Citation Gap Checker

Free, no signup. Find claims that need a source before an answer engine repeats them, and flag dated evidence for a human re-check.

Built by Patrick Stox

Before

“Studies show conversion rose 42% in 2021.”

After

“A 2021 study reported a 42% increase [source]” — then verify the statistic remains applicable.

Pasted content is analyzed in your browser. A URL is sent only to the protected fetch endpoint; paste content takes priority. After a successful URL check, only its domain is remembered locally.

Checks run from our server; we fetch the URL you enter and don't keep the results. The claim pass runs in your browser. Up to 25 cited URLs are sent to the bounded status checker; pasted prose is not sent. Anonymous run-level outcome counters may be used for aggregate research; URLs, domains, IPs, and identifiers are never included, and no statistic is released below 100 runs.

Feedback
Report a bug

Found something broken in Citation Gap Checker? Let us know what happened — this goes straight to a private triage queue, not a public list.

What will be sent 
 No tool inputs, uploads, pasted source, complete results, query parameters, or URL fragments are attached automatically. You can edit or remove the selected passage above. Browser and anti-abuse metadata is processed for spam prevention. 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
Sample report Deterministic local example
 
For “A 2021 study shows checkout changes increased conversion by 42%.”, evaluated in 2026, the engine returns one likely claim and two findings:
 
1 likely claim checked · 2 findings
Missing adjacent source — This claim has no adjacent outbound source link.
Aging evidence — This numeric claim references evidence at least three years old; confirm it still applies.
 
Both findings can be true at once: the sentence needs a source, and the source’s continued applicability needs checking.
 
 
 
How to use it
 
  1. Paste article text or HTML. The content extractor removes markup before sentence analysis.
  2. Select Check citation gaps.
  3. Review every highlighted sentence; use the search link as a research starting point, not as evidence.
  4. Add the most direct primary source beside the claim, or revise the claim when no suitable evidence exists.
 
 
      
     
 
What the results mean
 
  • Missing adjacent source — a likely factual claim contains no URL in the same sentence.
  • Aging evidence — a detected year is at least three years behind the current year.
  • Broken citation / Verify citation — supported by the engine when link-status evidence is supplied, but live status is not evaluated by this page.
  • No finding — no matching pattern was found; it is not an accuracy certificate.
 
How it works
 
The claim pass runs in the browser. It extracts readable blocks, splits them into sentences, and selects likely claims using explicit markers: numbers, percentages, research language, and strong superlative or absolute wording. It checks the same sentence for an HTTP(S) URL, extracts four-digit years, and sends at most 25 cited URLs to the bounded status checker. Evidence at least three years old receives a review flag. No model writes or judges the result.
 
Features
 
  • Accepts plain text or HTML.
  • Finds numerical, comparative, absolute, and research-style claims.
  • Separates missing sourcing from aging-evidence review.
  • Builds a prefilled source-search query for each finding.
  • Keeps pasted content in the browser.
 
Limitations
 
Adjacency is a crude proxy: a URL in the sentence may be irrelevant, while a footnote or nearby citation may be perfectly valid but still missed. The three-year threshold is intentionally generic. The bounded status check does not read papers, assess source quality, or determine whether a citation entails the exact claim. Always verify the primary source and the claim’s scope yourself.
 
Frequently asked questions
What counts as a likely claim?
The checker conservatively looks for sentences with numbers, percentages, research language, or strong comparative and absolute terms such as best, largest, always, and proves. Short fragments are ignored.
Does the tool verify that a citation supports a claim?
No. It does not fetch links or interpret source material. It only checks whether a likely claim has an adjacent URL and whether dated evidence merits a new human review.
Why is a three-year-old statistic flagged?
Three years is a review trigger, not an expiration date. Some evidence remains valid for decades; volatile market, product, and behavior statistics can become stale much sooner.
Can a clean report prove an article is accurate?
No. A clean result only means the local heuristics did not find one of their known patterns. Qualitative assertions, misleading framing, and irrelevant sources still require editorial review.
Does the checker detect broken citation links?
Yes. After the local claim pass, the page sends up to 25 cited URLs to the bounded status checker. A failed status can flag a broken citation or a DOI that needs manual verification; source relevance still requires human review.
 
 
Next stepQuotability & Entity-Preserving Rewriter — generate the corrected version.

People also explore
ToolAI Content AuditToolAI Citation Readiness CheckerToolCommodity Content / Information Gain CheckerArticleContent FreshnessArticleRetrieved vs. Mentioned vs. Cited in AIArticleAI Search Measurement Methodology
 
 
 
Feature requests for Citation Gap Checker
 

Upvote what you want most. New ideas can be submitted from the floating Feedback menu;
      requests appear here once approved, and the most-wanted rise to the top.

   
Loading…
  
  ➕ Request a feature   
New requests are reviewed before they appear here.
 
     
  
  
 
 
 
 
     
      
À propos de l’outil
Trouvez les affirmations non sourcées, les statistiques vieillissantes et les citations qui méritent une vérification en direct.
Fonctionnalités
  • Analyse de texte ou de HTML dans le navigateur.
  • Détection des affirmations numériques, comparatives, absolues et de recherche.
  • Séparation entre source manquante et preuve vieillissante.
  • Requête de recherche préremplie pour chaque constat, sans téléverser le contenu collé.
Fonctionnement
Le moteur extrait les blocs lisibles, les découpe en phrases et repère les marqueurs explicites : nombres, pourcentages, langage de recherche et formulations superlatives. Il vérifie la présence d’une URL dans la phrase, extrait les années et envoie au plus 25 URL au contrôle d’état.
Limites
  • La proximité d’une URL est un indicateur approximatif et ne prouve pas sa pertinence.
  • Le seuil de trois ans est générique et ne juge ni la qualité ni la portée d’une source.
  • Le contrôle d’état borné ne lit pas les articles et ne décide pas si une citation entraîne exactement l’affirmation.
Questions fréquentes
Pourquoi une statistique vieille de trois ans est-elle signalée ?
Trois ans déclenchent une révision, ce n’est pas une date d’expiration. Certaines preuves restent valables des décennies, tandis que des statistiques volatiles vieillissent plus vite.
Le contrôle vérifie-t-il qu’une citation étaye une affirmation ?
Non. Il vérifie la proximité et l’état du lien ; la pertinence de la source et la portée de l’affirmation exigent une revue humaine.
Le contrôle détecte-t-il les liens de citation rompus ?
Oui, le contrôle d’état peut signaler un lien rompu ou un DOI à vérifier, mais la pertinence de la source reste à examiner.
Un rapport sans constat prouve-t-il qu’un article est exact ?
Non. Les heuristiques locales ne couvrent pas les formulations trompeuses, les assertions qualitatives ni les sources hors sujet.