One DSD People, Access and Culture · Learning path · I'm reviewing a draft before it goes out
Reviewing a draft for equity, access, and plain language
You have a draft and want a structured way to check it for equity, access, plain language, sources, and burden before release.
Outcome: By the end, you will have a review record for a specific draft: what it asks of people, who may be excluded, access and language findings, source labels, changes made, and what remains for the owner.
Situations that may fit this path
A document, notice, web page, or slide deck about to be released
A draft someone asked you to check for equity or access
Material that will reach the public or all staff
Six steps to work through in order
Get a structured review — Paste the draft into Ask and choose Review my draft. You will receive findings by category, questions for the author, and suggested changes, with the limits of the review stated. · Ask: review my draft — program page /ask?path=gp-9&mode=review
Consider community context (If relevant) — If the draft is aimed at or names particular Minnesota communities, read the relevant brief for naming, language, and access. · Explore Minnesota Communities — program page /minnesota-communities
Choose practical resources — Use the plain-language checklist, the language access checklist, and the process burden questions. · Plain language and accessible documents — program page /resources/ja-plain-language · Language access checklist — program page /resources/ja-language-access-checklist · Journey and burden questions — program page /resources/ja-process-burden
Record your review — Complete the review record. Do not paste confidential material. Use the downloaded checklist to write your answers in a tool you normally use. This page does not save them.
Review your work — Confirm findings are specific, sources are labeled, access and burden were checked, and the owner knows what remains.
Return it to the owner — The author or content owner decides what changes. Your review helps them; it does not approve the draft. · Find the right person — program page /support/right-person?matter=accessibility_barrier
What a useful result looks like
Still needs work
Approved with no findings
A rewrite that changes the meaning without telling the owner
A reading-level number with no specific change
Ready to use
Findings are specific and tied to who is affected
Sources are labeled and unsupported claims are flagged
The owner knows exactly what remains
Draft review record
What the draft asks people to do (required)
Steps, documents, deadlines, and return methods.
Who may be excluded or burdened (required)
By language, disability, technology, time, trust, or place.
Access and plain-language findings (required)
Structure, reading level, formats, languages, alternative contact.
Sources and their authority labels (required)
Label each claim's source. Flag anything cited from memory.
Changes you suggest (required)
Specific and short. The owner decides.
Who else should review (required)
Language access, accessibility, communications, or the policy owner.
What you chose not to assume (required)
About who reads this and how.
Review your notes against
Every follow-up has a named owner
A next review date is set
This is connected to your specific work
Language, disability, and communication access were considered for this work
You named who was involved and the role they had
You noted what you chose not to assume
Every source has an authority label and can be verified
Questions to bring to Ask
Can you review this draft notice for plain language, access, and burden?
What questions should I ask about a draft before it goes to all staff?
How do I tell the author what needs to change without redoing their work?