On-page SEO attracts more myth per square metre than any other part of the craft: keyword density targets, secret heading formulas, magic length thresholds. This checklist strips it back to the on-page factors that demonstrably matter for an article, each with the reasoning, so you can apply it with judgement instead of superstition. Part of SEO checklists for articles.
- This checklist keeps only the on-page factors that demonstrably matter — title, headings, intent match, internal links, honest metadata — each with its reasoning.
- Deliberately absent: keyword-density targets, magic word counts and secret heading formulas. Google's own guidance names no preferred word count.
- The final test is the reader test: a page a human finds clear, complete and satisfying passes the checks that actually count.
- Short on time? The priority order inside puts intent and title first and polish last.
The checklist
- Title tag: one per page, topic first, ~50–60 characters, written to be clicked honestly.
- H1: exactly one, matching the title's promise (they need not be identical).
- Headings map the topic: H2s are the sub-questions a searcher would ask; a reader skimming only headings should grasp the article's full scope.
- Answer early: the main question gets a direct answer or clear instalment within the first screenful.
- Coverage complete: no genuine gaps versus the top results (the audit in thin content).
- Natural keyword use: the topic's core phrase appears in title, H1, intro, and a few headings/subheads where it reads naturally — because you are writing about the topic, not because a score demanded it.
- Internal links: to the main guide, to siblings, and from the article outward to anything it genuinely references (see the linking checklist).
- External links to sources: claims that need backing link to the primary source, with descriptive anchor text.
- Images: compressed, relevant, with descriptive alt text; file names meaningful, not IMG_4021.
- Meta description: written, human, benefit-led, ~150–160 characters.
- Readable formatting: short paragraphs, lists where lists help, a table where a comparison is being made, no walls of text.
- FAQ where real questions exist: answer actual follow-up questions concisely (and they may earn FAQ rich results when marked up correctly).
What is deliberately NOT on this list
- Keyword density percentages. No credible evidence supports a target density; write naturally and cover the topic's vocabulary because the topic demands it.
- Exact word counts. Match coverage, not a number (see thin content).
- Keyword in every heading. Headings should map sub-questions; forcing the main phrase into all of them reads terribly and helps nothing.
- Meta keywords. Ignored by Google for many years. Harmless, useless.
The reader test (the real checklist)
On-page optimisation has one final arbiter: a human arriving from Google. Before publishing, read the article as that person: Does the first screenful confirm this is the right page? Can you skim the headings and find your sub-question? Is the answer findable in seconds once you land on the section? Pages that pass the reader test and cover the topic almost always satisfy the technical one, because most on-page signals are proxies for exactly that experience. Our writing-system guide, how to write articles that rank, is built around producing articles that pass it by construction.
Sources (5)
Google Search Central: title links, snippets, image SEO, and heading guidance (developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance and /fundamentals). Keyword density and meta keywords positions reflect Google's long-standing public statements.
- Google Search Central — SEO Starter Guide
- Google Search Central — Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
- Google Search Central — Google Search Essentials
- Google Search Central — Link best practices for Google
- Google Search Central — Spam policies for Google web search
Prioritising when you cannot do it all
If you inherit an article that fails half this list, fix in this order: (1) answer placement and introduction — the reader-facing emergency; (2) title tag and meta description — the click-facing emergency; (3) heading structure, because it organises every later edit; (4) internal links, out and in; (5) coverage gaps against the SERP; (6) media and polish. This ordering follows a simple principle: fix what decides whether the page gets clicked and read before what decides how completely it covers the topic. An unread complete article ranks below a read adequate one more often than the industry admits, because satisfaction signals flow from readers, and readers meet the introduction first.
On-page for different article types
The checklist bends by format. Roundups and reviews weight the comparison elements: clear selection criteria stated early, consistent per-item structure, a summary table. Tutorials weight steps: numbered, testable, in order, with the common failure named at the step where it happens. Explainers weight the definition discipline — answer in the first lines, nuance afterwards. Applying one rigid template to all three produces the uncanny sameness readers bounce from; the checklist is a floor for quality, not a mould for voice.
On-page signals Google has actually confirmed
Amid the folklore, it steadies the hand to list what Google has documented itself: descriptive, accurate title links help it understand and display your page; structured, logical headings aid comprehension of the content; descriptive anchor text informs it about linked pages; image alt text serves both accessibility and image search; and content that satisfies the searcher's need is the stated goal of its ranking systems overall. Everything else in the on-page canon — density, exact placement formulas, freshness theatre — is practitioner inference of wildly varying quality. Build your habits on the confirmed list first; treat inferences as experiments your own Search Console data gets to judge.
The skim test, formalised
Before publishing, perform the 20-second skim: open the article, scroll at reading-gaze speed without stopping, then write down what you believe the article covers and concludes. Compare with the author's intent. Every mismatch is an on-page defect — a heading that undersells its section, an answer placed too deep, a tangent that reads as the main point. Searchers perform this test involuntarily in the first seconds after clicking, and their verdict (stay or bounce) is the raw material of satisfaction signals. Your sixty seconds of skimming is the cheapest user research in all of SEO.
On-page in the age of AI summaries
Search results increasingly include AI-generated summaries that quote and cite pages. Does that change on-page practice? Modestly, and in a direction this checklist already points: clear structure, direct answers, and unambiguous statements of fact are exactly what summarising systems can extract and attribute. Pages that bury claims in narrative fog are hard for humans and machines alike to cite. Treat it as one more reason the fundamentals in this list — answer early, structure honestly, source claims — are durable, while tricks aimed at a particular results layout expire with the layout.
The checklist, on one line each
Title that promises honestly. One H1. Headings that map questions. Answer early. Coverage complete. Language natural. Links placed with intent. Claims sourced. Images described. Description written. Formatting kind. Questions answered. Pin that paragraph above your desk; it is the whole spoke in ninety seconds.
Frequently asked questions
Does Google use meta descriptions as a ranking factor?
The description itself is not a ranking input, but it influences click-through when Google chooses to show it — which is why writing a good one matters even though Google often rewrites it.
How many internal links should an article have?
As many as are genuinely useful: main guide link, siblings, and references. For a typical guide that lands around 5–15. Relevance is the criterion, not the count.
Are heading keywords important?
Headings that name the sub-topic naturally include its terms. That is enough. Headings written for structure beat headings written for keywords every time a human reads them.
What is the single highest-value on-page fix for old articles?
Usually the introduction and title: reframe them to match current intent and promise the answer clearly. The refresh checklist sequences the rest.
Do I need schema markup on articles?
Basic Article schema and breadcrumb markup are worthwhile and easy on most platforms. FAQ schema only where a genuine FAQ exists. Schema helps Google understand and display the page; it does not compensate for weak content.
Apply this list with judgement, not superstition — and when a checklist item and a real reader disagree, believe the reader. On-page SEO is mostly the craft of making a page obviously the right answer.
Which on-page myth were you still following before this list: density, length, or heading formulas?
