Hi Marty,
The Article markup shouldn’t implicitly supersede the Review markup, nor should it apply the Review markup. They can work alongside each other. They serve different purposes, too.
The Article markup covers the published post, which can be an investigative report. But, it doesn’t detail the post with Review markup. So, I don’t believe it to be incorrectly marked up.
Just recently, “Critic Review” markup is supported. We will look into supporting this in the future, and we will have to couple this with the Local extension. For more information why, please see:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/review
Now, I could’ve grossly misinterpreted your inquiry, as I implied it to be about full-page structured data. So, feel free to follow up if I’ve missed something 🙂 An example page of a review would help a lot, too.
Thread Starter
Anonymous User 14978628
(@anonymized-14978628)
Hi Sybre,
I’m not entirely sure when the “review” markup should be used, so i may have been mistaken in assuming it’s use for all reviews. Although, the “critical review” markup you mentioned seems more appropriate for my use.
Here’s an example of what i thought may have been mislabelled with the “article” markup:
https://www.celebrityhealthcritic.com/biosil-review/
Hi Marty,
Yes, that page is both an “Article” and a “Critic Review” 🙂
I confused the “Review Subject” with the “Reviewer” properties earlier. So, Local SEO won’t be required.
In any case, Google only looks for these review subjects:
- Local businesses
- Movies
- Books
So, I’m afraid your (example) review subject isn’t supported yet. But, do keep an eye out on that page; it might be updated with more types.
I’ve escalated your suggestion here, feel free to add your thoughts and comments:
https://github.com/sybrew/the-seo-framework/issues/353
If you have any more questions, don’t hesitate to ask 🙂 Cheers!
