Keep the source document, compare a representative formatted-paste sample with a plain-text sample, and rebuild only the structures that need repair before checking the public reader journey.
Keep the original document and test a representative section before pasting the whole article. Formatted paste can preserve useful structure; plain-text paste can remove unwanted styling. Neither choice guarantees that headings, references, tables and image descriptions will arrive correctly. The goal is a readable, editable web article, not a pixel-perfect copy of a word-processing page.
This guide uses a fictional community workshop handout to explain an editorial handoff. It is not a compatibility test of a particular document application, browser or WordPress installation. Work in a draft and keep the approved source available for comparison.
Make a small acceptance sample first
Choose a section containing the difficult parts, not just the opening paragraph. The workshop sample has a section heading, a numbered instruction, a three-column timetable, an external reference and a footnote. It also has a sentence with emphasis that changes the instruction’s meaning.
Record what must survive: the words, sequence, destinations, data relationships and notes. Record what can change: document page breaks, decorative fonts, print margins and manual line wrapping. That distinction prevents an editor from preserving a visual artifact while losing a useful reference.
Use two disposable drafts or clearly separated sample sections. Paste the same selection normally in one and using the available plain-text paste command in the other. Compare the actual results in your browser and editor. Shortcut names and availability vary, so do not assume a key combination has stripped formatting merely because you pressed it.
Choose a route from the result, not a rule of thumb
| Sample result | Useful next step | Information to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| Formatted paste creates sensible native blocks | Keep it and repair the few remaining differences. | Headings, emphasis, link targets and list order. |
| Words survive but styling is inconsistent | Clean the affected selection or rebuild that section. | Meaningful emphasis and references before cleanup. |
| Plain text is clean but structure disappears | Recreate native headings, lists and other required blocks. | The source’s hierarchy and data relationships. |
| A complex table or notes arrive ambiguously | Rebuild those features separately from the prose. | Cell associations, note text and reference locations. |
For the fictional handout, suppose formatted prose is usable but the timetable arrives as a series of disconnected lines. Keep the good prose and rebuild the timetable. Re-pasting the entire document as plain text would create unnecessary work and another chance to omit a link.
Remove unwanted formatting selectively
The official text-editing overview describes rich-text options and an Unknown formatting control that appears when relevant formatting is detected. It is conditional, not a permanent button every editor should find. Available controls can also differ with the selected block and installed version.
Inspect a small selection before applying cleanup widely. A sentence’s italics might mark a book title; bold text might express an essential instruction. Recheck both after cleanup. Do not interpret the absence of an Unknown formatting warning as proof that every document artifact was removed.
A plain-text intermediate copy is useful when a section is otherwise difficult to repair, but it is deliberately destructive to rich structure. Keep the original beside it, then restore the relevant links and emphasis. Avoid uploading unpublished material to an unrelated online cleaner simply to remove styling.
Check the block structure and heading hierarchy
WordPress List View shows the blocks and their nesting, while the Outline tab shows heading structure. Open Document Overview after the sample paste. Confirm that a heading-looking sentence is actually a Heading block rather than a bold paragraph.
For the workshop article, the page title names the workshop and the main sections describe preparation, arrival and follow-up. Put subtopics under their actual parent sections. Choose heading levels for that relationship rather than selecting a larger font to imitate the source document’s appearance.
Check list boundaries too. Three separate paragraphs beginning with typed numbers can look like a list without being a native ordered list. Rebuild an instruction sequence deliberately, including any continuation after an intervening paragraph. Compare its numbering with the source so a missing step does not disappear behind tidy formatting.
Audit links by destination
Select important links and inspect where they lead. The visible label can be correct while its target is a temporary document-sharing address, a local file reference or an old page. Replace it with the intended public destination only after confirming the editorial source.
Review internal jumps and references separately from external citations. A reference reading “see page 4” needs a web equivalent, such as a descriptive link to the relevant section. Preserve the meaning rather than leaving a page number that no longer exists.
For the fictional venue map, the acceptance test is that the public link reaches the approved map without requiring the document author’s account. A link opening successfully for a logged-in editor is not enough. Never publish an access token or private sharing URL as a workaround.
Rebuild tables as information
The Table block documentation describes header sections, captions and row or column editing. It recommends tables for tabulated data rather than page design. The final appearance can vary with the theme.
Reconstruct the workshop timetable with one row per session and labelled columns for time, activity and room. Compare every cell against the original. If a merged heading obscures which room belongs to which session, simplify the arrangement instead of copying the confusing layout.
Check the public table on a narrow screen. Readers need to understand the relationships even when the content wraps or the table scrolls within its container. Our mobile data-table guide covers the wider interaction review.
Treat footnotes and images as separate handoff items
Pasted superscript numbers are not proof of working footnotes. The native Footnotes block documentation explains references and backlinks. Removing that block can leave references in place; reinserting it restores the collected notes. Removing an individual reference has a different effect on its note.
In the draft, follow each intended reference to its note and return using the backlink. Check the note text itself, including any citation destination. If the paste produced ordinary text instead, recreate the native references deliberately rather than leaving convincing but inactive numbers.
Handle images through the site’s normal media workflow. Confirm permission, the intended file, caption and meaningful alternative text. A picture displayed inside the source document is not evidence that the pasted article has a durable, correctly described public copy.
Finish with a reader check and an editor handover
Compare the draft with the original section by section. Review the desktop and mobile preview, headings, list sequence, table values, links and notes. Read a sentence around each repaired area to catch duplicated or omitted words. Save and reopen the draft to check that the native structure remains editable.
If the editor reports an invalid block, use the separate block recovery workflow; do not repeatedly paste the document over the working draft. Keep a short handover note naming the source version, repaired features and unresolved questions.
Approve the web article when its meaning, navigation and maintainable structure are accounted for. Matching the original typeface is a much weaker acceptance test than knowing a reader can follow the instructions and reach every intended reference.
Sources and verification
Editorial review 2026-10-15. Source check dates are recorded separately. Notes describe what each source supports and its limits.
View sources
- WordPress Documentation: More text-editing overviewChecked Rich-text controls and the conditional Unknown formatting cleanup option when the editor detects unsupported formatting.
Limits: The cleanup control is not always visible and does not guarantee a complete or lossless conversion from every document application. - WordPress Documentation: List viewChecked Document Overview, block structure in List View, and heading structure in the Outline tab.
Limits: A plausible block outline does not verify factual wording, hyperlink targets, imported images or every detail of a pasted document. - WordPress Documentation: Table blockChecked Native Table block structure, header and caption controls, row and column editing, and tables for tabulated information rather than page layout.
Limits: The final presentation depends on the theme; document-table conversion and mobile accessibility require separate inspection. - WordPress Documentation: Footnotes blockChecked Native footnote references, the Footnotes block and reference/backlink behavior, including the difference between removing the block and an individual reference.
Limits: The native feature does not establish that pasted document footnotes have become functional WordPress footnotes.