Identify the animal before explaining it
Common names can cover several species, and photographs are often mislabelled online. Pages use scientific names where they clarify identity and state when a common name is broader than one species.
Breed pages, species pages and multi-species group pages are treated differently. A domestic chicken breed should not receive a wild conservation category, while an anglerfish overview should not assign one species' mating system to every anglerfish.
Match confidence to the evidence
Direct observations and well-supported anatomy are stated plainly. Hypotheses, disputed interpretations and missing data are labelled instead of being converted into confident stories.
Conservation categories are tied to the relevant species, population or authority. Not Evaluated is not presented as endangered, safe or Data Deficient.
Write for readers without talking down to them
Pages use plain language, define necessary scientific terms and answer each question directly. Explanations should be clear enough to understand without specialist knowledge.
The word ugly describes a human reaction. It is not treated as a biological property or a reason one species deserves less attention than another.
How readers can use this policy
Use this policy to evaluate the promise made by an animal page. A profile should identify its subject, answer the stated question and place a citation near claims that depend on outside evidence. If the page does something different, the policy provides a concrete basis for a correction request.
Editorial consistency does not mean forcing every animal into one template. A domestic breed, a species with a current Red List assessment and a common name spanning many species need different questions. The standard is accurate scope and a useful answer, not identical headings.