Trust & methodology
Editorial standards
Global Animal Guide exists to give clear, trustworthy answers about the natural world. This page explains how we research, source, review, and update our guides — so readers, search engines, and answer engines can judge our work.
Last reviewed .
How we research
Every guide is built from established zoological and conservation references — including the IUCN Red List, peer-reviewed literature, and reputable museum, zoo, and academic sources. We summarise the consensus view rather than any single outlet, and we write the answer-first summary to match what the evidence actually supports.
How we source claims
Factual claims — conservation status, range, diet, lifespan, and size — are checked against primary references. Conservation status follows the IUCN Red List categories. Where a guide covers a broad group rather than one species, we say 'varies by species' instead of inventing a single figure.
How we review
Guides are reviewed for accuracy and clarity by the Global Animal Guide editorial team before publication, and re-checked when sources change. We avoid sensational or unverifiable claims, and our 'who would win' comparisons are clearly framed as educational and hypothetical.
How we check veterinary sources for pet health content
Pet health and care guides marked Veterinary-source checked are checked editorially against established veterinary reference sources — including the Merck Veterinary Manual, AVMA, recognised animal-welfare bodies and PetHealth+ reference material — then edited for clarity. This label does not claim a named veterinarian personally reviewed the page. Guides list sources and include a clear disclaimer that they do not replace professional diagnosis or treatment.
How we review wildlife content
Wild animal profiles are researched against the IUCN Red List, established field guides, and museum or university zoology references. Range maps and GEO data are checked at country level where possible. Spoke pages (habitat, lifespan, speed) pull from the same canonical profile data — we do not publish contradictory figures across pages. Expert review for wildlife is editorial and source-based; see each guide's sources section for citations.
How we handle freshness
Each guide carries a genuine 'last reviewed' date that changes only when the content is actually re-checked or updated — not on a cosmetic schedule. We would rather show an honest review date than fake freshness.
Independence and mission
We point readers toward World Animal Rescue Network, a global not-for-profit, so curiosity can turn into real-world help. Links to that organisation are promotional — see our commercial disclosure. Editorial content is not directed by any donor or advertiser.
How we source images
Most species photographs are obtained from Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons lead images and then resized for the web. We do not claim ownership of those photographs. Creative Commons and public-domain terms continue to apply — see our Image credits page for how to find authors and licences, and how to report a rights issue. We are improving automated licence metadata capture so every file can be attributed on-page.
Corrections
We want to be a source worth citing. If you spot an error, tell us and we will check it against our references and correct it. Substantive corrections update the guide's last-reviewed date.
Tell us about an error
Found something that looks wrong or out of date? We take corrections seriously. Email [email protected] or reach us through our about page and we will review it against our sources. Image rights issues: see image credits .
Also see our privacy policy, commercial disclosure, and terms of use.