Editorial transparency
We plan coverage, check claims and document the limits of every piece. This methodology guides FaunaGuide’s profiles, articles and visual experiences.
We review coverage across species, habitats and topics before proposing new content. Each proposal has a format, subject, geographic scope and risk level. An empty category does not automatically become a published page: it needs a specific question that suitable sources can answer. Interactive experiences are reviewed as products in their own right, not as filler articles.
New species profiles in the automated workflow require one exact, unique match in an identified Catalogue of Life release, an accepted species-level taxon and a classification consistent with the category. We record provenance and the check date. Common names are specific to language and region and do not replace the scientific name. Ambiguous identifications or unresolved local taxonomic decisions stop this workflow.
Research gathers identifiable references and checks what each one actually says. Automated publication requires at least two verified sources from independent organisations, one primary source and a claim tied to a checkable passage; some formats require more. We record the title, publisher, link, access date and available version. A search result is not verified merely because it was found, and a citation cannot support a broader claim than its source.
We distinguish observations, study findings and editorial interpretation, including limits of species, place, season or method. Occurrence records are not a complete distribution map, and a lack of records does not prove absence. On health, consumption, sensitive species and conservation, we avoid presenting content as specialist advice. Material uncertainties remain grounds for review rather than being hidden in polished prose.
A species profile needs checked taxonomy, sources documenting its scientific name and an identified documentary image with verified rights. Habitats need a regional scope and substantial sections on conditions, distribution, structure and processes. Sounds need a recording with verified identity, creator, licence, source and context. Visual experiences undergo separate checks of data, methodology, rights, accessibility, mobile operation and translations; they do not use the article publication route.
We check each asset’s creator, original page, licence and attribution conditions separately from the text. Conceptual imagery is labelled as illustration and never used as documentary identification evidence. An ordinary article may be published without an image if it passes the other checks; we do not add a photograph with uncertain rights just to fill a layout. Photo essays and species profiles have specific visual requirements.
Spanish, English, French, Italian, German and Portuguese editions must be complete before the automated workflow publishes a piece. We check that titles, summaries and bodies are populated, translations are not duplicates, and passages do not appear to remain in another language. Common names and local examples need regional context: translating words alone cannot transfer a distribution or recommendation to another place.
The editorial gate rechecks sources, scope, languages, format, biological data and rights before an item can enter the publication queue. Only low-risk or review-level content that passes every check may be published automatically, subject to a daily limit. Material uncertainties, doubtful identification, unverified rights and cases needing specialists remain blocked. Passing automated checks does not make a piece infallible or remove the duty to correct it.
Profiles and articles retain editorial status, dates and revision history. We prioritise updates when sources change, a documented correction arrives or a piece depends on recent data such as news or conservation assessments. Reader reports are recorded and checked before a piece is changed. FaunaGuide remains a work in progress: its coverage is not exhaustive and no page replaces professional assessment where health, legal or conservation risks are involved.