Editorial roles

Who Writes and Reviews These Pages

The GL Pod is produced by a small editorial operation, and this page describes the work by function rather than by name. Listing invented biographies, degrees or institutional affiliations would be a claim of expertise the site cannot support, so none are offered. What follows is an honest account of the roles involved in getting a profile from a set of published assessments to a finished page.

The profiles are written from published scientific and government sources rather than from original field research. No one here tags sharks, weighs seals or dives on a squid. The site is a compilation and a reference, not a peer-reviewed publication, and it should be read as a well-cited starting point that leads back to the institutions doing the actual research.

  • Editorial team

    Research, writing and structure

    Compiles each profile from the cited institutional sources, writes the narrative sections, and keeps the structure identical across the catalog so that profiles remain readable side by side. This function also decides what a profile will not claim: which widely repeated anecdotes are left out, where a range is too wide to be useful, and when a section is better left short than padded with material the sources do not support.

    • Species profiles
    • Comparison pages
    • Guides and explanatory writing
    • House style and consistency

  • Science review

    Accuracy of biological claims

    Reads each draft against the underlying assessments and agency accounts to confirm that the biology described is what the sources actually say, and that nothing has drifted through paraphrase into a stronger claim than the evidence supports. This review checks scientific names and family placement against the accepted taxonomic authority, confirms conservation categories and assessment years, and removes statements that are widely repeated in popular writing but not documented in the primary literature.

    • Anatomy, behavior and life history
    • Taxonomy and naming
    • Conservation status and population trend
    • Plausibility of claims before publication

  • Data and fact-checking

    Measurements, ranges and citations

    Checks each measurement against the published range in the cited source, confirms that the stored metric value and the converted figure agree, and flags any number that appears in only one place or that traces back to a record rather than a typical animal. Disputed values are marked as disputed and explained in a note rather than dropped, since readers encounter those claims elsewhere and are better served by an explanation than by silence.

    • Length, weight, speed, depth and lifespan figures
    • Unit conversion and rounding
    • Disputed and record values
    • Source citation for every profile

  • Illustration and visual reference

    Artwork and image accuracy

    Produces the reference artwork used across the site and checks it against published morphological descriptions for proportion, fin and limb placement, coloration and relative scale. The illustrations are reference drawings rather than photographs of identified individual animals, and they are not evidence of anything on their own. Each one is paired with descriptive alternative text so the page remains usable for readers who do not see the artwork.

    • Species artwork
    • Proportion and anatomical detail
    • Alternative text and captions
    • Visual consistency across the catalog

  • Corrections and reader mail

    Error reports and review scheduling

    Receives reports sent to the published contact address, reproduces the claimed error against the cited source, and routes confirmed problems to whichever function is responsible for fixing them. This role also keeps the review schedule, tracks which profiles are due, and moves a page up the queue when a new assessment, a revised listing or a widely reported study changes something the page currently states.

    • Reader corrections
    • Source questions
    • Correction records and dates
    • Review cadence

How a profile is written

Work on a profile begins with the conservation assessment and the relevant government agency account, which together establish the accepted name, the status, the population trend and the broad distribution. Museum and institutional accounts fill in anatomy, behavior and life history. Specialist reference databases supply the measurement ranges that the narrative sections then have to remain consistent with. Only after those materials are assembled does anyone write a sentence, which keeps the prose from setting a direction the sources cannot follow.

The narrative is then written to explain rather than to impress. A profile is finished when a reader could answer basic questions about the animal without needing another page, when every figure in the text matches the recorded measurement, and when the uncertain parts are visibly marked as uncertain. Passages that sound compelling but rest on a single unverified account are removed at this stage.

How a profile is checked

Checking is deliberately separated from writing. Each measurement is verified against the range published in the cited source, and any figure that cannot be traced to a listed source is either replaced or removed. Conversions are checked in both directions. Conservation categories are confirmed against the current assessment, including the year that assessment was published, because a category from a decade ago can be badly out of date.

Claims that cannot be settled receive a note instead of a decision. Maximum sizes for deep-water squid, lifespans for slow-growing sharks and burst speeds for large fish are the usual candidates, since each depends heavily on measurement method. Recording the disagreement is more useful than picking a side, and it lets a reader who follows the citation understand why the published figures vary.

Checked on every profile

  • Each measurement against the range in the cited source
  • Stored metric values against the converted figures shown to readers
  • Scientific name and family against the accepted taxonomic authority
  • Conservation category, trend and assessment year
  • Disputed or record-derived values marked and explained
  • Every source consulted listed on the page

Review cadence

Every profile carries the date it was last reviewed, and the whole catalog is worked through on a yearly cycle. A page can be revisited sooner. A new conservation assessment, a change to a protected listing, a major tagging study or a well-documented specimen that shifts an accepted maximum will all pull a profile forward in the queue, as will a reader report that turns out to be correct.

A review is not limited to the figures. Distribution notes, threat descriptions and ecological context age quietly, and a page that was accurate when written can become misleading without a single number changing. Reviews therefore reread the narrative as well, and rewrite passages that no longer reflect what the current sources describe.

What this operation is not

The site conducts no field research, holds no specimens, and runs no studies. It has no formal relationship with any of the institutions it cites, and citing a public source is not a partnership, a sponsorship or an endorsement. The organizations named across these pages have not reviewed this material and bear no responsibility for how it is presented here.

Readers who need authoritative material for academic, legal, commercial or safety purposes should work from the cited sources directly rather than from a compiled reference. Every profile lists what was consulted precisely so that the trail back to the original assessment stays short. Treating this site as a well-signposted route into the institutional literature, rather than as a substitute for it, is the use it was built for and the one it supports best.

Reaching the editors

All editorial correspondence goes to [email protected], including error reports, questions about a figure, and requests for the specific source behind a particular claim. Reports that identify the page and the disputed value are the fastest to act on. The corrections policy sets out what happens after a report arrives and how confirmed changes are recorded.

Last updated .