EXTINCT ATLAS / PROJECT INFORMATION
Editorial Policy
Extinct Atlas Wiki is grounded in traceable sources, scientific consensus and clear separation between evidence and visual reconstruction.
What supports each archive?
We prioritize public research databases, museums, research institutions and taxonomic information traceable to scientific literature. Dates, ranges and extinction causes are public-facing summaries, not complete literature reviews.
How is uncertainty handled?
Hypotheses are not presented as settled facts. Qualifiers such as “about”, “may” and “likely contributed” are used when dates, taxonomy or causes remain disputed.
How are external sources used?
Scientific names are checked through the official APIs of Wikipedia, Wikidata, GBIF and the Paleobiology Database, then linked to specific entity or taxonomy records rather than search pages. When no exact species record exists, the link is explicitly labelled as a related taxon. Database coverage and classifications differ, so readers should still check original references and specimen records.
What do the review labels mean?
Review status is shown on every species page and must not be read as a claim of outside expert endorsement. “Evidence-led topic hub” is the most extensively sourced format; “editorially curated” identifies individually written profiles; “review pending” identifies structured expansions that still require independent line-by-line editing. No named specialist reviewer is claimed unless that person and their role are explicitly published.
How are page updates recorded?
Every species archive has its own publication date, latest content-update date and revision history. Publication dates come from the version history of each content batch; material source, scientific-copy or media changes are listed on the detail page.
How are reconstructions presented?
Every reconstruction is explicitly labelled as generative. Images use known morphology and environmental clues, but cannot establish exact colour, soft tissue or specimen details.