Our editorial standards

A confident sentence is not a source.

What supports a claim?

Our standard is to use original research, veterinary schools and professional bodies, government guidance, established welfare organizations, and recognized breed registries or clubs. Product specifications should come from the manufacturer.

What happens when sources disagree?

We explain the disagreement, give relevant ranges, and state uncertainty. We do not invent studies, quotes, testing, professional review, or a consensus.

How do we write about breeds?

Breed influences behavior. It does not write the entire personality. Profiles must account for individual variation, upbringing, training, age, environment, and health.

What do the tools provide?

Feeding calculators provide estimates, show their method, and disclose who should not use them. They do not diagnose a pet or replace an individual feeding plan.

Corrections and review

Substantive factual corrections should be explained on the affected page. Updated dates must reflect actual changes; a medical-review label requires a named, qualified reviewer who performed that review.

Commercial relationships

If content includes paid placement, affiliate links, or supplied products, the relationship must be disclosed near the relevant content. Payment is not evidence.

AI-assisted work

AI may help prepare drafts or tools. That does not remove the need for human editorial checks, source verification, or clear accountability.