Talk:Aardvark

Aardvark population news

Aardvark's population trend is stable, its conservation status is now Near Threatened (IUCN 3.1). WKipedieAnn (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not according to this page: . You may be thinking of some other standard? Anaxial (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

edit request

here is another source for the aadvark melon symbiosis. it's more recent and a good article and online so people can actually read it. Thanks!

https://botany.one/2025/07/unearthing-the-old-mystery-of-underground-melons/ 45.167.113.36 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"mysterious" ??

Both ptolemaiidans and Plesiorycteropus in the text are described as "mysterious" - what makes a genus or family of animals or fossils "mysterious"??

If this is taken verbatim from a source, it should be placed in quotation marks; otherwise, it really has no place in a scientific article about animal species... Mastakos (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

add cartoon reference: The Ant and The Aardvark

it would be appropriate to add this reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Aardvark in the "in popular culture" section Maximilianomilicich (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say so - as the title character the connection is sufficiently prominent, and there is an existing article on the topic. Suggest using the first ref from the article (Cartoon Encyclopedia) here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aardvark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Happy to review. If you were as old as I am you would remember The Goon Show's running gag "aardvark's never killed anyone". I think I shall enjoy this. Tim riley talk 13:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Review

Well, that hasn't occupied many minutes of my remaining years. Only one quibble: "It is believed to exhibit polygamous breeding behavior" is in AmE rather than the BrE everywhere else in the article. Your references are wide-ranging and look authoritative, the illustrations are excellent and properly documented, the text reads splendidly. I have no doubt that the article meets all the GA criteria.

So: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good job! Tim riley talk 14:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)