Talk:Aardvark

Aardvark has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 7, 2026. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aardvark article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Mammals High‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Nicholson Baker (10 April 2008). "How I fell in love with Wikipedia [1]". The Guardian.

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)[reply]

Not according to this page: [1]. You may be thinking of some other standard? Anaxial (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
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:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

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