Talk:Rainbow trout

GA Review

GA Review

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Rainbow trout/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC) My first opinion of this article is a positive one - well-written, comprehensive. after inspection, my comments and suggestions (I go section-wise): Lead Y Look at the first two sentences. Is the steelhead a form of and not just a synonym of the rainbow trout? If it is a form, don't write steelhead in bold, and if it is a synonym, mention it in the first line as The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) or steelhead is a species... Y at sea-''in sea - "in the ocean" Y Delete the duplicate links North America and Great Lakes. Y References are not needed in the lead if the facts are already mentioned in the body of the article later on (with references, of course). I haven't checked that, just a thing to remember. Y Please add more to the Lead. This should look like a mini-form of this article. Include all aspects discussed in the article in a systematic manner in the Lead. Taxonomy Y Firstly, clearly mention the scientific name of rainbow trout (let it be the first line). Y Who are Richardson, Gibbons, Gerald Smith and Ralph Stearley? Give their professions clearly. Y I would suggest to make the section "Subspecies" a sub-heading under this section, as they are much related. Description Y Convert pounds into kilograms everywhere. Range Y coastal waters and tributary rivers and streams - How about using the comma here? Y Delete duplicate links Pacific basin and Kamchatka Y pacific coast. "p" in upper case. Y southern most-southernmost YLast part has no reference. YI think the image with the caption Native range of anadromous form of Oncorhynchus mykiss, steelhead should be used in this section. Y I suggest shifting this article below the "life cycle" section. The description and life cycle go well together. Life cycle Y Don't write steelhead in bold again. Y Atlantic salmon,smolts,Pacific basin, brown trout, salmon, brown and cutthroat trout are duplicate links Y Once steelhead enter riverine systems and reach suitable spawning grounds, they spawn just like resident freshwater rainbows. no reference. Y Spawning sites are usually a bed ... area, habitat, life history and quality and quantity of food. totally unreferenced. Y Use references in "Length and weight" Not sure I can do anything with this. This section is legacy text from the original article before I began re-writing and re-balancing the content. Not quite sure it is actually relevant or encyclopedic in the context of the overall article. I would much prefer it was removed from the article. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Same here. I re-read the section, I believe it seems out of place and full of obscure and unnecessary stuff. I have removed it.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Can we have a caption for the graph used? See above comment Y Write one-third rather than 1/3 Y at sea-''in sea - "in the ocean" YI would recommend Feeding to be made an independent section Y Illustration of a rainbow trout is an unnecessary picture. It seems to be crowding the place. Artificial propagation Y and introduce rather write for their introduction Y Hatchery, Germany are duplicate links Y Introduced rainbow trout in regions outside their native range have established wild, self-sustaining populations where healthy conditions exist for spawning and growth unreferenced. Y and recently in Chile Not sure what recently means here. Can you mention what time you are speaking of? This was legacy content. My review of the sources indicate that the use of the word "recently" was a bit of vague OR on the part of the contributor. I removed the adverb, as regardless of when Chile became a producer, sources confirm they are the largest. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Good that you removed that vague term. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Fishing, As Food YI would suggest to you to make these two sections sub-headings under an independent section "Uses" or under some other appropriate name. Let this be the last section in the article. Y Other introductions to ... the Great Lakes. unreferenced - references moved from lead Y Washington Coast Link the whole phrase properly otherwise don't link Washington at all. Y Columbia River, farmed duplicate links Y favor-flavor Conservation YColumbia river redband trout have -Columbia river redband trout, have Y EPA-approved What is EPA? Y Duplicate links: Alaska, British Columbia,threatened,endangered,Cutthroat trout,brown trout, Montana,invasive species, Idaho, Firehole River,Yellowstone National Park,game fish,Enteric redmouth disease,fish farms,Southern California DPS. Y No reference for Trout Unlimited (Advocacy Groups) Y No references in Didymo Y The parasite infects its hosts with its cells after piercing them with polar filaments ejected from nematocyst-like capsules. No reference Subspecies YMy earlier suggestion about shifting this section Y Why don't you use an image or two of some subspecies here (if available)? So most problems are with verifiability and duplicate links. Please use my suggestions and respond soon. This is an article worthy to be a GA. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Initial response to GA review Thanks, all good comments. Will work through them as soon as possible and highlight above as I fix. Am traveling this week so am away from my library, but I think I have or can get sources for all the needed areas as nothing here is not verifiable. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Great! We have most of the things done, just a few things left which you need to do. I do not find any more problems in the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC) @Sainsf - Take a look at it now. I think I've addressed all the issues you raised. Please note there's one exception on the "Length-Weight". --Mike Cline (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC) The "exception" has been addressed. A few minor trifles that I noticed (Subspecies). *Y Again, who do you refer to in Carl et al. (1994)? Remember, in whatever article you write, you must not just mention names of the persons you are referring to, give their professions clearly as well. *YThe palomino trout ... golden trouts of California. No reference. See that every fact is referenced throughout the text. Rest is well. I believe that once you see to these things, the article can be passed. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Got the last of it done. Thanks for all the comments. It definitely made for a better article. I will apply these types of comments to every article I work on. Thanks again. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Final review Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; Initially a few problems, but now ✓ Pass (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation Perfect, ✓ Pass Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; ✓ Pass in verifiability. (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); ✓ Pass (c) it contains no original research ✓ Pass Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Perfectly. No doubt ✓ Pass (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Initially a few unnecessary things, now removed. So, ✓ Pass Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✓ Pass Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. ✓ Pass Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; ✓ Pass (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions ✓ Pass Therefore, Y GA promoted. I appreciate your quick and efficient hard work. The next big push for this article would be FAC. But no need to hurry, add more relevant and interesting literature, and with the efforts of such a good editor as you are, I have no doubt that this article will soon adorn the main page. Good luck! :) Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

I agree with the post above, here are some better choices and the category on Commons.

Pinging major contributors/maintainers @Mike Cline and Horse Eye's Back:

1

2

3

Category:Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout)

• I like 1, but any would be better, I think. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No responses', changing to image 1. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Added image 2 instead. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)