Brook trout was nominated as a good article in the Natural sciences category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: July 24, 2014
|WikiProject Fishes||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Adirondack Coaster? Reference? Crescent77 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) "The species reaches a maximum recorded length of 86 cm (33 in) and a maximum recorded weight of 9.4 kg (14 lb)." 9.4kg is not equal to 14lb, not even close, it's more like 21 pounds or so. I didn't edit this as I don't know which is correct.220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Under "Description" it says "It can reach at least seven years of age, with reports of 15-year-old specimens" Under "Environmental requirements" it says "The brook trout is a short-lived species, rarely surviving beyond four or five years in the wild." --Mithcoriel (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a contradiction as far as I can see. In the wild within its native range, the fish normally does not exceed 5 years of age. In captivity, it can attain 7. In an introduced population outside of its native range, it has been known to attain 15. Precisely what is the contradiction? A fish that normally lives only 5 years is a fairly short-lived species, no? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Unspotted fish from Quebec
I removed the following text from the article (some clean-up added). I recommend we keep it here for later re-insertion when its status becomes clarified. Is it a subspecies, an ecotype, what? If this thing is real, it will become clear what it is in due course. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
===Unspotted trout in Quebec===
In autumn 2006, a new discovery was confirmed in Quebec, Canada, about a new race of speckled trout (unspotted)(Salvelinus fontinalis mitchinamecus). Reference www.aquaecofaune.com. Only in French presently.
Would it be acceptable to create a designated section on this page for the sea-run variety of brook trout? Given that they can vary greatly in size and coloration (while at sea and just after leaving), and are widely popular in the eastern regions, I think they deserve greater distinction.
Also, this article mentions that they "go" to sea for three months in the spring. Do they not winter there, then return to the fresh water streams in Mid to Late spring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamnb1 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see information on the different strains of brook trout. There are several different strains that have characteristics known to fisheries biologists who use this information to determine which strains to stock. Some Canadian strains get much bigger than those in the Adirondacks for example. Also some are more tolerent of more highly acidic water. Also more pictures of different strains. I find the differences in the pictures already on this page as striking. I'm just an anonymous brook trout lover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Brook trout/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.||Will wait to address this section until other areas fixed, needs some copyediting, which will probably occur with the other issues being fixed|
|1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.||See comments section below this chart|
|2. Verifiable with no original research:|
|2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.||Lacks citation in several spots.|
|2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.||Has some spots where more citation is needed, some of which should be fixed once the lead is fixed; will tag other areas in article where they occur.|
|2c. it contains no original research.||What's there appears to be sound, but need more sources|
|3. Broad in its coverage:|
|3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.|
|3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).|
|4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.|
|5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.||No edit wars, steady progress on article by lead editor|
|6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:|
|6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.||copyright good on all images, but see comments below|
|6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.||File:Brook trout 1918.jpg is used twice in article, "Angling" and "Description" sections are too image-heavy and have text "sandwiched" between right and left-aligned images. Need to rearrange the images and perhaps eliminate one or two of them.|
|7. Overall assessment.|
I'm putting preliminary assessments into the chart above, but it's difficult to discuss there, so am opening up this area for discussion. I am guessing that it is your intent to get this article to FAC eventually, so am looking at the GA review with an eye to a further run. The single biggest problem with the article at first glance is that the lead does not comply with the MOS, as it contains a great deal of information that is not cited elsewhere in the article and does not summarize what is there. Montanabw(talk) 21:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Criterion 1b
- Lead is poor, too short for comprehensiveness of article and fails to adequately summarize article. Needs substantial rewrite.
- Would like to see a bit more linking to some jargon unfamiliar to non-biology-oriented readers, such as anadromous, and a bit of explanation of what things like an " intrageneric" versus an "intergeneric" hybrid are - wikilink doesn't really explain it (unless you meant "Interspecific hybrids")
- Consider putting the "Description" section ahead of the "Range and Habitat" section, unless that order is a standard layout for all the articles about fish.
- The "Angling" section is more of a "History and records" section and is a bit disorganized, it starts with Webster, then backtracks to the colonial period, etc. I'd do some cleanup and copyediting there.
- More to come..
- Criterion 2b
- Lacks citation in several places, I popped tags in where noticed. Some sections might just need a rewrite more than new research, but some clearly need attribution.
- Images are all acceptable, but layout needs improvement, particularly where there is sandwiched text. You have one image used twice and may want to think about if there are one or two others you can either toss or rearrange so they are not clustered in one location as they are now. Will look at criteria 3 and 4 once the citation issue and copyediting has had some work, as the text is apt to change a bit. Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The article's barely been touched since, so I'm closing this. Wizardman 22:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Found a google books version of the Nick Karas book. Some good stuff there, probably worth adding unless it is already outdated. Page I've linked to has interesting discussion of strain, species and subspecies that may be useful for this article. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it is an excellent source (I have a copy). I don't think it is outdated, but of course there's always new scholarly work coming out every year. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think you can use it for more footnotes, on a real cursory glance, the stuff on strains versus subspecies looks real useful. The beauty of the online version is the word search feature...even some books I have in hardcopy I prefer the google books for searching when I'm trying to source a wiki article. .Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)