Starting review, will add to remarks as I go, may take a couple days. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, do a copyedit run-through, or have someone else do so; the article has quite a few complex, run-on sentences. Try to kill some commas and replace them with periods or semicolons and do a little rewording. Once I have finished this PR, I may do a small run myself if you are OK with that.
Lead and infobox
Caption of lead image "Coastal cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki clarki, the type subspecies" is awkward.
No good photo for the lead image? May want to go a-hunting. (If what's in taxonomy chart is as good as it gets, I see the problem...)
Second paragraph of lead starts with a pretty complex run-on sentence. May want to break that into a couple sentences.
"native to the alluvial or freestone streams " Is "freestone" another word for alluvial, or is freestone a different kind of stream? Rephrase to clarify. (I've never heard of a "freestone" stream, FWIW).
Alluvial is a geology term, freestone is colloquial (but very common) term used to describie rivers, especially in angling literature. Freestone streams result from alluvial activity. (See this layman's explanation of Freestone streams: [1])--Mike Cline (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Familiar with alluvial, but lived in Montana all my life and been married to a fly fisherman for 30+ years, never heard "freestone" before, but then, I haven't read a lot of the literature. Maybe just rephrase to avoid the ambiguity of the "or" in that sentence. Follow up: Reviewing your source, it appears that the reason I am unfamiliar with that term is because a "freestone" river is what most of us in western and central Montana simply think of as a "river." LOL! Still, a minor rephrase, or maybe create freestone river as a quick article to explain what it is. --MTBW
Debating if collapsing the subspecies section of the infobox is a good idea. Your call, not sure, literally just debating. You didn't list the subspecies in the rainbow trout infobox, just in the chart. I LIKE the subspecies being in the infobox, but it does make it a bit long.
"Cutthroat trout are raised in hatcheries to restore ..." May want to rephrase reads like all cutthroats raised in hatcheries, worth noting if also wild populations
I am not sure where you are going with this comment. I don't know how you'd weave "wild populations" into a thought about the purpose of hatchery cutthroats.
Wording "Cutthroat trout are raised in hatcheries" sounds like the ONLY way they are raised... so needs a rephrase. Actually, wild population sources aren't really mentioned in the article much at all that I can see, you might want to tweak that. Be worth a sentence or two on the issue of where they are propagating in the wild versus where they are in a put and take fishery versus planting to restore populations. Found a few sources I popped in below that may help to expand on the genetic purity questions also.--MTBW
Coming back to this. How are cutthroat trout "raised" other than in hatcheries? Wild fish are not raised. They hatch, live or die, then die. I agree with emphasizing where they have been introduced. "wild population sources aren't really mentioned in the article". I am not sure what a wild population source is. Source of what and for what? Wild fish for ???? The range section identifies the native range of the entire species. Does that need more detail? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I use the "wild" definition common among fisherman; a wild trout is one that was not born and/or raised in a hatchery. Noting, of course, that not all native trout are wild and not all wild trout are native species (i.e. in Montana, a wild brown trout can exist, as well as a hatchery-raised native cutthroat). For the cutthroat, it's important to mention due to their status as a species of concern - where do they reproduce naturally, where do they reproduce naturally in their historic range, where have they been introduced outside their historic range, where have they been restored via hatchery stocking within their historic range and so on... am I making sense here? Montanabw(talk) 00:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to sound obnoxious, not really, because the issue isn’t being addressed very well. First the issue as I see it, is this sentence: Cutthroat trout are raised in hatcheries to restore native populations, as well as stock non-native lake environments to support angling. The entire section on “Artificial propagation” supports the sentence and the section is well sourced. With the possible exception of Washington, I know of no regular stocking of cutthroat trout into riverine environments to support put and take fishing. We know for certain in Montana that no trout of any species has been stocked in riverine environments to support fishing since 1977, thus unless a fish is an escapee from a hatchery or illegally introduced, it is a wild fish. These thoughts a wild trout is one that was not born and/or raised in a hatchery. Noting, of course, that not all native trout are wild and not all wild trout are native species (i.e. in Montana, a wild brown trout can exist, as well as a hatchery-raised native cutthroat). begs the question, Yes, but so what. There are two sections “Life cycle” and “Habitat” that discuss the behavior of cutthroat trout—spawning, etc. These are wild fish. Do we need to say “wild fish” which would imply that there are non-wild fish that behave differently in those same environments which is not the case. This comment: For the cutthroat, it's important to mention due to their status as a species of concern - where do they reproduce naturally, where do they reproduce naturally in their historic range, where have they been introduced outside their historic range, where have they been restored via hatchery stocking within their historic range and so on leaves me with a couple of questions. One, the “Cutthroat trout” as species is neither threatened or of special concern and is generally considered secure in most of its range. Three subspecies are threatened (ESA) in their native range (the only place they exist). Yes the Westslope is a Montana species of special concern, but this article is about Oncorhynchus clarki not each individual subspecies which has its own article. Interesting however, that the Westslope, with the exception of a small remnant population in Alberta, is concerned “assumed secure” in Canada. I don’t know what the presumptive state status is in other U.S. states.
As for identifying the range, I think the US range map does just that for both native historic and introduced range. Since this is about Oncorhynchus clarki, not individual subspecies, my concern is what level of detail do you think is appropriate on ranges for the entire species. Just as matter of interest, in Montana, the Westslope O. c. lewisi occurs in 3,179 named rivers and streams. These would all be wild trout. They occur in 667 lakes (most native, not introduced), the great majority which appear to have self-sustaining wild populations (no idea what the genetic purity is here as it depended on what else (Yellowstone cutt or rainbow) has been introduced into the same waters. For the Yellowstone cutthroat, it is 298 rivers and streams and 462 lakes (there has been and continues to be a lot of stocking of hatchery raised Yellowstone cutts into lakes, even with wild populations. I can't imagine what these stream and lake numbers would be like for each state (US) and province (Canada) in the cutthroat's range. If you want to add content that addresses these things, please do it, but remember this is not an article about the Westslope, it is an article about the entire Cutthroat species. Off to bed, 4AM wakeup on East coast going home in the morning. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the problem how you worded the lead. It sounds like "because they are threatened, the ONLY place they are raised is in hatcheries" That is the main issue. To fix that, maybe throw some of your above stats in (if needed) and for the lead, try something this: "Cutthroat trout naturally propagate in most riverine environments, but are also raised in hatcheries to restore native populations, as well as stock non-native lake environments to support angling."--MTBW
Was "type species" one of the phrases coming out of the FAC? Odd wording and wiki article on type is unclear ... would "taxon" be more accurate? Why is Coastal Cutthroat "the" type subspecies? (May need to explain the concept-briefly- and why it matters) --and still need to explain what a type species is and why we non-scientists should care... the wikilinked article is useless to explain whatever it is. --MTBW
For FAC, they may want the lead to be a little bit longer, but I'd wait to expand until rest of PR stuff done.
Body
I'd expand the "Angling" section a bit if you can. It's only four sentences long and the second sentence is kind of a run-on doozy - might want to break those clauses up into sentences and expand a bit on each location or concept. For example, WHY is the Lahontan fishery "unique."
SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose!) And WTF? Are they sitting on ladders? Shallow lake? Still, what's unique about the fishery itself? The sentence sort of reads like a travel brochure. My suggestion would be to break it up, I'll do an example below (so as not to screw up the numbering here)
Taxonomy section: First paragraph just kind of awkward overall, do a copyedit.
Would be fun to note c. lewisi was named after Lewis; you mention the species named after Clark, so nice to give a nod to the other - if there was any particular reason Lewis gets the westslope nod, especially if due to his own efforts (as Clark did in describing the fish generally), that would be fun to note also.
The naming of lewisi is explained in the Westslope cutthroat trout article. Although Lewis and Clark described the trout in their journals, they did not do so as taxonomists and thus did not name the subspecies. George Suckley described lewisi in 1856, purportedly because clarki (1836) was already taken. As this is an article about the overall cutthroat trout group, too much detail on any one subspecies isn't warranted.
True enough, and the taxonomic history of trout is enough to make my head explode. I wonder if someone might ask, though... hmm. Do we know why Clark got the nod first --MTBW
Because Richardson said so! Here's the first hand description in 1836 [86.] 15.SALMO CLARKII. (Richardson.) Clarke's Salmon. [Dr. Gairdner does not mention the Indian name of this trout, which was caught in the Katpootl, a small tributary of the Columbia, on its right bank. I have therefore named it as a tribute to the memory of Captain Clarke, who notices it in the narrative prepared by him of the proceedings of the Expedition to the Pacific, of which he and Captain Lewis had a joint command, as a dark variety of Salmon trout (see p. 163). In colour this species resembles the mykiss of Kamchatka, and there is no very material discrepancy in the number of rays in the fins. Vide Arct. Zool., Intr., p. cxxvi.-R.]
Heh. and because I guess he credits Clark's journals over those of Lewis! I'm going to do a bit of digging, the L&C angle is often good for reader interest. I still think you could consider adding a short sentence or clause noting o.c.lewisi named later, after Lewis, originally applied to both Yellowstone and Westslope, then split. Will cover both the major Montana subspecies that way.
..." They were the first trout ..." Maybe clarify they were the "first trout of the Americas..." (Europe has trout, after all, don't want to imply otherwise)
New World mildly un-PC, prefer "the Americas" or something similar. But won't make a federal case out of it. --MTBW
What year did John Richardson do his thing?
1836 added it to the sentence
..."species that migrated up the Columbia and Snake river basins" Any evidence or theories of how the natural population crossed the continental divide and got into the Yellowstone, Platte, Pecos, & other east of the divide rivers?
Lots of theories. Does Lake Missoula et al. ring a bell. The Rockies as we know them today were much different back when the Oncoryhnchus species were evolving. Simply put, the trout we know today evolved in isolation as glacial lakes receded.
If you can source it, add that. Maybe 2 sentences or so. It's interesting and fills in a blank. Additional comment: That still doesn't explain how they got EAST of the divide, though; Glacial Lake Missoula drained to the Pacific... ? --MTBW
tl;dw, I've seen geology films on TV also. My point is summarized here. Lake Missoula flowed west. I'm OK with the points you make below about the Lake Yellowstone theory. My point is that the article discusses that the cutthroat is a Pacific trout, so a nod to how it got to the other side of the divide is worth noting - after all, today we have bucket biologists who do stuff like this, so at the end of the day, it is good to explain that the eastslope populations are naturally-occurring and not someone hauling fish over in a live well.--MTBW
Happy, happy, nice addition to explain! --MTBW
Subspecies chart has some inconsistent punctuation, Humbolt scientific name ended with a comma, inconsistent abbreviation and/or use of periods. Some FAC reviewer will undoubtably comment on that.
Done
No sources in chart for Bonneville cutthroat trout. All other entries have something cited, somewhere in the row.
Done
Will expand list as I go. All for now, more to come. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Angling section suggestion: Reword something along these lines - obviously, don't feel you have to follow my structure or pay the least amount of attention to my warped sense of humor, this is just an idea: Montanabw(talk) 00:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cutthroat trout are prized as a gamefish. Their propensity to feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects make them an ideal and popular quarry for the fly angler,[58] and thus cutthroat fishing is popular throughout their ranges: The Yellowstone cutthroat trout fishery in Yellowstone National Park is special and cool for reasons that include yada, yada, yada, in spite of too may damn tourists, blah, blah, blah...[47][54][55][56] The small stream fisheries of the westslope cutthroat are cool because of yada, yada, yada, popular with local residents and a draw for people who read Outside Magazine. The Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery in Pyramid Lake Nevada is particularly unique because of yada, yada, yada and the weird ladder thing. Saltwater angling (probably not with flies, though?) for sea-run cutthroat occurs on the Pacific coast and is particularly well-known in places such as X, Y and Z.[57] The all-tackle world record is a 41 lb (19 kg) cutthroat caught in Pyramid Lake in December 1925.[24] (Any other records of note?)
Will work on this. But this: "Saltwater angling (probably not with flies, though?) for sea-run cutthroat" is a question best answered with pictures. [4]. Also, note the name of further reading entry #4. Fly fishing for cutts along the beaches of the Puget Sound is a blast. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May want to emphasize that as an, um, angle. (pun intended) I suspect that when most people think of salt water fishing, they usually think of people going out in boats with huge tackle and bait; not beach fishing (unless hanging a worm off a dock) and not fly fishing. That sounds like fun indeed - those flies look like a minnow imitation or something...? --MTBW
Sources:
Just found this stuff, you may be interested if you haven't used it already, mea culpa if any of these are already in footnotes, haven't gotten into that analysis yet:
http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=1911 Hmmm. Quotes Lewis. Richardson notwithstanding, Lewis first described the fish, according to this. ,s> Also posits a theory on how cutthroats got east of the divide -- will probably need additional sourcing, but: "Some biologists believe it may have migrated across the Continental Divide at a point such as Isa Lake in Yellowstone National Park, which drains into both sides of the Divide."
The Isa Lake idea is so much bunk and completely unsupported in any scientific literature I can find. Both the Firehole River and Lewis River drainages (the two rivers that flow from Isa Lake) were fishless as of 1870 above their major falls. Where did the fish go? Never happened. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two Ocean Pass is supportable for the movement of Yellowstone cutts from the Snake river to the Yellowstone drainage. In fact, geologic evidence points to Yellowstone lake once draining into the Snake before it drains into the Yellowstone river. But the Two Ocean Pass idea doesn't explain the Westslope which occurs on both sides of the divide and is thought to have evolved from the Yellowstone cutt. Very complicated. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps point me to the complicated part, should be some way to say "multiple theories exist for the existence of cutthroat trout east of the Continental divide, the most likely being X or Y." I'm a fan of educating the reader and encouraging interest in digging further. Basically, if you have a source or sources that discusses it at all, let's peek at them. See my comment above about bucket biologists. --MTBW
The complicated part is trying to explain the hows and whys that the "divide" as we know it today didn't exist at the time cutthroat and rainbow subspecies began their evolutionary path to where they are today. Even though they are considered Pacific trouts, there are populations that became isolated in different basins millions of years ago (and thus evolved into something different) before the "divide" as we know it today existed. Describing historic native ranges has nothing to do with "bucket biology". The populations of rainbows and cutthroats that live in drainages of the Atlantic basin and Arctic basin are still Pacific trouts, they just got isolated through some series of geologic/climatic events into drainages that eventually went to the Arctic or Atlantic. I'll see if I can find something that can be generalized around this. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read about this phenomenon and it's a pretty easy explanation and I'll look for the sources later this week.--MONGO 15:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Behnke's book Trout and Salmon of North America on page 169, here...it explains how trout can still, even today, get from one side of the Continental Divide to the other.--MONGO 16:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if I've read this once, I've read it a hundred times and it still doesn't explain how the Westslope cutthroat got isolated in the upper Missouri (east of the divide) and the upper Columbia (west of the divide). The two ocean pass concept is well documented for the Yellowstone cutt, but it doesn't answer the question for the Westslope. If the Westslope originated from Oncorhynchus parents that migrated up the Columbia basin, the question is how did they get into the upper Missouri basin? --Mike Cline (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be known so it's best to avoid even mentioning it. If I had to guess it would simply be that genetically identical populations that are also separated geographically from each other must have only become so separated in very recent history...in this case it may only be a few hundred years.--MONGO 17:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly you could weasel, given that there are theories out there, maybe something like, "although a number of theories have been proposed as to how they got east, including fee, fi, fo and fum, science to date has yet to provide a definitive answer... Or not. I see the problem. Has anyone done a DNA study of the fish to figure out how old the genome is??? Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've summarized Trotter (2008) on this in a "Range" paragraph. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(At Great Falls area) "Goodrich had caught half a douzen very fine trout and a number of both species of the white fish. these trout are from sixteen to twenty three inches in length, precisely resemble our mountain or speckled trout in form and the position of their fins, but the specks on these are of a deep black instead of the red or goald colour of those common to the U. States. these are furnished long sharp teeth on the pallet and tongue and have generally a small dash of red on each side behind the front ventral fins; the flesh is of a pale yellowish red, or when in good order, of a rose red....my fare is really sumptuous this evening; buffaloe's humps, tongues and marrowbones, fine trout parched meal pepper and salt, and a good appetite; the last is not considered the least of the luxuries." He apparently also had luck on August 19, 1805: "The trout are the same which I first met with at the falls of the Missouri, they are larger than the speckled trout of our mountains and equally as well flavored." March 14, 1806 (cribbing from Clark's entry the previous day): " The mountain or speckled trout are found in the waters of the Columbia within the mountains. they are the same of those found in the upper part of the Missouri, but are not so abundant in the Columbia as on that river."
Clark gets around to mentioning cutthroats on March 12, 1806: "Besides the fish of this Coast and river already mentioned we have met with the following Species. viz. the Whale, Porpus, Skaite, flounder, Salmon, red-carr, two Specis of Salmon trout, mountain or Speckled trout," then on March 13: "The Speckled or Mountain Trout are found in the waters of the Columbia within the Rocky mountains. they are the Same of those found in the upper part of the Missouri, but are not So abundent in the Columbian Waters as in that river. The bottle nose is also found on the waters of the Columbia within the mountains."
Do with all of the above as you see fit. Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on overall tone: It is important that this article strike a balance between accessibility to the masses and technical tone; too scientific and it is going to have style issues. Clearly accuracy is critical, but so is readability. Right now, it tilts a bit toward excess technical language in places where common vernacular will also work. Easily fixable once the details are sorted. Montanabw(talk) 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but always a challenge as the scientists don't like the colloquial, the laymen don't understand the science and attempts to craft compromises generally result in inaccuracies on both sides of the equations. Will work on it.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks often help a lot, if there are concepts or phrases not linked that have articles, throwing them in is useful. I run across the technical language issue with the horse articles on a regular basis, laypeople not understanding the terminology, but saying things like "a stallion is a boy horse" just sounds phenomenally ridiculous. I'd say get the information right, then maybe all of us peer reviewers can take a look at the final text. Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that the Phylo map next to the subspecies chart looks kind of awk. Might want to move it. Not sure where, though maybe if you collapse the subspecies in the infobox, it won't be so much of a problem. (I may fiddle with that, just revert if you don't like it). Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subspecies list collapsed in taxobox
Re removal of Artisan fishing link. This is WP's weak article on subsistence fishing. Subsistence fishing is not limited to "sea-fishing". Even if it was, it would apply here as the cutthroat trout subsistence fishery in SE Alaska is probably accomplished along beaches and coastal estuaries. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The taxobox illustration is not rendering, least not on my system...it needs to be replaced.
Are we talking about the Cutthroat trout (2) drawing?? Odd since it is used on 15 different pages.
When I posted the comment yes, it was not rendering at that time. Perhaps it was my system...but since it was not rendering on my desktop OR my smartphone at that time, I wanted to mention it.--MONGO 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we expand on angling some?
Expanded some
In the section Pyramid Lake Lahontan cuttrout trout, can we convert the inline url to a cited reference..."U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began rearing these fish in the http://www.fws.gov/lahontannfhc/lnfh.html Lahontan National Fish Hatchery"...needs to be adjusted.
Done
In the section Sea-run cutthroat fishing along the Pacific coast, please convert the url to Federal Subsistence Management Program to a cited reference.
Done
Consistently: We need to be careful about how we refer to the various fish and spelling. Just general musings follow as I plan on addressing them myself.
Except at the beginning of a sentence, cutthroat trout should not be capitalized....but also noticing that the general term is used without "trout"....as just plain cutthroat. So I'll look and see if it's best to write it as cutthroat trout, cutthroat or cutthroats when discussing the general fish at the species level...
Lake trout needs to be capitalized to distinguish it from fish that merely live in a lake, so any species, when we are using common names instead of Latin ones, even if not at the beginning of a sentence, should capitalize the first name as in Lake trout.--MONGO 17:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but even I am confused by the issue with lake trout...as to whether it is the species or merely a trout that is a resident of a lake. We also should probably see what they say about writing just cutthroat or if we need to add the word trout after that.--MONGO 03:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just using cutthroats or cutthroat with "trout" would be colloquial and instances of that have been removed at FAC. However, the common name convention is what it is. When is comes to lake trout, the convention of only linking things once hurts us here. I think I can solve by including the binomial everything its used. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All instances of cutthroat absent trout have been changed to cutthroat trout. The binomial for lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) has been added to the first instance of lake trout in the sections. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section titled Subspecies, it says cutthroat trout evolved over two last two million years but under the section titled Range, it says the various subspecies may have crossed the Continental Divide between 3 to 5 million years ago....so we'll need to get these dates straightened out.
I am sure the 2 million year evolution was from legacy text. I'll see what I can do to clarify. There's actually two events here that are difficult to explain with any conciseness. 1) Event 1: Ancestors of today's cutthroat trout migrated inland up the Columbia river basin (3-5 million years ago) 2)Event two, after isolation in various basins, cutthroats evolved into the forms and subspecies we find today. Whether 2 million years is the right timeframe? I'll have to check. But the migration inland took place before the subsequent isolation and evolution of today's forms so these two timeframes are not the same. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've rewritten both sections for a bit more consistency. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made one pass over so far and will do another yet...more thoughts after that
Under lifecycle...please add if possible how old they are before they spawn, how many years they live...if possible, how many eggs are laid and how many of this species survive to adulthood might be good additions.
Will work on it. In a recent change taxonomic >> toxonomic. Toxonomic is not right, taxonomic is. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How odd...I don't remember even typing an o where the a was but my edit indicates I did...weird.--MONGO 22:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may just go in there and do a mild copyedit with hidden text on anything I find that is beyond a mild copyedit to address. I think you've pretty much knocked off the big chunks of my concerns, or at least intend to. Feel free torevert anything not helpful, though the intent will be to help... also feel free to toss any hidden text once read or addressed. Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a few new hiccups you may want to look at, will add more if I see them: Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are using the (excellent, IMHO) source http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/laketrout2.pdf in several locations, but it's long and the sourced material may be on different pages, you may want to consider doing page citations and creating a "Sources" or "bibliography" section under the notes for the general work. I am guessing we may find a few other sources that are multi-page and would benefit from pinpoint citations. (See what Wehwalt and I did on Homer Davenport as an example where we cited to several books.)
Done Think I got this stuff sorted out with page reference and some new sources.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2013/05/04/14/02/mPRGz.St.4.jpeg){kind=link}