Talk:Cutthroat trout/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this article. Will probably take a few days to get some comments up. Sasata (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I'll be home for the next 3 weeks with my library so I should be able to address any concerns rapidly. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I appreciate this article much, but I noticed these trifles:

Y Do we need brackets for the subspecies names in the line Two subspecies, (O. c. alvordensis) and (O. c. macdonaldi) are considered extinct ? (Lead)
No source for

Y This type specimen was most likely the coastal cutthroat subspecies (Taxonomy)
Y Lake resident cutthroat trout are usually ... gravelly bottomed streams to be self-sustaining (Life cycle)
Y Ranges of some subspecies... non-native species (Range and Habitat)
Y The coastal cutthroat trout (O. c. clarki)... can tolerate saline or alkaline water (Habitat)
Y Within the range of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) the cutthroat is a major forage fish for the piscivorous bull trout (Habitat)

Confirmed that cutthroat are a forage fish for bull trout, removed word "major" as sources could not confirm that and it was legacy text from pre-GA version. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Cutthroat trout co-exist with lake trout... gets little angling pressure (Decline of the Yellowstone cutthroat)
Y Their propensity to feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects make them an ideal quarry for the fly angler (Angling)

Y Duplicate links : Columbia (in Subspecies) and gravel (in Habitat).

You have put excellent efforts in this article, Mike, and with Sasata to help you, this has to be a success. Good luck! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed

I think I've got to all the issues raised. Thanks for all the help. Let me know if anything additional is required. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rest is fine. I have no more comments to make. Let Sasata do the review, and I will be coming here often. Hope it becomes a GA soon! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

Y I think that perhaps tributaries, spawn, and subspecies might be good links to have in the lead, but links to North America and Pacific Ocean are not needed
Y "As a member of the genus Oncorhynchus it is one of the Pacific trouts which include the widely distributed rainbow trout." suggest "As a member of the genus Oncorhynchus it is one of the Pacific trouts, a group that includes the widely distributed rainbow trout."
Y "typical tributaries of the Pacific basin" What is the Pacific basin? Is it different than the Pacific Ocean (based on a redirect, the terms seem to be considered synonymous on Wikipedia)

Actually the terms are not synonymous, despite the redirect in Wikipedia. The Pacific Ocean is actually part of the Pacific basin (basin being defined as Drainage basin). As an example, the Columbia River and all its tributaries are part of the Pacific basin as they drain into the Pacific Ocean. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y link confluence, morphological; perhaps pipe genetic to molecular genetics if appropriate; genetically closer, taxonomic
Y "by Dr. Gerald R. Smith, Curator of Fishes at the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan and Ralph F. Stearley, doctoral candidate, Museum of Palentology, University of Michigan indicated" I don't think this level of detail (institution and degree) is necessary here. How about replacing the whole thing with "suggested"?

This is a bit that is inconsistent with advice given and taken at Talk:Rainbow trout/GA1#Taxonomy. The text here is essentially the same as in Rainbow trout. Consistency?? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's extraneous on that article too! Why are you singling out this particular fact, among many facts given in the article, by highlighting the names and degrees of the people proposing it? WP:UNDUE? Sasata (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready to bend on this yet. The inclusion of this was at the specific request of the GA reviewer for the Rainbow trout article. Since it achieved GA with this content, it should be included here as well. Additionally, the Rainbow trout article has completed two weeks of peer review in prep for FAC and no one has raised this as an issue.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'll raise it at the FAC if no-one gets there first :) What's the rationale for including this information (other than possible bad advice from another reviewer)? Sasata (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yref #5 does not indicate that O. c. clarki is also known as the "sea-run" cuttthroat

Added ref to Behnke which specifically calls it "sea-run" --Mike Cline (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y"The type species [5]" incomplete sentence, missing punctutation; more importantly, it is not a type species, but rather a nominate (or nominotypical) subspecies

Behnke (2002) specifically refers to O. c. clarki as such: "The name clarki is based on the coastal cutthroat trout; thus when the species is divided into subspecies the coastal cutthroat becomes Oncorhynchus clarki clarki because this subspecies is the 'type' (first described) of the species" pg.146. It appears from my reading of both Type (biology) and nominate subspecies that they are essentially the same. I find no references to "nominate subspecies" in any cutthroat literature, but I am not a biologist. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find this usage of "type species" elsewhere. I note that Behnke refers to the subspecies clarki as a "type" (which it is), but not as "type species", which refers specifically to the species that defines the characteristic of the genus. Oncorhynchus gorbuscha is the "type species" of Oncorhynchus, and I think it's incorrect to use this term to refer to O. clarki clarki. How about simply "type subspecies", which avoids the potentially confusing/jargony "nominate subspecies", and appears to be used by ichthyologists? Sasata (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Changed to type subspecies --Mike Cline (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y perhaps link population (yes, a common-knowledge word, but it's important in the understanding of taxonomic relationships for this species)
Y"Humboldt cutthroat trout O. c. spp." should this be O. c. humboldtensis?

From all my research, O. c. humboldtensis is a proposed subspecies name (Behnke and Trotter 2008), not an accepted subspecies name. It is not listed in any of the major taxonomic sources as accepted. ??Should we just say that is a a proposed name? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that works. Sasata (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y "Considered by some to be a population of O. c. henshawi." source?

Clarified with source --Mike Cline (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y "Whitehorse Basin cutthroat trout, O. c. spp.,[6] once considered a separate subspecies" if this was once considered a subspecies, what was its subspecific name? Also, the cited source does not seem to support the phrasing "once considered": "The Lahontan cutthroat trout is one subspecies of the wide-ranging cutthroat trout species (O. clarki)" Perhaps there's a better source for this (I wouldn't expect a government information page to be reliable for taxonomic details)?

Clarified text a bit with an additional source --Mike Cline (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y the Northern Rockies and Southern Rockies subsection are lacking sources.
Y link strain, gill
Y "These markings are responsible for the formation of the typical name "cutthroat"." The underlined part is awkward prose. Also, is it a "typical" name or common name?
Y "The sea run forms of coastal cutthroat averages 2 to 5 pounds (0.91 to 2.3 kg)" averages->average; should trim that conversion output to 1 decimal place
Y ".4 to 3.2 ounces" Per MOS:DECIMAL, include a leading zero in decimal numbers (check for other instances too)
"depending on habitat and food availability." … "depending on their particular environment and availability of food." unecessary to repeat this information so closely
Y "The largest of the cutthroat subspecies is the Lahontan cutthroat trout O. c. henshawi." put scientific name in paretheses for consistency with others
Y "the Lahonton cutthroat attains average weights of .25 to 8 pounds" it sounds odd to use the term "average weights" when such a disparate range of weights is given; perhaps "typical" is a better adjective? ( or "typically attains weights between …")
Y link oxygenated, habitat loss, introduction, siltation, co-evolve, opportunistic feeder, forage fish, U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, overfishing, intraspecific breeding, genes, state fish
Y "Although cutthroat trout are not native to Arizona, they are routinely introduced into high mountain lakes in the White mountains in northeast Arizona." who does this?

Arizona Game and Fish Department - added to sentence --Mike Cline (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Beaver ~~(Castor canadensis)~~ ponds" don't think scientific name is warranted here (we all know what a beaver is!)

done

Y our article thinks that "head water" should be one word
Y link riverine earlier
Y "a number of" is idiomatic; suggest "several"
Ythe use of the serial comma is inconsistent throughout the article

Should be consistent now as I removed all serial commas that I could find --Mike Cline (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y page #'s for ref #28?

Assume this was Schullery, Fishes of YNP. FYI - should refer to reference explicitly as the # change as referencing is updated. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y is the name of the photographer of the West Thumb, 1897 photo relevant to this article?

Removed. Always like to give F. Jay credit for this photos. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y "From the world class Yellowstone cutthroat trout fishery" doesn't sound like neutral language

It may not sound neutral, but it--"World-class"--as it pertains to the cutthroat trout fishery in Yellowstone is certainly supported by a wide variety of online and independent sources. If we need a specific source, I can certainly add one. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's true or not, it doesn't sound neutral to express this in Wikipedia's voice. Would the sentence really lose any meaning by leaving out "world-class"? Sasata (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It loses accuracy. There is nothing POV about using this term. A lot of reliable sources use this to refer to the Yellowstone cutthroat fishery (brown and rainbow fisheries as well). In fact, I would contend that we would be violating NPOV by not using it or denying it as it is well supported by RS. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't lose "accuracy", the sentence is discussing the popularity of the cut-throat trout as a game fish; this information is not any more or less accurate when the public opinion of the Yellowstone trout fishery is included. Also, the reliable source currently used to source the world-classness of the trout fishery was co-written by someone employed by the same trout fishery! Really, I'm not too fussed about this for the GAN, but this is something I might oppose at FAC. Sasata (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y'This 31.5 inches (80 cm) cutthroat" -> "This 31.5-inch (80 cm) cutthroat". This caption will need to be sourced, and the grammar fixed (missing "it").

Sasata (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get the work on these. There are a few comments above (I will highlight later) that are contrary to work done on the Rainbow trout GA. Thus from a consistency standpoint, we will have to discuss some to ensure we maintain some consistency between articles. I will be pushing both Brook trout and Brown trout for GA soon and will be using both Rainbow trout and this article as a guide. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Nice that the review has begun. Just let me know soon which comments of Sasata you think are contradictory to my review. We shall discuss what would be best for the article. Great that you are working hard on fish articles, the two articles you will be working upon, I saw, will require much ordering and rewriting before they become GAs. Surely you'll work hard on them! :) Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: All pics appropriately licensed, random spot-checks showed adequate paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources; all other GA-criteria are met… promoting article now. Sasata (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Mike! This article looks pretty well-cut for FAC. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]