Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Rainbow trout/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rainbow trout

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article recently achieved GA status. Would like peer review in advance of attempting FA status. Am working on a quartet of trout articles to get them to GA status: Rainbow trout, Cutthroat trout, Brown trout and Brook trout

Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review is closed. Thanks to all who contributed.

I will do at least a quick run-through and offer some thoughts. Do with them as you will.

1. The first thing I noticed is that the lead is not FA quality. For one thing,it contains all sorts of random, scattered references to the steelhead, with no explanation or context. People unfamiliar with trout species will be confused by this. I'd like to see a little stronger and longer lede in general, though I would not recommend rewriting it until you have the rest of the article tuned up and ready for FAC, the lede is generally the last thing to clean up, as it should closely track the article content and structure, save where it is completely illogical to do so.

2. Per your comments elsewhere (an editor's talk) it appears that you had a lot to do to deal with the steelhead issue in general. Probably need to just make a small paragraph summarizing all about it in the lede and then probably a separate, clear subsection in the article

checkYThe "steelhead" issue is problematic for a variety of reasons. Of course it is a common name, but is not the "typical" name of of the species. Whenever it is used, context is important as it has multiple meanings. The traditional name "steelhead" didn't come into existence until the 1890's when the eastern sporting press started referring to them as different from the Pacific salmons. Prior to the 1890s, steelhead were being caught by sport and subsistence anglers, but were generally just lumped in with Pacific salmon. Steelhead is generally believed to refer to the "steel blue" color of the head of mature steelhead. There are three contexts in which the term "steelhead" is used.
  • The anadromous forms of O. m. irideus (Coastal rainbow) and O. m. gairdneri {Redband rainbow) have traditionally been called "steelhead". Problematically though, while in freshwater, they are known to breed with stream resident forms of the same subspecies--they are the same fish.
  • When the rainbow trout was introduced into the Great Lakes, they were of a large strain. As rainbow trout are obligate stream spawners, these large rainbow trout migrate up freshwater tributaries to spawn. Thus they are called "steelhead", but in fact they behave like all rainbows behave in laucustine environments.
  • The "steelhead" of Costco from marine aquafarms in Chile and Australia are merely hatchery raised rainbow trout fed and raised in sea pens. They not anadromous forms of rainbow trout, merely raised and labeled to look like them.
The challenge in the article, will remain a proper balance between the biology, the sporting angle, the environmental angle and the commerical/acquaculture aspects when using the multiple meaning--"steelhead".--Mike Cline (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about balance. That said, I think that it does matter to "teach the controversy" about steelheads because of the commonality, even it does mean separating "steelhead" out as a separate article for some of the minutae. I can see how it could be viewed as a content fork, but I can also see it as something of a glorified, annotated dab page in a way. ('Steelhead may mean...O. m. irideus, O. m. gairdneri, the Great Lakes transplants, and the crap you buy at Costco...) A comparable example I am still wrestling with in horse land is chestnut (coat), about a common horse color, and sorrel (horse), which is genetically the exact same color, but a regional word that some people have great passion about using - and particularly popular in Quarter Horse land. Over at WPEQ we are of mixed feelings whether sorrel is a content fork that should be merged or a necessary separation, given that those use the word are rather militant about it. Perhaps looking at a topic that is totally unrelated from trout can offer some insight. I guess I used to think steelhead were a separate subspecies, and just one separate subspecies. Much has changed just in the last 20-30 years. I'm just offering thoughts, particularly as there appear to be some steelhead partisans out there, can't ignore them and hope they'll go away. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. The Taxonomy section is a bit jargon-heavy and ponderous, I had to read it about three times to make sense of the evolution of the naming changes; those of us old enough to have grown up thinking the rainbow was salmo trutta would particularly benefit from a clearer narrative. Consider a more user-friendly rewrite. The "subspecies" list section is also not real clear, (might benefit from annotations) and again, our friend the steelhead is not easy to find in the list. Given the commonality of the steelhead name, it will be important to have something as blatently obvious as "The trout commonly called the "steelhead" is actually the same fish as subspecies (whatever), but has an ocean-going life cycle..." (Side note: Lots of casual fisher-persons think Steelhead must be some subspecies completely different from the landlocked rainbow, so best to just hit it up front...)

4. Kill all one and two-sentence paragraphs, poor form; blend them with something else.

checkY 5. It is rarely acceptable to say "trouts" - yet it's there. Even if there are some exceptions to the singular plural rule, it still looks horribly weird.

Fixed all instances in text for consistency. Interesting though that several of the sources actually use "trouts" in their title. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True that, though a lot of people who should know better also say incorrect things like "free reign" instead of "free rein" as well (my personal pet peeve, if you want to drive me to insanity...) Montanabw(talk) 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. checkY The Advocacy section will get hit at FAC for being a raw "listy" section. I'd kill it entirely, but you also could make it a narrative form and annotate a bit on why each group listed matters (and if others are left off, be ready to justify why...). Also there will be questions raised about all the redlinks, the significance/notability of each group, and (though annoying) someone might even ask if the list is too POV, i.e. are there organizations that oppose these groups, yada, yada, yada... I'd personally chop the section, and instead work the different groups into the text of the article in various places related to habitat, etc...

Removed section and added a few in Conservation section. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7. checkY The Conservation section may need to be rejiggered; again seems to put steelhead front and center; I think that the habitat loss, invasive species and whirling disease issues are of greater concern to rainbow trout generally and should go first; the status of the steelhead is important for steelhead, but I'd maybe put it last and consider making it a separate section that can actually be expanded a bit if it's in its own section. Saw this source, FWIW: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelheadtrout.htm

8. checkY I think you could pop in one or two more suitable images without cluttering the article, though the ones there may also need a bit of reformatting once you finish the text cleanup. I'd also see if commons has any more "rainbow-y" photos that show the rainbow stripe ore clearly than the current lead image (if it's as good as it gets, I understand, but...) And gee, I recognize that guy with the fish and the shit-eating grin! I would also point you to File:SteelheadRainbowTrout.jpg, a person with a steelhead (maybe add just to be fair). For that matter, if you want images of hatchery trout, including some whoppers (if, admittedly, at a hatchery with pinched fins, and some of them kind of freaky, but maybe that's illustrative too), I will note some other user who added them to (grinning) Giant Springs and some lovely scenery shots (heh).

Will be working on the images. It is interesting to note that the image you link above: File:SteelheadRainbowTrout.jpg is labeled as a steelheadrainbow, not rainbow. The original source is here: [1]. It was taken in 1995 on the Kenai River in Alaska (specific date unknown). Although steelhead are found in the Kenai, they aren't common. [2], [3] and most runs occur in the Fall. The location (Kenai river canyon above Skilak lake) and color of vegetation suggest this photo was taken in the summer and that the fish in all probability is just a resident Kenai rainbow. Oh the challenge of rainbow v. steelhead. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. Personally, I kind of wonder if the steelhead article should be re-created as a dab or something, seems like "steelhead' actually means "freaking big rainbow!" LOL. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9. checkY You will need to wikilink some of the common fishing words, as to non-fisherpersons they may be viewed as jargon: spawn, game fish, hybridizing, etc.

There was a lot of overlinking in the pre-GA version. May have delinked a bit too many. Will continuing review to insure terms are linked at least once. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth found some good stuff to link, and I agree we don't have to link words in common use, but I also like to link to the most interesting topics, hybrid, for example. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10. checkY I'd do a bit more on where the rainbow is native and where it is introduced. Cutthroat fans consider rainbows an invasive species, may want to add a bit on that to the hybridization section; rainbows are viewed as the villains more than the victims on that one.

Here again, balance (honesty) is important. There's no doubt that introduced rainbows have severely disrupted indigenous species around the world. However, within the native ranges of the various cutthroat subspecies, the introduction of the Yellowstone cutthroat outside its native range has contributed more to the loss of genetic purity of other cutthroat subspecies than the rainbow. The rainbow certainly gets a lot of blame, but introduction of the Yellowstone cutthroat in non-native waters has caused, and continues to cause a lot of damage. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More reason to "teach the controversy" though. I agree that a wee bit more here is wise; also because rainbows are so widely stocked from hatcheries and for that reason also viewed as a problem by the purists. That said, as far as the Yellowstone/Westslope cutthroat issue, that's for a different article, not here. You touch upon the hybridization issue, maybe just toss in one more recent study outlining the degree and scope of the problem as applied to rainbows. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit about hybridization and the Westslope --Mike Cline (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
checkYWorks for me. Montanabw(talk) 01:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11. checkY Be sure to update the research on whirling disease; your newest source is 10 years old and the rest are older. The Myxobolus cerebralis article has a similar problem. But a search of Google scholar shows many articles have been published in the last 10 years

Am thinning this out, removing some POV language and updating sources. Some were dead links and some inaccessible. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12. checkY Make a table? I was realizing that the species list MIGHT benefit from being made into a table. That way, you can add more photos of specific fish without them spilling into succeeding sections. For examples of what I mean, in terms of format and syntax, see: Montana#State_symbols, Leopard complex#Patterns, List_of_Eagle_Scouts (fewer pictures, placed outside the box) or National Register of Historic Places listings in Gallatin County, Montana. I would be willing to help with this, or find the tabulation gurus who can. Some of the parameters of rowspan or colspan would allow a single fish photo to cross multiple rows, such as one "steelhead" photo covering multiple subspecies rows... I was just dinking around with that on my user page, if you want to see what I did with the section right under my table of contents. Montanabw(talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I have more thoughts or comments, I'll add them to the above list. Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly what I had in mind! To tighten things up, I think that where you have one photo but multiple rows (like the redband ones), you could make the image span multiple rows and caption the one image with the subspecies name, so as to avoid a lot of empty squares. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:

Hi Mike. I last went fishing at a plains lake west of Laramie in the early 1970s, and nobody would mistake me for a fisher-person. Likewise, I have no formal training in biology. On the other hand, I like streams a lot, and I have often written about them for Wikipedia. I would guess that I have added more than 100 links to rainbow trout over the years without knowing how good or un-good that article might be. I'm reading it carefully now, and here are some things I've noticed that you might find useful. I'll add comments about images first and then add more later.

Images

checkY In general, all the images and their licenses will be closely checked at FAC, and all the licenses have to be complete and correct. This can be quite a tiresome chore since various editors have uploaded the images and, even if they have given an URL for the original source, the dead URL problem may have appeared in the meantime. I often delay making a final selection of images until the article is pretty nearly done. It's best to make whatever images you choose fit entirely within the text sections and not overlap section boundaries in the way that the typical juvenile rainbow trout, File:Oncorhynchus mykiss 02 by-dpc.jpg now does. This can be fixed sometimes by deleting an image or images, sometimes by adding text or by merging short text sections to make a bigger section. Here are observations about the first three images; you can extrapolate from there.
  • checkY The lead image, File:Oncorhynchus mykiss.jpg, has problems with its license. The publication date is given as 1 May 1111, and the source link doesn't work. In addition, I don't know what is meant by the acronyms TERSH and OTRES. The correct link to the original appears in the green Fish and Wildlife Service tag further down, but the stuff in the main part of the license should be corrected.
  • The image of the redband trout, File:Redbandfish.jpg, is no longer at the URL listed on its license page at the Commons. However, it seems to be here, the third image down on this Forest Service page.
  • The third image,File:Oncorhynchus mykiss mid res 150dpi.jpg has a source link that goes to a general page rather than to the source page. I also note that the uploader says that the uploaded file is mid-sized and that a higher-res version is available at the source. The preferred method is to upload the highest-res image to the Commons to give a higher number of choices to end-users. I haven't found the one I was looking for, but here's one that might work.
  • If you wish for an image that you can't find online or take with your own camera, another possibility is to find an illustrated pre-1923 book at the library and scan, upload, and license images.

Finetooth (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am pretty comfortable with image licensing on the commons, so I'll start working on these or find others. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New images from my friends being added. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and other things

  • checkY I try in general to render lists as straight prose, but sometimes that doesn't make them easier to read. Another possibility is to create a table. I think that's worth trying with the "Subspecies" list. Something like the one in American black bear might work. I agree with User:Montanabw that the list of advocacy groups will never survive the FAC gauntlet in its present form but might survive as a more selective prose paragraph or paragraphs. Finetooth (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've been watching with interest as you assemble the table. I think it is much better than the original list. Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the table is done, I'm wondering if the "Description" section should now be first, rather than the taxonomy section. I don't know if there is a WP:FISH rule on this, and I don't want to go against it, but by the old "tell the casual reader what they want to know first", describing the fish would be the logical first thing, and then the taxonomy section for the more dedicated scientific sorts. Your call, but I think it would be better that way. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiproject Fishes article format recommendation puts taxonomy immediately after the lead. BW, lets not try and change the world in on fell swoop. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that. Maybe have that link cocked and loaded at FAC, though, it might be needed. Montanabw(talk) 20:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some low-level proofing changes this morning, trying not to encroach too much.
  • Someone at FAC will check every citation for completeness and formatting. I added missing data to citation 9, but I see others that will need more data or other changes. To be safe and consistent, I would change all the article titles in the citations to Wikipedia house style even if the original source uses a different style. The citation 9 example is "50 years later, golden rainbows still 'a treat' for Mountain State fishermen" which I changed to "50 Years Later, Golden Rainbows Still 'A Treat' for Mountain State Fishermen".
checkY I think I've caught most of these little nit-picking things, but experience has taught me that I generally miss a couple no matter what. I have a question about citations 49 and 50. It seems unlikely that both the Nehring and Vincent articles in the 322-page whirling disease book would occupy only the same single page, 159. Could you take a look at that? Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't have access to the book, I verified the citations through other references. The Vincent page# is correct-159, the Nehring page number was incorrect. I've now changed to pp. 126-144. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Would it be useful to add some explanation of the other Latin words appearing in the fish names here? Pallid sturgeon, a featured article, adds this info to its "Taxonomy and etymology" section. Oncoryhnchus comes from the Latin onkos (hook) and rynchos (nose), it appears. You have explained iridia, but what about gairdneri? Does mykizha translate to anything in English?
Mykizha doesn't translate as far as I can tell into anything other than "rainbow trout" indirectly as it was just the term the Kamchatkan's used for the fish and it just got latinized to "mykiss".--Mike Cline (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I often learn by imitation; that's why I tracked down Pallid sturgeon to see how somebody else succeeded with a fish. Ocean sunfish is also FA, and there may be others.
  • checkY A few words or phrases that I would consider linking or briefly explaining include type specimen where it first appears in the "Taxonomy" section; "parr mark" where it first appears in the "Description" section; "fin clip", in the "Description" section, and fry, in the "Life cycle" section. "Fin clip" may seem obvious, but non-fishers might want to know why on Earth you would clip a fin.
  • checkY In the "Freshwater life cycle" section, the phrase "in other river types such as bedrock (limestone)" suggests that bedrock is always limestone, but it ain't. Delete the mention of limestone and add a link to bedrock?
  • checkYIn the "Whirling Disease" subsection, the $300 million Montana claim needs a time frame. Is that the loss per year?
  • checkY The direct external link to the Whirling Disease Initiative should be replaced by a citation to a reliable source. This link appears in the M. cerebralis map caption.
  • checkY I find the list in the first paragraph of the "Mud snail" subsection confusing because of the punctuation. For example, Japan and the river in Iraq are nested together, but I'm not sure why. Could this sentence be recast to make the connections more clear?
That's all I have for the moment, but I might have further comments later. Use any (or none) as you see fit. Please ping me if my comments don't make sense. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Jsayre64

Here goes, Round 1:

Lead

  • checkY In the second paragraph, "pounds" is first spelled out and then abbreviated. Be consistent everywhere in the article.
  • checkY The second sentence in the same paragraph is not complete. I would suggest moving the comma after "lateral line" to after "tail".
  • checkY Third paragraph: The list of regions in the second sentence shouldn't have an "and" between Australia and South America. That sentence also has some comma problems in the list and would benefit from being shortened/broken up.
  • checkY The last sentence of that paragraph would read better ending as: "such as the Great Lakes and Wyoming's Firehole River."
  • checkY What are "distinct population segments"? Just a particular group of fish? I've never heard that term before; it confused me.
  • Don’t get me started on the Distinct population segment thing. Although the term Distinct Population Segment is linked in the steelhead declines section, it is not a well-known concept among laymen. I first encountered it when starting to work on this and other Oncorhynchus related articles and I had to enlighten myself to its real meaning. I literally had to create Steelhead and salmon distinct population segments to sort out the truth about O. mykiss DPSs. The DPS, which as far as I can tell, didn’t exist as a scientific or taxonomic concept prior to the passage of the ESA (1965) is a contrivance by scientists, politicians, bureaucrats and environmental clergy to circumvent the traditional definition of “species” when needed in their quest to list species as threatened. DPS and Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) are essentially synonyms, but ESU is used primarily with Pacific salmon. I am unsure whether or not the DPS and ESU articles are NPOV or even accurate, but I do know that both concepts are not without controversy which isn’t mentioned in the articles. However, in the context of the rainbow trout article, using DPS is the only way to neutrally refer to steelhead or trout subspecies as either threatened or endangered. Blanket statements that "salmon and steelhead are endangered" (I’ve removed an number of these implications) are not neutral, nor factual, thus the need to refer to DPS and ESU. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY As Montanabw recommended, avoid super-short paragraphs. At FAC, someone will likely whine about the end of the lead. The first one-sentence paragraph could go in the previous paragraph, perhaps starting as "Some species of rainbow trout itself are threatened or endangered…", and the second could be placed in the very first paragraph, somewhere down in the body, or nowhere.

Taxonomy

  • checkY As you did for Sir John Richardson, it would help to briefly describe who Walbaum was (say he was a taxonomist) and where Kamchatka is (avoid the redirect to "Kamchatka Peninsula" and say that that's in Siberia).
  • checkY If "Geology and Mineralogy" is a journal or the like, italicize it.
  • checkY Don't just put commas between each description of the Michigan scientists. Say "the Curator of Fishes", "a doctoral candidate", "at the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan".
  • checkYNot a big deal, but what about the rainbow's nose caused rynchos to be a part of the genus name?
I think this is covered in the taxonomy section. All Oncorhynchus adult males typically develop a hooked jaw (nose) during breeding. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Does the Lake Erie steelhead have a different scientific name that could be added to the caption of the second photo, or is it just a nickname for the rainbow trout of Lake Erie?
* misplaced adjective - its just a steelhead from Lake Erie --Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Jsayre64 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • These aren't specifically in the FA criteria, but important nonetheless: Checking the tools linked to at the top of this page, checkY Dablinks says that there's one redirect pointing back, checkY Checklinks indicates a handful of link issues, checkY and Altview detects very little alt text. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jsayre64, thanks. Will address as required.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here know when to choose between fresh water and freshwater? My best guess is that fresh water is a noun expression and freshwater is an adjective. If so, those need to be fixed in the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think whoever wrote this sentence in freshwater fish got it right: "Freshwater fish are fish that spend some or all of their lives in fresh water...". Finetooth (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and it looks like Mike addressed this issue. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2:

Steelhead life cycle checkY

  • So the "summer-run" return to rivers in the summer and spawn the next spring? And the "winter-run" return to rivers in the winter and spawn there? The sentences on this confuse me, mainly those about the summer-run.
  • If most Columbia watershed steelhead are summer-run, in what area do the winter-run generally live?
  • For the last sentence, what does it mean that steelhead "spawn just like resident freshwater rainbows"? Is this sentence necessary?
Good questions. The answers complicated by two facts: 1) All rainbow trout (including steelhead) spawn in the spring (February - June) depending on location (There is some anomalous spawning in the fall in a few introduced populations). 2) Throughout its native range, Behnke estimates that steelhead are entering spawning streams somewhere in the range every month of the year. The terms "Summer run and Winter run" are the most prevalent, but "Fall and Spring run" are also used for some specific runs. The big difference is really the state of sexual maturity at the time the steelhead returns to freshwater. "Spring, Summer and Fall runs" are not sexually mature when they return, they mature while in fresh water. "Winter-run" are sexually mature when they enter fresh water. Regardless, they all spawn in the spring. Winter-run fish are generally found in shorter, coastal drainages (short swim to spawning ground) such as those on the Olympic Peninsula, whereas summer-run fish are generally found in longer, inland drainages such as the Columbia (long swim to spawning ground). This is also complicated by the fact that some summer-run fish in the southern ranges time their entry into fresh water associated with spring flooding. I'll see if I can clarify some in the text. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what does it mean that steelhead "spawn just like resident freshwater rainbows"?. Whether needed or not, this statement reinforces the fact that steelhead, once they enter fresh water, behave exactly like the rainbow trout they are.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had comments to post here until this section of the article. Things are looking good. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously impressed with what's been happening here, you folks have had a great collaboration, it's why we all like to edit wikipedia! This is going to be a great article when it goes up for FAC! Montanabw(talk) 06:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, just found some stuff on fish farming and added it to the Food section (which was short and needed some expansion anyway. Just have at what I wrote, hope it helped! Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Mike, I noticed that the last paragraph in the Range section and the third paragraph in Artificial propagation are basically the same content. I wanted to fix this myself but I'm letting you decide how it should look. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the duplicate paragraph. Not needed in propagation section. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
checkY While reading the Conservation section, I abbreviated the genus Oncorhynchus a few times, but I don't know if that was a smart move. It would be best for the article to be consistent somehow; I thought it was bit disruptive to the prose to spell it out each time. Maybe the genus could be spelled out at the first mention of each species and abbreviated each time further down? Jsayre64 (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I abbreviated more instances of Oncorhynchus mykiss as O. m. for consistency. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe skim a few taxonomy FAs, but i think abbreviating after first use is pretty standard. Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I was thinking too. Finetooth (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the inputs and content work. I will close and archive the peer review this evening and nominate for FA if no one objects. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Full support here! Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't finished copyediting, but don't worry about that. On to FAC. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rainbow_trout/archive1&oldid=1138564870"