The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rainbow trout[edit]

Rainbow trout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mike Cline (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trout Knowledge

The Rainbow Trout is a complex species in many ways. Although having a fairly limited native range, it is now a global species that is both threatened in some of its native range, highly successful and regarded in others and invasive in some. It can't be ignored. It is not only of interest to scientists, but sportsmen, agriculturists, environmentalists and economic developers. As a ubiquitous and global species, it deserves prominence in our encyclopedia. Mike Cline (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article just had an extensive Peer review.--MONGO 12:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rajzwyn[edit]

After reading through and looking at each aspect of the entire article, it is obvious that it deserves to be promoted to FA status. Specifically, there is an large amount of quality information both scientific and general. The table of contents is full of good options to choose from and from reading the article I feel like I have achieved a full education on what a Rainbow trout is. In addition, there are a lot of good photos that describe the many different looks, sizes, and habitats of the rainbow trout. Finally, my favorite part that was extremely well done is the large table describing all the different subspecies with information like each different geographical group with their common name, scientific name, range, and an image. The one thing I would still add however if possible is a picture for each subspecies as some seem to be missing. However, there are an extremely high amount of references which is really good where I'm sure a reader can find another article with a picture of the specific species they are looking for if they care enough.

I am glad to support this article here for promotion to FA status.--Rajzwyn (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2014 (PST)

Support. Having worked on many river articles with links to rainbow trout, I'm delighted that it now meets the FA criteria. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I took part in the peer review and made a few nitpicky edits. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't feel ready to evaluate an FA candidate based on all the criteria, but I will say that this article is very comprehensive, well illustrated, and thoroughly sourced. I have made these edits to the article (mostly copyediting) and I gave recommendations at the peer review. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MONGO[edit]

(1)...I made a few adjustments and I saw that McCloud River redband trout had been moved by Mike Cline from the previous name which was McCloud River redband, so I adjusted that in the subspecies section to avoid the redirect. Another subspecies Sheepheaven Creek redband lacks the trout ending and has not been moved...I thought if he was so inclined Mike might do the favors on that and fix the article to avoid the redirect.
Article move made and winklinks adjusted --Mike Cline (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(2)...Under the section Description, the first sentence might need rewording...by "Resident freshwater rainbow trout" do we mean riverine to distinguish it from lake-dwelling and anadromous forms?
added "in riverine environments" to 1st sentence to clarify. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(3)...United States according to MOS does not to need to be written out the first time but we need consistancy...so the article should use United States or U.S. throughout. If we are also using similar abbreviations such as UK for the United Kingdom, we need to follow that format, meaning no periods. I prefer the use of the format with periods, meaning U.S. I would spell out United States (U.S.) in the intro and one more time then use U.S. afterwards. We never need to wikilink major English speaking countries in featured articles...so those wikilinks should all go too.
(4) some instances of overlinking such as Wyoming linked a few times...the rule of thumb is once in the introduction and one more time in article body but any more than that is usually excessive.
re 3+4 I think I got all the U,S, referenced consistent and some wikilinks delinked. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(5) reference #2 is used about a dozen times which is fine as it is an authoritative source but some reviewers may wish to see the exact page of that book that backs up the specific item it supports rather than a page range of 65-122. It isn't a deal breaker though.

Image check[edit]

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving the sentence. Would you also move the sentence explaining the genus name up as well please? The paragraph is currently a large block text. I am suggesting a paragraph space between "mykizha." and "Sir John Richardson". But if you insist that this should not be added, I won't argue further. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence moved and paragraphs separated --Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I was looking for more photos of Rainbows, I came across these, perhaps they could be added in the article. Not saying they should but @Mike Cline: just a heads up that they exist and may not have been seen earlier. May be plenty of good reasons not to use, but if licensing is OK (@Curly Turkey: might be worth looking at? No agenda, just a proposal. Montanabw(talk) 19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, your first suggestion (when appropriately cropped) is an improvement over the current photo, but as you mentioned, it may be unusually large. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete "Pacific basin" from the sentence. If there is one other subspecies, add it to the table. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The outlying subspecies is already in the table. It is the Athabasca which is found in a tributary of the Arctic ocean. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Axl, I'll let Mike make the call on the photos, I just am a peer reviewer who found them. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images: 1st we really need a good taxobox image displaying the distinctive red stripe that gives the rainbow its name. It also should be a live, wild fish, preferably from its native range. The current image does that. However it is not the best angle as AXL says. But most if not all the images currently in commons (other than drawings) are either dead, hatchery fish, or juveniles.

Please look at the rainbow trout images being hosted at these links. I have permission to use them if we can use them in the article. If you find one that would work well in the Taxobox (even if it needs cropping), let me know and I’ll get it moved to the commons. I respect these guys as professional photographers so I am judicious when asking for photos for the commons. Be specific when recommending a photo (a link would be good). The large photo from the Kenai is nice, but far from being a typical fish. Some probability that it is a hatchery steelhead, not a wild fish.

--Mike Cline (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one or this one? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed those two as well. All would need assorted cropping and color-balancing. Also consider [2], [3], [4], [5] (if rotated AND cropped), [6]
My take on all of the above is that I agree with Mike that the image 1) Must show the color, 2) Should be a live fish, 3) Ideally is a wild-caught fish, not a hatchery one, 4) Not a steelhead, 5) Of respectable but typical size. My concerns with the current image are 1) The red is too red, most rainbows are more of a shade of pink 2) The entire body is not complete, 3) I hate the way it's being held, not ideal for a catch and release shot (trout to be released need to be handled as gently as possible), I'd prefer to see people with a gentler-looking, two-handed hold. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, of the five photos that you suggest, I prefer the third one. It shows the head a little better than the others do, while still showing the tail and fins. The fish looks alive, even looking towards the camera. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded BW's #3 to the commons. It is pending OTRS confirmation by the author. Once OTRS clears, I will include in the taxobox. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me, sounds good. Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image cleared ORTS and has been included in taxobox. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life cycle issues[edit]

I'll start sorting this out. Indeed it is again complicated by the various forms rainbow occur in. The term "smolt" is generally used only with anadromous salmonids and refers to the process of "smoltification" which simply means whatever biological changes occur when young fish begin their migration to the sea. So in freshwater resident forms, the term "smolt" doesn't apply, but it does apply to steelhead that migrate to sea. All the other terms that describe the transition from egg to adult can be clarified. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, here are the accepted life cycle terms for salmonids (trout and salmon)
  • Egg
  • Alevin
  • Fry
  • Juvenile
  • Adult
These terms are more colloquial and reflect processes, more than accepted life cycle stages
  • Smolt - used to describe a salmonid in the process of smoltification (the transition from fresh to saltwater by anadromous fish) Smoltification can occur with both fry and juvenile salmonids. The current text is incorrect re steelhead, as a fish does not become a smolt until it begins the physiological transition to saltwater. Thus remaining in freshwater as smolts is incorrect. The use of this term is problematic since it is widely misused in non-scientific sources. Additionally, it is unclear whether freshwater steelhead (ie Great Lakes) go through a smoltification process (doubtful)
  • Parr - used to describe Juvenile fish because salmonid juvenile typical develop parr marks after the fry stage. Not a life cycle stage other than a synonym for juvenile.
  • Fingerling - Juvenile trout not yet at a size to make them catchable in typical angling situations. More a hatchery term but often used as a synonym for juvenile

-- Mike Cline (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of "roe". Fish eggs and roe are synonymous. Roe is generally used to refer to the complete ovary sac filled with mature eggs, instead of individual eggs after spawning. Roe is also a culinary term and a term used to refer to salmon eggs and clusters used as bait and that can cause confusion. The text in the salmon article is not incorrect, but would be better if the term eggs was used. It appears to be a near verbatim copyvio from the USFWS webpage. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several changes and additions made. See if they fit the bill. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to add that. Done. This is getting down right pornographic! --Mike Cline (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a drawing of alevin and eyed eggs from an old FWS hatchery brochure --Mike Cline (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I moved that drawing up into the life cycle box, and rearranged the photos from spawning ot adulthood. Hope that helped. Toss it if it didn't or ping me to fix it if needed.Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. The drawing is useful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of Behnke, ~90% of first time spawners die before spawning a second time. They may die soon after spawning, enroute to or sometime after returning to the ocean. I suspect it is essentially impossible to access whether or not a returning fish (tagged I guess) successfully spawned the first time. I think the statement, supported by the way Behnke describes it, really means "Yeah, they are iteroparous, but natives aren't really that good at it."--Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Should have been "migrating" - change made --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of question I like. I don't know, so I will see what I can find. In the paper on smoltification I linked below, the authors talk about a rapid de-smoltification process (a reversal of the physiological changes) when some event prevents smolting juveniles from completing the migration to salt water. Whether a similar process takes place with adults and what it might be called, I don't know. Will do some research.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer it emphatically YES, but it doesn't have a name (like smoltification). This paper describes the process. Physiological Changes Associated with the Diadromous Migration of Salmonids A major biological function Osmoregulation is involved, but I don't think it rises to the level of a one word description of the overall process.
There is a lot of information in that source. "Smoltification" deserves its own article in Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will frankly say that I am in no position to explain that in any accurate, coherent way. I'v read a lot about it over the last few weeks and I can conclude that its pretty complex when boiled down to the "exactly" point. This paper is probably the most comprehensive I've read. Smoltification Most of the stuff written for general readership, does little more to describe smoltification than we currently do in the article. If you think it needs more exact explanation, please try but as it only applied to steelhead, not rainbow trout in general, it doesn't need undue emphasis. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of sentences about smoltification. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a stub article for "Smoltification" and moved the relevant text there. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salmon trout is a relic common name from the 19th century when male and female steelhead were thought to be different species of salmon. It is one of many historic common names for steelhead. It still appears in a lot of European descriptions of anadromous rainbow trout. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "salmon trout" is not used anywhere else in the article. It should either be explained, or better still changed to a meaningful one—perhaps "anadromous rainbow trout" or "steelhead trout". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the fact that the term was already in the article. Actually I couldn't find it in the source. Thus I changed to "rainbow trout" instead of "salmon trout". Must have been legacy text from when the article was unbalanced to steelhead. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "finfish" adjective is important as aquaculture includes a lot of non-finfish species--clams, mussels, squid, shrimps, etc. As far as #1 or #2, I'll have to sort out, I'd didn't write this section. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my point: would the following statement be true? "Rainbow trout farming is one of the largest aquaculture industries in the U.S." If so, is there a suitable reference to support such a statement? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement is correct and I think either of these as sources would support it.
United States Trout Farmer's Association-About Farmed-Raised Trout or Agricultural Marketing Research Center --Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that either of those sources support the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded slightly to remove "interspecific" which doesn't apply in this case. The Behnke paper here is dated 1971, thus the reference to Salmo instead of Oncorhynchus (changed in 1989) Behnke (2002) put aguabonita as an O. m. subspecies instead of its own species. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored text to last version by AXL on March 2. That text is supportable with sources, does not rely on quotations and is sufficient for FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping to reach an agreement with Montanabw. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it's not worth my time to argue over, so do whatever you want, but the old wording sans quotation marks was a close paraphrase that could give rise to a copyvio complaint; I've seen it happen. My second concern was Axl's edits changed a mission statement, and I know enough about non-profit organizations to say that mission statements are often fought over every single word, so paraphrasing may change the nuance of what the organization intended. But like I say, I don't actually care that much, though it's snotty and bitey to dismiss my arguments as "weak." Do as you please. Montanabw(talk) 05:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be taking this personally. I am approaching this article in the spirit of collaboration, with the aim of improving the article, as indeed we all are. When my edits have been reverted, I have approached the reverting editor with a view to reaching an agreement. I have not reverted anyone else's edits.
Yeah, "justifies by two weak arguments" is pretty damn snarky on your part. Not AGF, really quite insulting. Montanabw(talk) 06:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the specific issue of this edit, the best solution to a close paraphrase is not to change it to a direct quotation—it is to change it to a distant paraphrase. Identifying an organization's "mission" does not mean that a verbatim quote is appropriate. Paraphrasing is usually appropriate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could ping Moonriddengirl on this for clarification. As it sits, and I say this having worked on some CCI cases, it's a too-close paraphrase; changing a word or two does not a true rephrasing make. I'm not going to sic CCI on you for this, but I do think you are wrong and I advise rewording. That said, if you don't agree, I also don't give a flying fuck about it in the cosmic scheme of things. Montanabw(talk) 06:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not going to sic CCI on you for this." I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by this thinly veiled accusation of copyright infringement. WP:CCI states "Contributor copyright investigations is a process intended to identify users who have repeatedly introduced copyright violations into many articles or uploaded many copyrighted images, typically over a long period of time.... This process is intended only for large-scale systematic copyright violations." If you believe that I have undertaken systematic copyright violations in many articles, you certainly should report me to that process. However you haven't even undertaken a search of my edits, have you? If you had, you would know that such an accusation is utterly ridiculous and a report to CCI would just make you look foolish.
"We could ping Moonriddengirl on this for clarification." If you think that she would be happy to help improve the article, please do so.
"I do think you are wrong and I advise rewording." I welcome a suggestion from you for a suitable rephrasing, i.e. one that is not a direct quote and of course not a close paraphrase.
The California Trout text prior to my edit: "Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, whose mission is to protect and restore wild trout, steelhead, other salmon and their waters throughout California."
The text of my edit: "Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, whose mission is to protect and restore wild trout and other salmonids in waters throughout California."
The source's copyrighted text: "To protect and restore wild trout, steelhead, salmon and their waters throughout California."
The Steelhead Society text prior to my edit: "The Steelhead Society of British Columbia advocates for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia."
The text of my edit: "The Steelhead Society of British Columbia advocates for the health of all wild salmonids and rivers in British Columbia." I deleted the second instance of the word "wild" as it confused me and I was unaware of the meaning of "wild rivers". In Montanabw's reversion edit summary, he clarifies that "wild rivers" means "undammed".
The source's copyrighted text: "The Society has evolved to advocate for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia."
I leave other readers to consider the extent of my "copyright violation". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of moving forward with the article, I am going to suggest alternative text:-
"Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, which protects wild trout and other salmonids in the waters of California."
"The Steelhead Society of British Columbia promotes the wellbeing of wild salmonids in British Columbia."
If these suggestions are unacceptable to you, please make your own suggestions. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They look fine to me. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Solves my concerns; All I can tell you is that a wikipedian I request had an article pulled off the main page for a too-close paraphrase not much longer than this, I offered this in an abundance of caution and in good faith; I was not happy to be treated dismissively. So yes, let's move on. Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I'm taking this as an appropriate juncture to close this discussion and the review as a whole (I'm assuming the new wording will be added, can be done so post-FAC). Thank you one and all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is there anything on what are its closest relatives within the Oncorhynchus group?
It might be pretty difficult to explain in simple encyclopedic language with a simple citation because the taxonomic history of Salmo and Oncorhynchus has proven pretty complex as it has moved from a morphological basis to a genetic/genomic one over the last 150 years. The easiest statement to support (but not explain) is that Cutthroat trout and Rainbow trout are closely related. But those close relationships are more at the sub-species level, not species level. In other words, O. m. aguabonita was once thought to be more cutthroat O. c. ssp than rainbow and the Columbia river redband O. m. gairdneri was once thought to be more closely related to the westslope cutthroat O. c. lewsi. I think the important relationship here that is already in the article, is that there are Oncorhynchus trouts and Oncorhynchus salmon. With ~14 subspecies of rainbow and ~14 subspecies of cutthroat plus a few other trout species on the geographic edges, it is a taxonomic minefield. All the Oncorhynchus trouts are very close (taxonomically speaking) to each other, but not as close to the salmon.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mike on this; trout taxonomy has done a 180 just in my adult life (which isn't as short as I wish it were, but still...). I tortured Mike about this section pretty bad during peer review before he finally educated me as to the current status of the taxa, and getting the existing section as readable and clear as it is was a significant accomplishment on his part. I think letting sleeping dogs lie is advisable. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata[edit]

Generally looks ok, but needs more nitpicking and polish to meet FA standards. More comments soon (reviewed to the end of "Artificial propagation"). Sasata (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address the more complex issues until tomorrow afternoon as I am aways from my library. Will get to them as soon as I can. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the linked guideline, in "what generally should not be linked": "the names of major geographic features and locations". Sasata (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, thinking about it some more "average between" doesn't sound as unusual as it did last night, without coffee, so I'll take that part back. Try this: ((convert|1|and|5|lb|1)) to chop off a sig fig. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, OK now? --Montanabw
There’s actually two comments I’d like to make relative to this question: "Other introductions into waters previously devoid of any fish species or with severely depleted stocks of native fish have created world-class sport fisheries such as the Great Lakes and Wyoming's Firehole River." I think this sentence is oversimplifying the process of "world-class" sport fishery creation FYI: World-class definition: “among the best in the world”.
1) One, I think history actually supports the contention that indeed the “creation” of a world-class fishery (where one didn’t exist naturally) is actually a very simple process. It goes something like this. 1) Introduce a suitable fish into a suitable environment. 2) Let the fish and nature go to work. If the fish is something that anglers pursue, then a fishery has been created 3) Looking at the historical record for introductions of rainbow trout into ideal waters such as the Great Lakes, in Patagonia, in New Zealand, and the Rocky mountain west, it takes about 5-10 years for the trout to generate healthy population densities that would warrant the “world-class” caveat. Man did little more than dump a bunch of fish into the water and hope for success. (not all introductions are successful) If the trout don’t thrive or only thrive marginally, then the fishery never gets a chance to compete for the “world-class” caveat. I think “sustaining” a World-class fishery is the part that isn’t simple. I can identify dozens of fisheries that were once or would have been considered “World-class” in the 19th and early 20th century that no longer are—for a multitude of complex human and natural reasons. One of the most striking examples of this demonstrated in the movie Rivers of the Lost Coast. The salmon and steelhead fishing along the northern California and southern Oregon coast rivers was “world-class” by every definition of the term in the early 20th century. Created by nature over centuries, man and nature couldn’t sustain it.
2) The content about Rainbow trout introductions creating “world-class” fisheries is unequivocally supported by reliable sources of all genera—sporting, biological, cultural and environmental. However when I started working on this article several months ago it was in horrible shape, not only from an organizational standpoint, but from a pure content standpoint. It was inaccurate in so many ways, especially the taxonomy. It contained much environmental POV, bias and downright false statements as well a cultural bias related to steelhead. It demonized introduced rainbows and aquaculture while bemoaning threatened steelhead natives, yet said nothing about the introductions that have created or sustained remarkably successful fisheries that obviously generate economic benefits for the region they are introduced in. Our articles need balance and accuracy. The brief addition of the success of introduction is not only accurate, but essential to offset the heavy dose of environmental bemoaning about those introductions the article contains. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except, Mike, (grinning, ducking and running...) your comment "environmental bemoaning" is itself POV and suggests an anti-environmental bias (noogies!) - and I must note that I think the article over-downplays the problems of introduced rainbows leading to trouble for cutthroats and the problems of hybridization. (Though I agree about the steelhead bit) But nonetheless, even though I am clearly in the tree-hugger camp, I do think you have done well in the article to balance everything and I continue to support this FAC - just remember: NPOV ≠ "my POV" (NOOGIES!). Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a person that was a NPS ranger in Grand Teton and Glacier for 10 years I would have to say that much of the bemoaning by about Rainbow introductions is unwarranted. Lake trout is the real threat and has been for decades.--MONGO 05:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the threat of Lake Trout. (Can't we hang bucket biologists for doing stuff like that??) I do fret about the Westslope Cutthroat, though none of this is relevant to this FAC, I was just commenting that Mike phrasing was not as neutral as he may have intended it to be. (grin) Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BW - You mean my POV in my comments above, not POV in the article, right? --Mike Cline (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I have no concerns with POV issues in the article and continue to support this FAC. It's well balanced with all major issues mentioned. I just think cutthroats are cooler than rainbows, but rainbows are cooler than browns, and all trout (except Lake Trout, which are evil) are cooler than any other fish in Montana, though they might tie with the grayling! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy:
Done, clarified
Done, text changed, link added.
Done, credentials removed from text, although they were specifically suggested to be included in the GAN for this article. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment - credentials in text annoy me and I agree here)
Done - I think I've got all the necessary non-breaking spaces included in the prose
Done, name clarified
  • fixed
  • Looks like someone got those, they are linked now at first text occurrence as far as I can tell-Montanabw
  • variety reveals no appropriate links to animal varieties, only plant. Suggestions? Headwaters and lateral line now linked. --Montanabw
  • Fixed. -- Montanabw
Don't think there are any! My investigations reveal with some confidence that no specific trinomials have been proposed for these two forms. They were first discussed during a period where taxonomy was transitioning from solely morphological/geographic basis to more genetic/genomic. I can't find any literature that discusses these two forms using any specific trinomials which is consistent with Behnke (2002).--
  • Agree and text in table has been expanded/sourced to explain that the taxonomy of this group is unsettled and under research. But I don't trying to explain the situation in any kind of detail is appropriate for this article. An article on the Mexican trouts is warranted.
  • Sorry, this reads ok to me now. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
Life cycle
  • That was a surprisingly annoying pain in the butt, somebody thank me for doing that one! (LOL) --Montanabw
Done, reworded
Done, reworded as suggested
Done, linked
Done, reworded as suggested
Done, caps removed
Done, fixed
Feeding
Fixed
Looks fine, one small change
Fixed, this was a typo, should have read "forms".
* BW, this [7] would argue that Tribal council is a perfectly acceptable term, but I am satisfied with the change --Mike Cline (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sea cage, ocean cage, sea pen, etc. are all synonyms. Sources used terms inconsistently. Changed text to "sea cage" for consistency
  • Probably the most current stats, but I'll let Mike tackle that one. --Montanabw
Rewrote sentence to make it less dated. Current source is probably the best secondary source for this. The National Agricultural Statistics Service conducts the U.S. Aquaculture Census every five years. The results of those census don't show up in reports for much later. I can't find any evidence that the latest census (?2012) has been published. The last published census was 2007. A 2009 summary of U.S. trout production [8] does not provide discrete data for rainbow trout.

Temp break[edit]

  • The inclusion of these Meristic characteristics may or may not be appropriate for the article. The FAO characteristics are problematic because they are generalized for cultured rainbow trout, not wild natives. We know from Halverson (2010) that cultured rainbow are "entirely synthetic" and don't closely resemble any given rainbow subspecies. From Behnke (2002) we know that he believes that there are no consistently distinguishing meristic characteristics between O. mykiss and O. clarki. This may actually be true for all of the Oncorhynchus species. A bit of cursory research reveals a lot of work describing the "variability" of meristic characteristics within salmonids. If we include the FAO description, it should be clear that these are the characteristics of "cultured" not "wild native" rainbows. Thoughts? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably lack of sources, Mike? --Montanabw
Accumulating a few sources and contemplating what to write.
  • If you consider conservation efforts in relationship to the native range, then Russia, U.S. and Canada (BC) are the major regions where conservation efforts are ongoing. BC is mentioned in the paragraph. I've added a sentence to highlight Truchas Mexicanas which at this point is more a research cooperative aimed at the eventual conservation of the Mexican trouts. I am unaware of any significant conservation efforts aimed at rainbow trout outside their native range (where for the most part, many consider them invasives). --Mike Cline (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Got them all within content. Do I need to include in citation titles??--Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • reworded slightly for clarity and cited.
  • Fixed
  • legacy text. Samples and specimens would considered synonymous in this context. I've changed text to read: "the snail" has been --Mike Cline (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed
  • fixed
  • Legacy text, reworded for clarity
  • Done, game fish already linked twice.
  • Done
  • Legacy text. Same as above, seacage, etc. are all synonyms. Changed as above to sea cage for consistency.
  • Legacy content. Rewrote with new citation to make it a bit more generalized. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Links in content removed, relinked in synonyms
  • All sources with 13 digit ISBNs are listed as such. No all the books have 13 digit ISBNs
  • Behnke 2002 references broken up
  • No editor, Behnke is sole author. Use of chapter parameter does not required editor.
  • removed from the one I found
  • publisher removed
  • Latin italicized Source replaced with peer reviewed source.
  • Source moved to image
  • fixed
  • Legacy citation. Re cited to exact Fishbase page with the information.
  • All multiple author citations should now have a consistent format
  • revision date included
  • Source replaced with one that supports both facts in the sentence
  • fixed the two instances I found
  • Not sure what source you are referring to. Numbers change as citations are changed so just listing the # leaves one guessing.
  • same comment as above, no idea which source/statement you are addressing
  • My take is that this source is just as reliable as ANY source that purports to describe the taste, etc. of trout as a culinary subject. There's no science here, no peer reviewed journals. We could list at least ten different NY Times articles that essentially say the same thing, despite the highly subjective nature of this type of content.
  • fixed, I hope I guessed the right citation
  • Not sure which citation you are addressing
I tweaked the low-hanging fruit here, Mike will have to do the more complex and detailed stuff. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the issues raised above have been addressed in some form--either through comments, sourcing, formatting or changes in content. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted biology questions[edit]

Shouldn't this article include at least a little bit about the fish's internal organs? This page, though not the best source, explains the basic salmon anatomy, and some of that information (ideally from a different source) could be added under the Description section. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:JMO, but I'd say only where the Rainbow Trout has some markedly different internal organ from most other freshwater game fish. But I also don't know if there is anything (?) Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that there is nothing unique about individual fish species internal organs (see Fish anatomy) below the Class (biology) level. At the genus level: Oncorhynchus in this case, one set of fish guts look a lot like the next (sexual organs not withstanding). --Mike Cline (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice to see a Fish article as FAC. Shouldn't there be some mention of trout's predators? LittleJerry (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Predators: Pretty open-ended when it comes to trout, and nothing specific to the rainbow. Trout (really all salmonids) and probably all of their predators are “opportunistic” feeders. Any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish that is in any way piscivorous would be considered a predator of trout. Any list of specific predators would be extremely long and significantly variable by habitat, geography and life cycle stage. This would include man and the rainbow trout itself. In fact it is highly likely that young trout have fallen prey to cnidaria and cephalopods when in saltwater environments. I know of no specific predator/prey relationship for rainbow trout that would rise to a level where we should include it in the article. Additionally, because the rainbow trout is now a global ubiquitous species in suitable environments (to which it is highly adaptable), it is very difficult to even generalize survival/feeding behaviors. Simply put, rainbow trout live an “eat or be eaten” world, regardless of age, size, habitat or geography.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Thanks Ian. Using the script, all duplicate links have been identified and removed. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from John[edit]

The prose was looking pretty good; I took out a couple of words and reordered a couple of sentences etc but generally this passes my standards. I will sleep on it and probably come back to support tomorrow. Nice work! --John (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • John, it’s an excellent question. Whether “genetic purity” is the scientifically correct term I don’t know, but conceptually it is accurate. What is happening through hybridization is the loss of pure genome sub-species. Through introgression, pure native forms of a population are diluted and changed genetically. Although their outward appearance may retain the morphology of the pure subspecies, the genetics are different as the entire genome is changed with the introduction of genes from another species through interspecific and intraspecific breeding. Taken to the extreme, hybridization can and has caused genomic extinction of subspecies. (ie. Yellowfin cutthroat trout) Halverson (2010) has an excellent discussion of this in his chapter: A single new mongrel species as it relates to the rainbow and westslope cutthroat. This subspecies assessment for the Westslope Cutthroat trout (2009) illustrates that not all populations of a subspecies are genetically pure (see pages 7-8) --Mike Cline (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put this down as an open query; I'm not a biologist but 'genetic purity' and 'genomic extinction' raise flags with me. I'll continue to try to read up on these or ask a biologist if I can think off one. Still looks great otherwise. --John (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here's a specific reference to "genomic extinction" related to westslope cutthroat: Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Hybridization, and the U.S. Endangered Species Act. From page 1324 "The WCT are threatened by widespread genomic extinction.” They also note (p. 1207, see also abstract) “all of the progeny of a hybrid will be hybrids,” where they define hybrid as (p. 1204) “any individual that is either a first generation hybrid or whose recent ancestry (within the last 100 years or so) includes at least one first-generation hybrid individual.” (To put this definition in proper perspective, assume an F1 hybridization event [WCT x RT] occurred 100 years ago. After 100 years [approximately 20 generations] of repeated backcrossing with WCT, the predicted proportion of a descendant’s genes derived from RT would be approximately [0.5]20, or < 0.0001%. Such an individual would be considered a hybrid, according to Allendorf et al. [2004]). The implicit interpretation is that any genetic introgression will result in “genomic extinction.” --Mike Cline (talk)
I absolutely support Mike's position on this; the risks posed to the Westslope cutthroat by hybridization are significant. They are a genetically unique species and genome. Montanabw(talk) 03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Genetic purity and Genomic Extinction Both terms are used in peer reviewed literature: In “Silent Fields: The Long Decline of a Nation's Wildlife”, Roger Lovegrove, Oxford University Press (2007), p. 202 The docile Ferret is still widely kept in Britain both as a pet and for rabbiting although the albino form has lost favour latterly to the Polecat-ferret. Escaped individuals will mate freely with wild Polecats to produce the hybrids which, although varying in pattern and colour, frequently resemble pure Polecats. Without doubt, some records over the centuries, including the present time, refer inadvertently to these hybrids, but this fact does not alter the overall picture significantly, since the number of hybrids at any time is relatively small. Birks (pers com) points out that the domesticated Ferret is not well adapted to life in the wild and it is therefore unlikely that it will threaten the integrity of the Polecat. It is interesting that the Polecat has never been known to occur on the Isle of Wight, although a bounty was paid for one at Freshwater in 1791. The genetic purity of that individual can never be known.

In “Conservation Biology: Evolution in Action”, Scott P. Carroll, Charles W. Fox, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 132 This phenomenon is accelerated if hybrids have higher fitness than parentals (in other words, hybrid vigor). It may require decades, but there are several well documented cases in which genomic extinction or near extinction occurred in as few as three to seven generations (for example, California cordgrass [Wolf et al., 2001], Pecos pupfish [Rosenfield et al., 2004]). Rapid introgression of the rare Pecos pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis with the ubiquitous sheepshead minnow C. variegatus, an accidentally introduced bait fish, is effectively driving the Pecos pupfish to genomic extinction. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters?[edit]

Hey everyone, this FAC is getting pretty long and complex, and per Ian Rose's comments above, I'd like to ping those who have weighed in here to see if most/all concerns have been met- or not; @Sasata:, can you strike what we've addressed of your concerns above and let us know if you are ready to support? Ditto @Axl:, @John:, @Casliber:: Did we address your concerns yet?. Am I correct that we have support from @MONGO:, @Rajzwyn:, @Jsayre64:, @Finetooth:, @HalfGig:? Montanabw(talk) 07:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging - I was a little concerned when I first looked and planned to revisit...alot of water has passed under the bridge since then! Will have another look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I shall certainly let you know if/when I am ready to support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion still stands; find it under here. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, support. Finetooth (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More