Talk:Brook trout/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article and shall have comments soon. Note: I am a wikicup participant. Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Will wait to address this section until other areas fixed, needs some copyediting, which will probably occur with the other issues being fixed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments section below this chart
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Lacks citation in several spots.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Has some spots where more citation is needed, some of which should be fixed once the lead is fixed; will tag other areas in article where they occur.
	2c. it contains no original research.	What's there appears to be sound, but need more sources
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, steady progress on article by lead editor
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	copyright good on all images, but see comments below
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Brook trout 1918.jpg is used twice in article, "Angling" and "Description" sections are too image-heavy and have text "sandwiched" between right and left-aligned images. Need to rearrange the images and perhaps eliminate one or two of them.
	7. Overall assessment.

I'm putting preliminary assessments into the chart above, but it's difficult to discuss there, so am opening up this area for discussion. I am guessing that it is your intent to get this article to FAC eventually, so am looking at the GA review with an eye to a further run. The single biggest problem with the article at first glance is that the lead does not comply with the MOS, as it contains a great deal of information that is not cited elsewhere in the article and does not summarize what is there. Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Criterion 1b

1. Lead is poor, too short for comprehensiveness of article and fails to adequately summarize article. Needs substantial rewrite.
2. Would like to see a bit more linking to some jargon unfamiliar to non-biology-oriented readers, such as anadromous, and a bit of explanation of what things like an " intrageneric" versus an "intergeneric" hybrid are - wikilink doesn't really explain it (unless you meant "Interspecific hybrids")
3. Consider putting the "Description" section ahead of the "Range and Habitat" section, unless that order is a standard layout for all the articles about fish.
4. The "Angling" section is more of a "History and records" section and is a bit disorganized, it starts with Webster, then backtracks to the colonial period, etc. I'd do some cleanup and copyediting there.
5. More to come..

Criterion 2b

Lacks citation in several places, I popped tags in where noticed. Some sections might just need a rewrite more than new research, but some clearly need attribution.

Images are all acceptable, but layout needs improvement, particularly where there is sandwiched text. You have one image used twice and may want to think about if there are one or two others you can either toss or rearrange so they are not clustered in one location as they are now. Will look at criteria 3 and 4 once the citation issue and copyediting has had some work, as the text is apt to change a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The article's barely been touched since, so I'm closing this. Wizardman 22:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)