Talk:Brook trout/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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)

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)