Talk:Atlantic salmon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atlantic salmon was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: February 5, 2007

	Fish Portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Atlantic salmon is within the scope of WikiProject Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the assessment scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

[edit] Error in the subspecies

I'm a bit confused with the listing "Critically Endangered - subspecies: aralensis". Not familiar with the classification and a search of it shows up as Salmo trutta aralensis; a subspecies of the brown trout, not Atlantic salmon. Any clarification would be appreciated. (Albini3)

You are correct, of course. I've fixed that. Dave 02:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I took a minute to note there's a decent article on Browns as well. Interesting fish, though I recall a lake where it was invasive with a few very big survivors keeping down local fishes. --Albini3 12:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

I've regrettably had to refuse the article Good Article status. I felt that, while there was a lot of good, referenced content, it was insufficiently broad, and in places the style fell short of the required level. If this is remedied then Good Article status should not be a problem. My principal concerns were:

• The lead section is too short to give an adequate summary of the article.
• The sections on taxonomy, behaviour and physiology are too brief. The physiology section only talks about colouration.
• There is no real mention of the salmon's predators.
• The section on legal status is patchy - some is irrelevant.
• The use of salmon in cookery is almost entirely absent.
• There is some irrelevancy. For instance, we do not need to know about Linnaues's ennoblement in this article.

Further comments which would aid the article but which are probably nto required for GA status:

• A few more sources wouldn't go amiss
• There are plenty of opportunities to use more photos: e.g. the colouration of salmon at different stages.

I hope these comments are received as helpful feedback, and that you can make the article a Good Article shortly. Regards, The Land 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extinct or not?

I'm confused a little by this article. It seems to contradict itself. One section says that the Atlantic Salmon went extinct in the waters of New York due to the damming of the Oswego, but another mentions that the fish are now stocked there. There is also a large salmon run yearly in the Oswego now. If the species is still not naturally occuring, but does occur due to manmade means, it seems like it would make sense that the segment saying they are extinct in NY due to the damming should reflect the fact that the fish DO exist there, maybe just not naturally. Perhaps some research into whether the do occur naturally now is merited. --Jo7hs2 8:10, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm not really clear on why you feel this is a contradiction. The animal was extirpated from Lake Ontario in the 19th century. Today, it's being stocked in Lake Ontario and the introduced fish are, at best, reproducing poorly. What part of this is confusing? There is no question that any Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario today are entirely unrelated to the native strain of fish that "went extinct" over a century ago. Is there some way I can make this clearer for you? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I no longer feel that it is a contradiction. I do, however, feel that this statement...

"Until the early 1800s, Atlantic salmon were native to the waters of central New York. When dams were constructed on the Oswego River their spawning areas were cut off and they went extinct in the area."

...would be better located in the "Distribution and Habitat" section of the article. I know the reason that they are extinct in that area is that they have been cut off from their spawning areas, which relates to breeding, but the sentence itself speaks more to their range and habitat than to their breeding habits. Jo7hs2 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)