Talk:Make Way for Ducklings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plot Summary

When our plot summary has more words than the original book, I'd say it's probably overdone. - DavidWBrooks

Amazon.com states: Make Way For Ducklings word count: 1,471. Our summary: Roughly 420 words. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

In reviewing the article according to the Good Article Criteria, I have passed Make way for Ducklings as a Good Article.
1. It is well written. - Pass

• The article has smooth, compelling prose that passes WP:MOS. All Boston-specific items are either explained in the article or wiki-linked so that the casual reader can still follow along.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

• A nice spectrum of various sources that all pass WP:RS.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass

• . On the surface it doesn't look like that much could be written about a simple children's book but the editors have been able to sew together relevant points (like McClosky live models) to fill out the article beyond just a plot summary.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

• The article does an excellent job of incorporating some of the literary criticism of the book as well as conveying it's enduring popularity.

5. It is stable - Pass

• The article has had a variety of contributors and has progressed gracefully with just a little tweaking in editing in the past.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

• I absolutely just LOVED the map. A minor suggestion would be to "bold" the pathway just a bit (or maybe change the color from red since the line to the inset is also red)
• Another minor suggestion would be to maybe move the map image to the left side of the article, still within the plot section. This gives the images a staggered format and is just a bit more visually appealing.

I want to thank the editors for their time and effort in crafting such an excellent article. As I somewhat alluded to above, I was initially skeptical about how much could be written about a children's book in order to qualify for GA. Reviewing this article was a pleasent suprise and I am grateful for the opportunity that I had to do so. If there is any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 00:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub to GA

Less then a month ago, this was a stub. Now it is a Good Article. I want to see that happen with my new article on another Caldecott, Owl Moon. Uncle Kitia 14:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Best FA Ever

Good work, team. --Savethemooses 04:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It was always my fave as a kid, so I figured it needed a star. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is lovely. Reading it really made me feel happy! J Milburn 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MakeWayforDucklingsBookCover.jpg

Image:MakeWayforDucklingsBookCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --Knulclunk (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Sociological" criticism

The sociological impact of a book is an incredible important topic to a comprehensive article about the topic. Especially when the book in question is children's literature. I am not an expert, but it is fairly certain that the social norms shown to children at an early age certainly have an influence on their later behavior. If numerous critics found fit to mention the social aspects of the story in separate journal articles ranging from the 1970s to the 2000s, then certainly the social aspects are a very important topic that must be considered in order to have a comprehensive article on the topic. Please read the sources to see the emphasis that is placed on this. Even reading the titles, one of which is "Sex-Role Socialization in Picture Books for Preschool Children", indicates that this topic is important enough to garner mention. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, I read the sources and they're ridiculous - ponderous over-analysis of a charming children's book. This kind of stuff can be dolloped over Tolstoy or Kafka, but academics using "Make Way for Ducklings" to boost their publication count is idiotic! I only trimmed, not removed entirely, that stuff - but even that seems to have been too much. Sigh ... but I'll leave it alone after two reverts, in hopes that somebody else will be struck by the silliness of this unbalanced article and do some trimming, too; if not, perhaps I'm wrong. Meanwhile, I'm working on my Ph.D. thesis: "Socio-economic anarchosyndicalism as referenced by counterpunctual proto-humanistic tendential nomenclature in Pat the Bunny" - DavidWBrooks 17:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I state again, quoting myself:

"Amazon.com states: Make Way For Ducklings word count: 1,471. Our summary: Roughly 420 words."

— Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

i think it's funny reading about the weak plot of a picture book, and characterisation lacking for a talking duck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.22.48.116 (talk • contribs)

Ah, our article is only one-third as long as the book: Let's hope that standard doesn't carry over to Remembrance of Things Past - DavidWBrooks 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I cut-and-pasted it into Word, and our total article has more than 1,500 words (although that includes markup) - it IS as long as the book! The "plot summary" alone is almost 400 words. - DavidWBrooks 12:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling Mr. Mallard's trip "questionable" is POV IMO. Simpler to just repeat the book's justification.205.143.123.88 00:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I don't know where anyone will find verification of this, four years later, but I can attest to it as a witness: A new public library was opened in Batavia, Illinois in early 2002 at the corner of Batavia Avenue (IL Route 31) and Wilson Street, the former site of Batavia High School/Batavia Jr. High School (demolished to make room for the new library). The library's previous site, at Wilson and Jackson, is now the headquarters for the city's school district. Because the two buildings were three blocks apart, a ceremony was held late in 2001 to move books from the old building into the new building, passed down a line of members of the community, with traffic stopped briefly for the occasion. The first book to be so passed out the doors of the old library, down Wilson Street and across Batavia Avenue into the new library, with traffic stopped was Make Way for Ducklings. --JohnDBuell 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

What role does the spoiler warning serve? Isn't the fact that this pot-boiler's plot is revealed self-evident from the subheading "Plot"? —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 00:45 Z

Redundancy?

I like the article and learned a lot about a book I have always enjoyed. However, am I the only one that thinks two mentions of the Boston statue in the lede is a bit redundant? Can this be tightened up before it appears on the Main Page? Instead of the current last two sentences: "The book is extremely popular worldwide. The city of Boston, where the story is set, as well as Novodevichy Park, Moscow, have both built small statues based on the story." how about "The book is extremely popular worldwide. Novodevichy Park, Moscow, also has a small statue based on the story, which was presented by then United States First Lady Barbara Bush to Russian First Lady Raisa Gorbachev as a gift to the children of the Soviet Union." or something similar? Just a thought and congrats on a nice article! Ruhrfisch 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• It has been 24 hours and no reply - I tweaked my suggested edit a bit and will add it to the This Month's Queue talk section. Ruhrfisch 02:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this NPOV/inaccurate/original research/incomprehensible?

I see vandals and now User:Slf67, who appears to be more reputable adding various tags without explaining them. Can somebody please explain the precise issues here? It seems good to me and it's a featured article. --71.192.117.127 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Slf67 did not tag the article, he correct a recently added Wikilink. The problem was that the link to Novodevichy Park in fact redirects to an article about a convent (Novodevichy Convent) as there is as yet no article about the the park. As to the previous tagging, it appears to have been pure vandalism. WjBscribe 01:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, 'K, thanks. ~Luke --71.192.117.127 01:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed the intermediary edit by User:66.30.10.227, who it appears Slf67 warned (apparently because I didn't clear my cache). --71.192.117.127 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Map

This may seem like nitpicking, but the Interstates did not exist in 1941. I think a simpler, sharper image (the base map looks horrible) covering only the area of the inset (or perhaps slightly larger) might be more appropriate. Cmprince 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue becomes getting a PD image to use as the base image. Find one and the image can be remade. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

British version?

I recall this book from my (British) childhood - but is it my imagination or did I read a British version set in London - Kensington Gardens or St James Park I think? In which case, was it based on the US version or vice versa? 84.70.44.223 12:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

controversy

it was banned at one point. i forget why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.167.250 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

If you don't have a source don't do that, from what the article says why would it have been banned? Its great. It's banned. It's great again. Liar. Might as well say Mickey mouse was once a chain smoker. I forget when =[ --signed by unsigned.

Some books have been banned for some pretty silly reasons, (I researched this for a speech), but I can't think of any reason someone would ban this. Personally, I love it. Bookaddict 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"loose plot" and criticism?

What is this? Criticizing a children's picture book for its loose plot and "poor characterization"? These seem dubious to me, reference or no reference. TheQuandry 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of silly, especially since it's immediately followed by a sentence talking about how praised it is. So I took them both out. - DavidWBrooks 01:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pack stolen

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30078311/ Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He's back: [1] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Make Way for Ducklings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/18/russia.ducks.ap/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Make Way for Ducklings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725123700/http://www.californiastreaming.org/streaming/digitalVideoDetail.asp?videoID=234 to http://www.californiastreaming.org/streaming/digitalVideoDetail.asp?videoID=234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)