Talk:Big Duck/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 17:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 05:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this pleasantly duck-related subject.

Comments

A CV check finds copying unlikely, but the phrases "combined functional and symbolic aspects of architecture" and "coined the term "duck" to describe a building in which the architecture is subordinate to the overall symbolic form" are also used by the National Park Service; it's unclear who was first (them or us), so it might be best to tweak the wording slightly.
- Rewrote that section.

The 'Location' field in the infobox reads much like "New York, New York State, The United States, The Northern Hemisphere, The World, The Solar System, ..." at the moment. Joking apart, it might be more useful to readers to say "Flanders, Long Island, New York" or something of that sort.
- I made a bunch of changes to improve this. I settled on introducing the general location ("eastern Long Island") in the lead, and then just using the unadorned town names everywhere else. I also went into a bit more detail about how buildings get moved. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxeVTampZY&t=39s

in Riverhead, New York, -> please mention Long Island, and make it consistent with the updated Infobox as well.
- See previous

Riverhead duck farmer -> probably drop the "Riverhead".
- See previous

as a store -> "as a farm shop" or something of that sort; it wasn't a storehouse for spare equipment. (The article also says "salesroom".)

lights (which glowed red at night)[1] which ...: perhaps "lights, which glowed red at night.[1] These ..."

had the building constructed in 1931 - is close to repeating what was said above in 'Description', or sounds slightly contradictory (who designed it then). Suggest you decide if the matter of design, construction, and inspiration belongs in 'Description' or 'History' (or you might merge the two so you don't end up saying everything twice).
- Merged the sections.

on West Main Street (NY 25) in the Upper Mills section of Riverhead. This just comes across as odd, even contradictory. We've been told above it was in Riverhead, New York; I've already mentioned the infobox, which makes it sound like a different place entirely, and now we have a third and different description of its location. I suggest we just remove this altogether, or say simply "on his farm". And see item above, which may help to resolve the tangle. ..... reviewer reads on ... Aha! is this a relocation puzzle? If so, make that clear ("was originally built at address A .... was relocated to address B") because this reader just found the addresses totally confusing. The Infobox may need both locations, too.

In 1937, Maurer moved the building - this needs a word or two of description, as buildings can't easily be picked up (generally they'd fall apart, if nothing else. if you tried and were strong enough). The RiverheadLOCAL item in External links should be used here.

There is slight repetition between the Newsday quotation and the preceding sentence; the quotation basically says all that needs saying here. Maybe trim the lead-in to the quote a little.

Edward Tufte's ... - begin new paragraph, it's a different sense from duck-in-architecture.

The mention of Venturi and Scott Brown belongs with in architecture the term "duck", since it's their term; the two paragraphs need reorganising at least.

As of November 2017, for the past 29 years - I can't parse this. Please reword. Does it mean "Since 1988"?

, and the ceremony is covered by local news. - not of encyclopedic interest, and that might apply to the first half of that sentence too.

The See also item "Novelty architecture" is already linked in the text.

The local paper items in External links might be better moved to (cited in) the article text.

OK, I think I've addressed all of these, one way or another. Here's hoping the article quacks you up and that I haven't lain an egg by writing this. RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images seem suitably licensed on Commons.

Consider using the 1930s postcard under Fair Use to show the Big Duck in its original location at "Upper Mills, Riverhead", with background of pine trees. Since it's a historic image and the thing has been moved, the photo cannot be re-created now so the image is certainly encyclopedic and the NFUR would be well justified.
- Added. I'm not well versed in the ins-and-outs of NFUR, so I hope I did this right.

Sources

Spot-checks all pass.

[1] http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2173 seems to be a dead link, try archiving it.
- Works for me, but I'll do a blanket archiving pass once I'm done.

[5] https://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/Parks/Historic-Sites/The-Big-Duck/Big-Duck-History seems to be a dead link, try archiving it.

[6] ditto.

[12] ditto.

[13] lacks URL, maybe it can be found in an archive.
- Unfortunately not. Newsday's website seems to be archive-hostile.

[16], [17] dead links.
- Deal with when I rewrote the section

Looks as if it might be an idea to archive all the news links, really, barring the NYT which archives itself.

Please author-link Edward R. Tufte.

Summary

This needs a little rearranging and clarifying, and a few dead links need attention, and then this interesting little article will be ready for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap OK, I think I've taken care of everything. Thank you for the review, and please take another look. RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I just kicked off an IABot run, so that might take a bit of time to fill in the archive links. RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.