Make Way for Ducklings is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2007.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This one looks in pretty good shape. The plot section actually doesn't need inline citations, as its assumed to be sourced to the book itself. The Sales and Survey sections could use some updates, but I think this one's in pretty good shape overall. I'm going to mark this is satisfactory with a note at WP:URFA/2020. Hog FarmTalk18:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not long on time right now so I don't have time to look for source myself but I would be astounded if the illustration section is comprehensive enough. I've written longer illustration sections for books with nowhere near the cultural or historical impact of this book. Just by way of example, here is the first result on JSTOR which is from 1960 but, on from a skim given McClosky's involvement, still appears to be RS and to contain info that isn't in the article now. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look for sources and was surprised at how little I found, but agree with Barkeep. As it is the article is thinly sourced, i.e about.com, truthpop.com, and a number of local newspapers. The version that went to FAC in 2006 looked like this, and honestly I think that structure is more focused with fewer short stubby sections. Finally, Sandy do you know if the nominating editor is an iteration of ILT? If so, then potententially larger issues throughout. Victoria (tk) 13:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Barkeep49; that is enough to get me started. My concerns were along the lines mentioned by Victoriaearle. Victoria, that is why I pinged you; this would be the earliest for ILT, I think (?), but not uncharacteristic, and I had the same initial thought. (The editor talk page history does suggest ILT.) Most of the content was not added by them, but I will still look for copyvio and text-to-source integrity lest it was ILT; I am pretty sure this will need to go to FAR based on what I've already checked. Working on it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to look at Kitia's (the nominator) contribs or the socks' contribs, but my knee-jerk reaction was that it's an ILT article. It certainly needs checking before any work is done. Victoria (tk) 15:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I am seeing, probably so, and needs to go to FAR. There was very poor sourcing (I have replaced some), but while replacing them, I have found that there is considerable material in the few sources used here (not to mention Barkeep found other sources) that isn't adequately covered here, and the writing is poor. It looks exactly like the kind of work ILT was known for. Upgrading this to a Featured article review needed notice. For starters, a lot of new sources were generated upon the 75th anniversary celebration, and they have not been accounted for. Reception is thin. The entire article is thin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shoot. Well, it's a good thing somebody else took a look at this one ... Stuff like this is why I'm always reluctant to mark stuff as satisfactory at URFA. Hog FarmTalk15:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm Wrong! Keep marking them, because that's what triggers others to look! You would not have known the history here that was familiar to Victoriaearle and me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re sourcing, I did check my Oxford Companion of Children's Lit and, surprisingly, found nothing. But I've taught this book and had info from somewhere, i.e the production had minimal colors because it was inexpensive. I'd have to search for that material, but certainly more exists. Re ILT, yes agree. Anything in her repertoire that achieved FAC should be looked at closely, i.e children's lit, horses, TV shows & characters, etc. Victoria (tk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Adding, ILT started editing in January 2008 and this account was blocked in July 2008, so there may have been overlap. Victoria (tk) 16:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victoriaearle, Barkeep49, Eddie891, and Hog Farm: I am following up on this notice to see how the article is going. Does the article meet the FA criteria? If so, can you mark it as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A? If not, are there any editors willing to bring this back to FA standards, or should we prepare this for FAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
