Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Make Way for Ducklings

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Make Way For Ducklings[edit]

This article is incredibly well-written and deserves to be the first children's book to become an FA. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article uses excellent references, and provides great information of the plot and critical reactions of the story. It analyzes all of these points in depth, while still maintaining a short page length. Though I have never read the book, I feel that after reading it I have a comprehensive understanding of the title. I support this article's nomination for a Featured Article.-Hairchrm 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great work this article has, terrific referencing, and fantastic structure. Hello32020 12:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportMild Object This can be FA with some tweaking. a) It is underlinked. Entire sections have no wikilinks. b) The lead does not summarize the article (ie, no mention of criticism and culture). Lead should be 2, probably 3 paras, and summarize the article, not be a collection of facts. Other than that, I think this is very well done. Rlevse 12:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have summarized the criticism section in the lead, and I am working on the culture section. --Thelb4 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. By the way, did the source really criticize the illustrations for the Mallards "often showing the same facial expressions"? These are quite strange grounds for disapproval considering that the Mallards are, you know, ducks. Andrew Levine 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent analysis of the book, and a map of their routes? I like this quite a bit. The book is a classic, and an appropriate first. --Iriseyes 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A very nice article; short, but nothing seems missing. My one concern is that the "Use of page breaks" section needs trimming. If that's copyedited to get rid of repetitions like "enhancing the sense of motion... enhance the surprise... enhancing the sense of surprise" and "forces the reader to quickly turn the page... forces the reader to change the page quickly", then this will definitely get my support. —Celithemis 02:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased Support as main author of the article. — Scm83x hook 'em 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On Rlevse's a), I went through the article, and found nothing which could be reasonably wikilinked that wasn't already. The concern is understandable, but not much can be done, IMO. -Fsotrain09 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; any improvements that can be undertaken from here are minor tweaks. Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why is For capitalized in the title? It's a preposition and should be lowercase per WP:CAPS. Prolog 20:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's capitalised in the first para, and lower in the second. --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For is capitalized because it is the title. The title capitalizes For, so we do. — Scm83x hook 'em 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not following. You moved the page from for to For with reason: "proper capitalization". However, this is in fact incorrect capitalization per Wikipedia naming conventions guidelines. "For" is not capitalized on book titles. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization goes by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Prolog 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book's title is "Make Way For Ducklings" as listed on the title page in the Library of Congress information. — Scm83x hook 'em 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a special case, so there is no reason to override WP naming conventions. Besides, even Library of Congress uses "for" 13/14 times at least on www.loc.gov [1] Prolog 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're misreading the guideline which says, "Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt of "lowercase second and subsequent words". In other words, book titles are capitalized how they appear in the book. WP naming conventions state that book titles are exempt, so this point is moot. — Scm83x hook 'em 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Lowercase second..." is obviously not for books/films/albums, but you're discussing the wrong part of the naming conventions. Book titles are capitalized per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which says In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and). "For" is a preposition with three letters. Prolog 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think "Over" is functioning as an adverb there. In that case, capitalization is justified and that doesn't need to have anything to do with how it was originally capitalized in the book. I also noticed there is another McCloskey "for" book on Wikipedia: Blueberries for Sal. This is a good example why naming conventions are useful. If we can't keep consistency within one author's work, it's gonna be hard within the whole project. Prolog 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, seems as though I'm out gunned here. I only changed it one night because of what the book had, but it appears even the Library of Congress is against me here. Just one thing: let's wait 'til after the FAC is over to move it. It may be messy to move in the middle of a candidacy. Agreed? — Scm83x hook 'em 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I didn't mean to make a big deal about the capitalization issue, so sorry about that. Prolog 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it might be just me but 'Background' seems to fit better before 'Plot'. --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Inappropriate for a featured article candidate. Not now, but maybe in the future. --SunStar Net 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentNot a viable/actionable objection. All articles are eligible for FA. If you have concerns about the article, they need to actionalble and specific. Rlevse 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written, well-referenced and has a very nice layout. Prolog 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Was Make Way For Ducklings ever adapted? (eg. into an animation) - Malkinann 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it seems like a small movie was made by Weston Woods. That important section was added by someone after this FAC. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Make_Way_for_Ducklings&oldid=1138466258"