Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aylesbury duck/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:04, 14 November 2010 [1].

Aylesbury duck[edit]

Aylesbury duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  – iridescent 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jemima and Donald most people have a vague "they were the big white ones that looked like swans, right?" idea of what an Aylesbury duck was, but the story of their rise and fall is barely remembered even in Aylesbury itself. This is another one that the squeamish might want to stay away from (I suspect it's the only article on Wikipedia to combine the phrases "Beatrix Potter" and "boil a horse"). This is the story of how the economics, technology and values of the Industrial Revolution intersected with the farming methods of the Middle Ages, and briefly turned an obscure English country town into an early example of large-scale factory farming.

Note: The Aylesbury is a variant, rather than a species or subspecies in its own right; consequently, a lot of the things like Latin names and taxoboxes that one usually finds on bird articles aren't included here. Likewise, this only covers the variations that make a duck an Aylesbury, rather than more general issues of behaviour and anatomy which would be more appropriate on Duck or Domestic duck. – iridescent 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment: The picture of Jemima you've chosen is hardly typical. I'm much more used to seeing her in her bonnet and coat. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the original Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck, she's shown naked on six occasions and in her bonnet and coat on 17, so although her "duckier" appearance is rarer it's not totally atypical. I've used this one intentionally as it shows her standing in profile, so it's easiest to see her Aylesbury characteristics (the curving neck, the horizontal posture, the exaggerated keel). If you look at the illustrations in TTOJPD, you'll see that Potter moves her legs right to the very back of her body when she's wearing her bonnet and coat, giving her an upright stance like a penguin (presumably to keep her at eye-level with the fox without having to give her foot-long legs), but they go back to the middle of her body when she's being a duck. – iridescent 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precise origins of the breed are unclear — do we know if it is a Mallard, like most domesticated ducks?
  • Is the Common duck actually a breed? If not, why the capitalised "Common". If it is, why isn't "duck" capitalised?
  • this grit also gave their bills their distinctive pinkish colour — how?
  • salmonella — italics I think.
  • Topeka, KS — spell out state per MoS
  • The line of descent was mallard—Common duck—English White—Aylesbury duck; I've tweaked it slightly to make that clearer.
  • How one treats the Common duck depends on what one considers it to be. They were effectively mallards kept in captivity, and no longer exist as a breed. "Duck" shouldn't be capitalised in either case; this is on a British topic in British English, and in Br Eng only the first word of an animal breed is capitalised (cf. Shetland pony, Bagot goat, Cheviot sheep).
  • But Shetland, Bagot and Cheviot are all proper nouns that would be capitalised anyway, unlike "common" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncapitalised "common"; as far as I can tell, the common duck was effectively just what a mallard became if it was kept in captivity. – iridescent 19:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea how the grit gives their bills their colour—I assume either the bill absorbs a particular combination of minerals, or something in the grit somehow strips away darker pigmentation. All the source used says is "[the grit] was responsible for keeping the bills their characteristic flesh colour", without further explanation.
  • Expanded. – iridescent 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed to support, but you don't seem to have responded either way to whether Salmonella should be italicised. It definitely is in its own article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it looks very strange to italicise (or capitalise) "salmonella", unless one is talking explicitly about the bacterium rather than the illness. The UK National Health Service—which I'd consider the final arbiter on British English medical terminology—appear consistently to use the word uncapitalised and unitalicised. – iridescent 07:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, just checking it was a deliberate choice rather than oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment beginning a read-through - shtuff below. not much else I can find elsewhere which might have anything pertinent to add, so comprehensive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
link or explain "greaves" (ain't never heard of that word...)
On its first occurrence, it's both linked and explained—"greaves (the residue left after the rendering of animal fat)". I don't want to re-link or re-explain it every time it's used. – iridescent 11:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
d'oh!! Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other things that come to mind - are they progenitors of any currently popualr breeds?
  • The only one I'm aware of is the Pekin-Aylesbury cross ducks, which are sometimes used on village ponds. Almost every meat breed in use worldwide descends from the Pekin rather than the Aylesbury. – iridescent 07:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anywhere have any actual numbers of ducks? (given they are critically endangered...)
  • As of a couple of years ago, the meat variety had two flocks in the US and one flock in the UK surviving; Richard Waller's flock at Chesham is the last surviving pure strain. There are also some others bred for showing on a very small scale. Aylesbury females don't have the instinct to go broody—Jemima Puddle-Duck is based on fact—so they don't breed in the wild. I'm not aware of an exact size for the flocks (it will very wildly as they get slaughtered each year, so I'm a bit reluctant to give one). – iridescent 07:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be a bit of an overlap between the middle paragraph of the "Pekin ducks" section, and the "Decline" section (they both talk about in-breeding, etc) Bluap (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just a couple of niggles.

  • Origins:
    • Do we not have an article on the "common duck" or the "English White"?
  • No; because there weren't really such things as breed standards back in those days, I suspect such an article would be very hard to write. Per my reply above, a common duck is basically a mallard duck that's been domesticated, and an English White is the product of common ducks selected for white plumage. It would need a lot of delving in obscure "history of agriculture" books to source even a stub, and the articles would be so low-traffic it's not worth the effort. – iridescent 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the ducks have a time when they don't lay eggs? You say the A's lay from "early November" but it's unclear when they don't lay (if they don't lay..)
  • I can infer that their laying season was November–May, as their meat was traded February–July, but I can't find a source that explicitly gives the laying season. I thought it was better left out, rather than giving that rather convoluted explanation from what is sourcable. – iridescent 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long are they in the egg? You mention that they fatten quickly after hatching, so they came on the market in Feb on… but don't say how long they were in the egg. Ah, I see you mention it in the rearing section, but a quick mention in the origins and description would be nice too.
  • Pictures:
    • Would it be possible to stagger the pictures left and right rather than have all the pics and side quotes on the right hand side?
  • I don't really like doing that, unless there are so many illustrations that they're causing clutter along the right hand side. I find it makes text harder to read, and either they interfere with the positioning of the following headings, or one has to put hard-breaks in to stop the headers wandering about the page, which results in big blocks of white space that look awful when printed out. – iridescent 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the article through Corenbot's copyvio tool, through Earwig's tool, and through the U of Maryland's plagiarism checker with no problems cropping up. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - I've enjoyed watching this article develop, especially as it's not often that I see a livestock breed article at FAC that isn't one of "mine"! Thoughts:

  • Lead, "Over the 19th century". "During the 19th century..."?
  • I have a slight preference for "over"—I think it makes it clear that it happened gradually, rather than a sudden change at some unspecified point during the 19th century—but not strong feelings if anyone prefers it the other way – iridescent
  • Origins and description, "Aylesbury ducks lay eggs from early November." Until when?
  • See my reply to Ealdgyth above; I can infer that the historic laying season ended in May, as the two-month ducklings were sold until July, but can't find anyone who actually comes out and says this – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins and description - generally, in horse breed articles, we don't repeat basic information about the species (in this case domestic ducks) as a whole unless there is a reason why a specific breed or type is different. I'm especially looking at the first three sentences of the third paragraph of this section - is this different from many duck breeds, or is it just general background information on ducks. It's not a huge deal if you want to include it just as general background info - the article isn't huge - I'm just curious.
  • I've tried to keep as much as possible of this out (see the nom statement). I'm not sure what's trimmable in that section; the first two paragraphs explain how the Aylesbury derived from the mallard and why, and the third on how an Aylesbury differs from a common mallard. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, it was the fourth paragraph. The three sentences "An Aylesbury duckling incubates...huskier quack than the female." As far as I know, these three sentences are true for all breeds of ducks. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of—there are some breeds like Muscovy ducks where the incubation period is different. To me, it's worth keeping the incubation period and sexual dimorphism in this article; the former helps readers (most of whom are probably interested in the history of Aylesbury, rather than ducks per se) understand the farming process, while the latter helps people work out just what they're looking at in images. The calls are actually unusual in Aylesburys—most male ducks don't quack at all. The size of an Aylesbury definitely warrants mentioning, as it's huge by duck standards (an fully grown Aylesbury drake weighs as much as a greylag goose). – iridescent 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I agree that the weight information is necessary, and if the other information can change by breed then that should be included as well. I didn't realize that drakes of some breeds don't quack - I have mallards and cresteds and the drakes of both are quite vocal, although not nearly as loud as the hens. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins and description, "Rouen ducks—which are not white, but have colouring similar to mallards—" Why does it matter what color they are?
  • Because in this period, white ducks had added value; the technology to bleach feathers didn't exist, and quilts were in fashion. Thus the Aylesbury carried a premium compared to the Rouen, the other meat breed. Rouen duck is in an awful state, but I don't want to include too much on this article that ought to be there instead. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps reword to "Rouen ducks, whose mallard-like coloration made their feathers less valuable,..." Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to the vaguer "whose mallard-like coloration made them less valuable". There's slightly more to it than just the cost of the feathers—duck meat is traditionally served with the skin on, and feather color also tints the surrounding skin, meaning cooked mallards and mallard-like ducks are covered in tiny green or brown dots which some customers don't like. However, that's a side-track I don't really want to go down in detail. – iridescent 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I've never noticed the dots before. We'll be eating a (domestic) mallard for thanksgiving (yes, I know it's supposed to be turkey, but my family doesn't always do the "traditional" thing), so I'll have to check that out. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't expect Liechtenstein-painting dots; it's more a case of "tiny dots" vs "no dots". Plucked but uncooked Aylesburys also have the pink-white skin, which people used to chickens are familiar with, rather than the yellowish tinge of colored ducks. – iridescent 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rearing, "To break up the food and make this diet digestible" This makes it sound like an unusual practice - or like it was necessary specifically for this duck diet, but isn't for others. In fact all poultry must have grit as younglings - they eat it, it goes into the gizzard and stays there all their life to help grind up their food - otherwise they can't eat solid food. It is special that it made their beaks a distinctive color.
  • I know, but I can't see a way to reword it. If I just say "and grit was added to their feed" with no explanation, it raises more questions than it answers for people who aren't familiar with bird anatomy, but the grit needs to me mentioned given the effect on their bills. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "As with all poultry, Aylesbury ducks were fed grit to aid digestion. The particular grit they were fed came from Long Marston and Gubblecote; this grit also gave their bills their distinctive pinkish colour." or something of the sort? This keeps the important part (that the grit gave their beaks color) while making the rest of it less "hey this is a unique thing"-sounding. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rearing, last paragraph - how is this directly relevant to the Aylesbury duck? While it is interesting, was there any direct correlation between the ducks and the health/wealth of the area?
  • Yes; that comes up later in the article. Because it was a poor area with no sewerage and cramped conditions, the soil became contaminated and public health legislation meant the ducks couldn't be kept in houses any longer, so the industry died off. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you think about combining the two paragraphs (probably in the location of the second)? Where the first paragraph is currently placed it gives the impression of being dropped in randomly - there is no impression of why it is important to the general flow of the story. Later we learn why it is important, but I think it would be more powerful if all of the information was presented together. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about that. I want, if possible, to have the paragraph about the size of the operations (the one beginning "Although there were a few large-scale duck rearing operations…") in the rearing section, as I think that's where it fits most naturally. Because that talks about the "Duck End", to me it ought to be explained as soon as possible what the "Duck End" actually was. – iridescent 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaughter and sale, "The arrival of the railway had a powerful impact on the duck industry, and up to a ton of ducks in a night" Every night?
  • "Up to" is intentionally vague; it would depend on the timetables and the number of ducks slaughtered. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaughter and sale, "would collect ducklings" Is this one instance of "duckling" instead of "duck" on purpose?
  • Yes; the ones shipped to London were slaughtered at the time of the first moult. The "Up to a ton of ducks…" in the previous paragraph is anomalous because the source just says "ducks", so I can't be certain there weren't some older ducks included in that tally. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but in the paragraph "A routine became established..." you have ducks, ducks, ducklings, ducks - all from the same source. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardized on "duckling", other than one case of "the duck industry". – iridescent 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pekin ducks, "In 1873 the Pekin duck was introduced from China to Britain for the first time." "...for the first time" is redundant.
  • Disagree; non-native species were often introduced to new countries on multiple occasions. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pekin ducks, "the Pekin was hardier and a more prolific layer,[8] and fattened more quickly,[31] and was roughly" Three "and"s?
  • Can't see an obvious way to reword that, other than breaking it into very choppy sentences, which I'm reluctant to do. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, "the Pekin was hardier, a more prolific layer, fattened more quickly and was roughly..."? Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, "A salmonella outbreak in the 1920s caused duck eggs to go out of fashion." Were a significant number raised for their eggs? From the rest of the article it sounds like almost all of the eggs were allowed to become ducks... If so, the number of eggs eaten was probably incidental and this sentence becomes trivia that relates to the species as a whole rather than this specific breed.
  • Virtually none of these would have been kept for eggs—they're not particularly good layers. What happened in the 1920s was that the salmonella outbreak put duck breeding out of fashion. (Assuming you remember the Mad Cow Disease scare of the early 1990s, you'll recall the same thing happening to milk.) – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this be made more specific? Perhaps "...caused duck eggs, and duck breeding, to go out of fashion."? Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed it altogether, on reflection. While it killed the duck-egg industry, its impact on the duck-meat industry was probably negligible compared to the two World Wars. – iridescent 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy, "Britannia pub on the corner of New Street and Buckingham Road." Is it necessary to know where the pub is located?
  • I don't think so; someone else added that a few days ago. I don't want to get into an edit war over it so I left it in place; I'm more than happy to remove it. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be great. To me it looks like pure trivia. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left the "at the Britannia pub" while removing the address—it does no harm, and provides enough information that someone who wanted to see the thing for themselves can find it. I presume a disproportionate number of this article's readers will be from the Aylesbury area, so might make a minor detour to see it if they're interested. – iridescent 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice article, though. Dana boomer (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm quite fond of this one; I think it's an interesting variation on my usual "social impact of the industrial revolution" theme. – iridescent 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Aylesbury_duck/archive1&oldid=1089817863"