Wikipedia:Featured article review/Make Way for Ducklings/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [1].

Make Way for Ducklings

Notified: WP Children's literature, WP US, 2021-04-07

Review section

This FA was promoted in 2006 by a nominator blocked since 2009 for sockpuppetry. Concerns about the article include comprehensiveness, need to reflect recent scholarship, and the need for a source-to-text integrity check related to the sock possibilities; these concerns are covered in the talk page discussion.

Because there are few Wikiprojects or editors to notify, I am also notifying literarature editors who might be willing or able to have a look here: User talk:AleatoryPonderings, User talk:Barkeep49, User talk: Olivaw-Daneel, and User talk:Vanamonde93. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a hard time believing that this short article on a children's literature landmark is comprehensive or based on high-quality sources. The Reaction section simply quotes a few one-off reviews (one from an archived version of a non-RS) without placing them in context in surveys of children's literature, retrospectives on McCloskey, or similar. The result is a grab-bag of quotes, not a thorough review of the critical impact. (This also means it is not particularly well written, since to my mind being well written requires paragraphs to flow naturally from one to another and show a logical progression of ideas.) This is just a preliminary assessment and I will try to find some better sources soon. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'm far too busy to participate here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, this article is so extremely under-developed that it fails WP:WIAFA on nearly every level. Several sections are only two or three sentences long, some of the sources are the book itself or unreliable blogs. It's not quite as alarming as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 or Wikipedia:Featured article review/Alpha Kappa Alpha/archive1, but it's definitely going to take far more work than I think the scope of FAR requires. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - This is one of the most lackluster Featured Articles I have ever read. GamerPro64 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, sourcing, and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - It needs a huge overhaul to make it presentable. GamerPro64 05:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - quite some distance from standards. Hog Farm _Talk 14:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, unimproved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. again. nothing happening, nominator blocked for sockpuppetry. let's move on Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.