Wikipedia:Peer review/Make Way For Ducklings/archive1

Make Way For Ducklings

Make Way For Ducklings is a children's book set in Boston, Massachusetts. As little as a month ago, the article looked like this. With a little bit of research, ample information was found about the book, its sales, its history, and critical and cultural reaction. I believe this article would make a great FA, but of course, I would love a peer review. A review is especially important, as there are not currently any featured articles on children's books. Thank you so much for taking the time! — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on the use of page breaks in the book needs references. I added one {{fact}} tag for one statement, but probably another 2-3 are needed besides that one. Good work with this article though -- that a children's book article even has a section on such a technical aspect of literary criticism is great. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire section is from one source, which is cited at the bottom of the section. I will add another ref in the top paragraph to make it more explicit. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This looks very, very good, and I'll be glad to pay close attention and pitch in to help with any featured issues it might have in the future. A few suggestions:

• For sales, perhaps some approximate sales numbers would be more useful than Amazon/B&N ones that change daily, if not more. I'll see what I can track down for you on it, but if you beat me to it, that might be useful.
• I'm not confused by them, but to kind of tag along with the thought above, the footnote style is a little odd if you're not expecting it. I'm not sure how to fix it, but while you're properly sourcing whole sections, some people might not understand it.

Otherwise, I like! --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the input. I've used that sourcing style in the past with no issues in all of my previous featured articles, so I don't think this should be an issue. I certainly agree that hard sales numbers would be better, but given that the book has been around for so long and its genre, actual dollar figures don't seem to exist. I figured B&N and Amazon were the next best thing. Thanks so much for the input, and I appreciate your offer of further aid. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you've had no further issues, then I don't see it as a roadblock. I'm used to political articles in that regard, honestly. As for sales figures, I bet we could probably get an approximate idea of how many printings, what edition it's in, and some approximate sales figures as opposed to an actual dollar value. I'll see what I can do and replace it if I find anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Found in two different references that it has sold over two million copies. Placed it in the sales section and the lead. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)