Template:Did you know nominations/Dog and Duck (tavern)

Dog and Duck (tavern)

 * ... that the rogues and whores who frequented the Dog and Duck (pictured) caused it to lose its licence?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Amrit Nahata

Created by Colonel Warden (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Colonel Warden (talk) at 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article created 13 June (originally overwriting the article Dog and Duck (TV series), but an article history trace indicates this was new content as of 13 June), and is about 1650 characters, satisfying length and date criteria for DYK. Content is sourced, though two are Google Books whose content I cannot access, and a third (Zoe Lyons) for which the reliability I cannot establish (though that article appears well sourced), so I'll assume good faith for these. The hook phrase "rogues and whores" does not appear in the article's text, so either this needs a new hook, or the text of the article should be updated. Mind  matrix  17:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. The phrase "whores and rogues" appears in The Times in 1787 - I have added a quotation. Warden (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One more issue: the phrase "The name derived from a famous dog which hunted ducks in a sheet of water on this spot" is significantly similar to the source. Mind  matrix  17:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take that out as I don't think the name relates to a particular dog - most sources indicate that duck-baiting was a regular sport in this and other locations. Warden (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Update The article has been expanded further by user:Thincat and others and seems to be coming along quite nicely. Warden (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg A few minor issues: "At its peak it was a very popular tavern and was marked on John Rocque's 1741-5 map and 1746 map of London" appears to have an incorrect citation (I can't find support for this claim in the given ref). The statement "...the Hedgers were by then the only such tenants..." isn't correct (I think), as the source states they had a controlling interest, but makes no mention of them being the only tenants. Other than that, the article is fine. Mind  matrix  15:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been responsible for both these problems. Apologies. For the maps, I added the phrase "and was marked on John Rocque's 1741-5 map and 1746 map of London" to the sentence for ulterior motives which User:Colonel Warden will understand. I did not think it needed a reference. If it is at all problematic it can easily be removed. However, I have just now added two references to the two maps where you can read "Dog and Duck". The image shows the lettering on 1741-45 map anyway. There never was a third-party reference (to my knowledge) saying it is marked on these two maps, it is just the case that it is so marked. Secondly, I have changed "were by then the only such tenants" (i.e. tenants "who held land") to "by then had a controlling interest in the land" to meet the second point. The Hedgers' at this time had sub-tenants and so I had intended these two phrases to be saying the same thing. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. BTW, I completely failed to notice the image of the map included in the article, which should have been sufficient to verify the claim. However, the image does not contain any info about its source - please add Information to that image, and also link to the image from which it is derived (I could not find the image mentioned on the file page for the map). All other images are OK. Mind  matrix  17:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done that. Thincat (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Everything seems to be fine now. The online references check out, and I'll assume good faith for those that are offline. Mind  matrix  17:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)