Talk:Wood Badge (Boy Scouts of America)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead should follow WP:LEAD more closely. It needs to explain to a user who hasn't seen the main Wood Badge article exactly what is being described in the first sentence. Note that there are specific hatnote suggestions in WP:LEAD, which would make the connection obvious. Overall, the article could use a copyedit. There's a lot of passive voice (e.g. "The decision was to describe how groups change and evolve using more generic, non-trademarked language free of royalties.") and some awkwardly short sentences (e.g., "They added American touches to the course.")

> Cleaned up lead for non-Scouting audiences. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All of the sources appear to be BSA related. Surely Wood Badge has been covered by some newspaper somewhere, sometime since its introduction to the USA? There's no particular reason for me to doubt any of these references, but good articles should draw from more than just the organization's own history files.

> Added two relevant non-Scouting sources and information. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There seem to be an awful lot of non-Wikilinked names mentioned. If these gentlemen are notable, are they going to get their own articles at some point? If not, what is the purpose of recording all the participants at key junctures?

> Wikilinked some relevant names with the assistance of User:Rlevse and removed some less important lists of individuals. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   ... limited by the fact there's only BSA perspectives referenced, it seems to do a reasonable job of capturing the evolution and controversies.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image:FourAmericanWoodBadgers04.jpg has a tag on it noting that releases may be needed from the depicted persons. Is there a way that can be obtained and/or a replacement image found? I don't think that depicting faces of living scouters is an essential part of this article.

> Removed doubtful image. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold. Not a bad article, but the lead and referencing definitely could use improvement, and a good copyedit (with special attention to name dropping) would also definitely help.

> Let me know if these edits are sufficient. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good job. Passing per improvements. Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)