Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Merit badge types (BSA)/SolvedIssuesArchive1

  • Object -- It would be nice to see more dynamic linking in the article. We dont need to overdo it, but there seems to be a sincere lack of wikilinks to articles that are very relevant to the subject at hand. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object. Article is very good, but a few things caught my attention. First, there are no references for claims about collecting (such as "item X is highly valued by collectors"). Second, the section "Merit badge collecting" is really about collecting other things that are not merit badges, and therefore does not belong in this article. Third, it would be nice to have a source for the existence of these spoof merit badges, be it a picture or reference in some work. JoaoRicardotalk 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. Nice work since the original FAC, Rlevse, it is much better and there are no extremely pressing issues. However, there's still a few things I think you need to get out of the way - all small this time around. I also had an edit conflict before submitting this, and have commented on the thread above regarding "Merit badge collecting:"
    • Merit badge collecting. A big problem is still with the "Merit badge collecting" section. The first paragraph there seems like a how-to. There is a decidedly unencyclopedic feel to it, as it seems like a hobbyist's suggestion or a segment from Martha Stewart. The main problem here is that you're touching on an entirely new subject - collecting; regardless, there already exists a Scouting memorabilia collecting article. It's not complete, which is okay as I don't think it's relevant to the article. Perhaps a short mention about the collectability in the lead would be an alternative, with a dynamic link to "Collecting." The second paragraph just lists other BSA-issued patches and the like. This article seems very specific to merit badges - perhaps you could stick that content into the Scouting memorabilia collecting article.
    • Types of merit badges. There is no need to create additional links to the sub-sub-heading for each merit badge type in the section; that's what the TOC box is for. In addition, I'm not a fan of having to mouse over the images for any information at all - it's important to keep in mind that we have users that may not be able to see the image's alt text easily whether due to the fact they're accessing the internet from a cell phone or PDA, they're disabled, they're using WebTV, and other issues.
I did that linking, so I'll take the blame for it. --JohnDBuell 00:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

::When I tried to have it show up as captions without mousing over, it didn't work. I only can get it to work with a thumbnail and when both pics have that and the capiton, the table body gets too large and leave lots of space in the description section--it actually hurt my eyes to look at it. Suggestions or did I just do it wrongRlevse 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I found a way that works-at least better than anything else I've tried. I added the MB name to the top bar of the table. This lends the most eye-appealing result and I think will be okay. Rlevse 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Language. Don't use second person like you did in the article - "If you compare," "notice that you can see," and so on. This isn't a how-to guide, and it sounds a little off to me when we remember that this is foremost an encyclopedia.
    • Merit badge types. A very, very small issue here that I'm not sure of myself. Is "merit badge types," those exact words, an official way to refer to them? When you open with, "The term Merit badge types refers," are you the one defining what the exact words, "merit badge types," will mean in the context of this article, or is that exact phrase what's used by all sources to describe types of merit badge? Why is the "Merit" capitalized? "As used herein," makes me think that this phrase is what you've defined for the sake of the article. It might be a better idea not to do that; instead, continue to start out by defining merit badge types and bolding it in the opening paragraph - but not as a specific or official term. Good luck - it's getting to be an FAC! -Rebelguys2 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]