Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wood Badge
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
Wood Badge edit
Currently rated A-class by the ScoutingWikiProject. An article on an adult leader training program.Rlevse 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a great article. I'm still reviewing it to look for little things that might be improved. I would like to see some citations in the lead. I know it is not mandatory, but I feel they are helpful in case a reader wants to validate a fact when they first encounter it. Please consider this an optional suggestion. Johntex\talk 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations as in references? According to WP:LEAD the lead should be summarizing the article and not go in depth (that's what the article sections are for). So it would simply not be appropriate to add footnotes or references to the details in the lead, as there oughtn't be any. I typically move them from the lead to the core sections of the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm aware of what WP:LEAD says. I agree it should not mention topics that are not found in the main body of the article. However, even if the lead is just summarizing what is said elsewhere in the article, the reader will still be encountering the fact first in the lead. For that reason, it makes sense to put footnotes in the lead. It will do no harm if the same footnote follows again in the main body of the article. Johntex\talk 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations as in references? According to WP:LEAD the lead should be summarizing the article and not go in depth (that's what the article sections are for). So it would simply not be appropriate to add footnotes or references to the details in the lead, as there oughtn't be any. I typically move them from the lead to the core sections of the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Had a rare computer glitch and lost a long reponse. Short response then: there are a number of places in the text with jarring surprises:
- Clan Maclaren mentioned in the lead but it may not be obvious to a non-Scout why that is relevant.(fixed)
- Date in format usually only found in notes.(huh?...fixed by you)
- Gilmore field initially said to be purchased is later said to be donated. Confusing.(fixed)
- It's ok, but I would probably have used the paragraph on the origin of the term "working your ticket" as the intro for that section(fixed)
- Seems numbers should go before mention of annual reunion.(fixed)
- Apparently "Camp Chiefs of Gilwell" is different from "the Camp Chief". Should be clearer. Also the link there uses an anchor, and the section heading in the target is different.(fixed)
- First mention of "new curriculum" near end, without really explaining how different, other than it apparently replaces "program-specific" courses, which are also first mentioned here. What are they? The three references don't appear to say anything about replacing previous program-specific courses. Those refs (and some others) are rather schematic like a presentation slide, which isn't ideal either.(fixed, with new ref)
- Will try to get back to this later. With the various scouting FAs and GAs, have you thought of organizing a featured topic? Gimmetrow 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support quite nice with these new tweaks. Sumoeagle179 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good article. Randy just beat me to it for nominating it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Image:GilwellLogo.svg - please provide a fair use rationale for this image. Rama's arrow 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedians must strive to raise to FA status. Why? A vast majority of Wikipedia articles are just like this - small articles on non-grandiose, non-detailed, simple topics that nevertheless make an important part of the encyclopedia and an interesting read. Rama's arrow 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. I completely agree with your idea here! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Support. This is a great article. I believe it meets all the FA criteria and I can find no problems with it. Johntex\talk 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another solid article. Reading through it briefly, I didn't see any big problems to fix. I'll admit that I wasn't too familiar with Wood Badge, though, and the whole "working the ticket" reference in the lede is difficult to understand. It kind of makes sense — I guess it's explained as a project — but then the phrase "attain ticket goals" again sounds a bit odd at first, until you substitute the word 'project' in your head. Not a huge deal, but I just think that ledes should always be an extremely strong section, as it's all that most people will bother to read. Tickets are explained later in the article, but at this point, it serves more to confuse the average reader who just peruses the lede. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't find anything wrong with it after a first look over, I'll go through again later and check the prose again. Seems to be FA quality. Darthgriz98 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.