Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.
Well written, fits criteria, overall what I'd consider a great work. Mouse is back 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the article has an overwhelming table of contents; therefore, it fails criteria # 2 part c. My advice is to get rid of the sections under Other divisions and just write one good paragraph about these other divisions.--Crzycheetah 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to comment Done. Feel free to edit if it's not very concise. Mouse is back 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. The article is an important one in the wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting, and a team of users (not including the proposer or myself) has been working on it for some time now. As the team has correctly assessed the article to be A-Class but not FA-Class material yet, it has not gone for FA candidacy, and I fully agree: The quality of the article, albeit good, is not superb yet, and therefore not FA-standard. I left some simple examples of recommendations for improvement on the talk page. Obvious things include:
- the opening sentence reads 'the BSA is a united states scouting organization,' stating the obvious
- 'with some presence in other countries', 'is administered mostly': superfluous words
- 'it has 2,938,698 members', nowhere else in the text referred to (WP:LEAD compliance)
And that is just the first paragraph of the article. Sorry, but not FA standard yet. I strongly recommend for the proposer to participate in the WP:SCOUT effort into further Scouting article improvement. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- CommentDead on analysis, Wim. I addressed the first two items you mentioned.Rlevse 01:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The article is just not ready yet, and recent additions make it less so. More opinions on how to improve it are certainly welcome, but I feel that fixing this pedophile thing is going to be a slow process. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Overall, it doesn't appear to be quite ready for Featured status. I agree with Gadget850; the pedophile debacle will certainly slow this article's Featured status down quite a bit. NSR77 TC 05:37, 22 June 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.