Wikipedia:Featured article review/Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell[edit]

Notified: PumpkinSky, Wimvandorst, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, WikiProject Scouting

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged for citation and fringe theories for over 18 months. Section called "Significant family members" is essentially unsourced; prose problems include even sub-headings such as "Related readings" and sentence fragments such as "2l's instructions.". DrKiernan (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence fragment was the result of a partial reversion of some vandalism; I fixed it. I agree about the uncited sections, though, and the writing in the first part, about his family, is a bit confusing.--Coemgenus (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, we've been promoting someone's hobby site all these years as a reliable source? When I see a case like this, I so wish we had a speedy delist option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it worth comparing the diff of the FA- passed version in 2007 and the current version? Perhaps that comparison can remove the cruft and keep what's still in good shape? Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The promoted version was also based on hobby sites:[2] not only is this article far from FA standard; it doesn't even meet WP:V (and never did). Ealdgyth did not start doing routine sourcing checks at FAC until March 2008. (Sourcing requirements were tightened in March 2009, and copyvio checks started in Nov 2010.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Well, I guess if people who take care of the article now want to improve it, I guess it's best that I don't find myself caring more about the article than they do. There was some kind of automatic post at the article's talk page, yes? Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Sad to see that years old grudges die so hard. Sandy, "scouting" is not a "hobby". It's a very honorable tradition which instills values to young men and women. But hey, you made your point. I suppose that's all that counts. WP:RS has become much more stringent over the years. Sure - "speedy" do whatever - good on you. — Ched :  ?  03:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, see the instructions at FAR (I responded to more of your concerns on talk, unfortunately under a sub-heading that applies to Ched). Please see personalization of issues on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I'm done here. I hope the active editors are able to work on the article. Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this article to FA standard is going to require some serious time in a library. There is a long list of books that aren't used (in Further reading); the books that were used are often missing page numbers; all of the inferior sources and hobby sites have to be replaced; and there will now be the problem of making sure info that might come from Wikipedia mirrors (since this bio has been in this state for about 10 years) is not cited. Again, this would be a case for a speedy delete if we had such a thing, because the article was never based on adequate scholarship or reliable sources; fixing it at this point would require an effort larger than anything typical for FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would be very pleased to see the B-P article listed as FA, and surely the subject does warrant such status, I quite agree with SandyGeorgia about the current state of the article, and the sheer amount of work it will require to have it up to spec. So, no support for FA promotion now, but a (small) promise to work on it and improve it to a better state than it has become over all those years. Wim van Dorst (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Wimvandorst-- how nice to "see" you again! In reviewing the significant amount of problem we have on Wikipedia with pinetreeweb.com
  • This list doesn't include all of them, since it misses those that link to archive.org
I see we also have a problem at Baden-Powell House (which I explicitly supported at FAC, saying "The article appears to be well referenced... Sandy 02:24, 16 July 2006", so we had a problem back then, which I was part of :) The issues at Baden-Powell House don't look nearly as extensive or hard to clean up, so it would be grand if you could be enticed to work on that one ! It would be hard to fix this article, but that one seems doable. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In processing through some of the list above of pinetreeweb.com I have found:
  1. Most scouting articles that use it also use multiple non-reliable sources (listservs and other personal websites)
  2. There are some (possibly) reliable uses of pinetreeweb.com (this one for example seems OK, and the site alleges permission to host the page)
  3. And some pinetreeweb.com pages are taken from Wikipedia, which Wikipedia then cites (the mirror problem, using Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia). [3]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd work on this if it weren't for all the looney birds and grudge holders. It's not worth the stress. PumpkinSky talk 21:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

  • Delist -- Gadget850 talk 18:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per SandyGeorgia, the version that passed FAC was below our current standards, and the effort required to tighten this up now would be well beyond the scope of this process. RO(talk) 20:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Needs substantial work followed by constant vigilance per above. DrKiernan (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Casliber (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Robert_Baden-Powell,_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell/archive1&oldid=1089733225"