Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baden-Powell House/archive01

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baden-Powell House

[edit]

The article of the Baden-Powell House is a concise and complete presentation of the subject. With due accuracy and arguments, a nice overview as well as illustrative details are given, including supportive pictures. A complete peer review, including teamwork of the WikiProject Scouting, supported the good state of the article, so that I'm pleased to propose it here for FA. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object: The whole page is too cluttered and too short. The text seems to race at an enormous pace, perhaps there is not much more to say, but is does seem very disjointed and over brief. It's an interesting enough page, but no where near a featured article. Needs to be copy-edited, and expanded, and tidied. Giano | talk 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: one of the sharpest, most attractive articles I've seen on the 'pedia. Chris 20:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a copyedit on the entire article today to try and polish up the English. Walkerma 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a fine article and deserves FA status. The recent copy-edit is great. I see no need to expand it. It covers the topic well. --Bduke 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think Walkerma's copyedit does the trick, putting into FA status; fine job btw, Walkerma. I think the length is appropriate to the subject matter and I do not feel the photos make it cluttered, I think the photos make it interesting. Rlevse 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Bduke. --evrik 13:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ibid evrik South Philly 02:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. On my browser, at least, the bottom of the page looks like a mess, with an inch or so of glaring white space on the left, followed by a claustrophobic knot of pictures, text, and a light-blue quote box. I understand that this issue may seem minor to some, but featured articles should look professional to all viewers. Also, I don't think the article is very well-rounded in its coverage. It discusses the building's history very nicely, but has only two sentences which describe how the building is used today ("With 180 rooms..." and "Baden-Powell House regularly hosts..."). As such I don't think this article can be considered comprehensive. --Alex S 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is regularly edited with both MSIE and FF, at various window sizes, and the whitespace and cluttering is not obvious then. Of course the requirement of 'looking good' for FA status is reasonable. Would you care to indicate which browser at which settings you use? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose - aesthetically, it's a nightmare. There are too many images and boxes, many of which are superfluous, such as a painting of Baden-Powell himself, a logo which is more or less just the name of the place, and the text on a plinth which could just be included in the normal text, if it's notable enough to be worth quoting verbatim. Also, giving such prominence to a lengthy quote from the Queen seems not terribly neutral to me - looks like endorsing what she is saying. A couple of content points - I don't think the postcode is the kind of detail an encyclopaedia needs; ...including (in 1976) an exhibition of scouting stamps - why was this one exhibition worth particularly mentioning? ...so that it now fulfills Baden-Powell's dream... - according to who? Section headings are not all capitalised correctly (see WP:MOS). Finally, the 'see also' section is redundant - the links are already present in the rest of the article. Worldtraveller 13:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, edit conflict! Nice to see somebody else thought the stamp thing was a bit odd. I was gonna include the section headings at about point 10 but forgot; consider that point 17 (or whatever it was) of my oppose... TheGrappler 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (Although I was going to say the same thing about that painting being irrelevant, I noticed that the text seemed to describe it as something exhibited in the building, so the caption really needs fixing to make the relevance clear. My big problem with its inclusion is that it seems to be a rather blatant case of copyvio! TheGrappler 13:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose for several reasons:
  1. Overlinking. Once something's been wikilinked, don't keep linking it again.
  2. Can all the pictures not be captioned? Some of them look like they're there to make the page look pretty rather than for informational value. In fact the page looks too busy and overdecorated with all those images arranged as they are. Ask yourself about every picture: is it informative and relevant in the context of this page? What do I want the reader to take away from it? Is it positioned in a sensible way? What should the caption tell the reader? (For instance, the caption for the painting should surely say where it is displayed.)
  3. Weird "see also" links. Something wikilinked in the article needn't be in the "see also" section. The "see also" section is really useful for linking articles about subjects which are similar in some way to the subject of this article, but not so important to the subject at hand that they are mentioned in the article.
  4. Seriously dodgy "GFDL" claim on Image:Baden-powell1.jpg. For what reason would a 1929 painting be licensed under the GFDL?! The only plausible explanation is that a subsequent copyright holder has given express written permission. No such express written permission has been evidenced. There is a claim that permission was granted by the webmaster of a Swiss website (correct me if I'm misinterpreting the explanation given in German) but the Swiss website is hardly likely to be the copyright holder. (There is surprisingly common fallacy that if website X displays a picture and its webmaster authorizes its use on Wikipedia it becomes GFDL-licensed... you must always find the copyright holder and get a release into GFDL, not limited to Wikipedia - see WP:COPYREQ).
  5. Lack of information about the building. It's an article about the building, so I think there should be basic information on, for instance, who the architects were. Were there any planning permissions issues? What style was it built in? What's its visual profile like? How tall is it? I have no clear sense of the internal arrangement - is it mainly small rooms, dormitaries, is the accommodation large or small compared to the conference center capabilities? [Some more has been added but this remains a core problem. TheGrappler 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  6. Lack of visual information: of the 6 photos on this page, only two really show what the subject of the article looks like. Given that it's a building, that's not great. Given that the top photo isn't actually all that good, it's even worse. Particularly lacking is "contextual" visual information.
  7. "GBP" looks ugly and isn't particularly enlightening, especially for British readers. What would be wrong with using "£" (on first usage) and just "£" thereafter? At any rate, the first usage of the currency should be wikilinked so that readers can find out what is being referred to.
  8. References are cited in a poor quality way... (please look at WP:CITE, {{cite web}} - dates of last access are a necessity, try finding ISBNs for printed sources etc.)
  9. ... and not everything is referenced anyway (in fact quite a lot isn't, e.g. the list of scout activity centers, the stamp exhibition, the statue...)
  10. All the references come from the scouting movement. This needs some diversification
  11. Randofactitis, or Random Selection and Ordering of Information Syndrome: this is something that the article seems to be suffering from quite badly. When I read it, I feel a major lack of coherency, like I am being fed a bunch of random pieces of information. In 1976 there was an exhibition of stamps. So what? And why is this piece of information hanging about at the bottom on its own? If this is the information the article is telling me, what information isn't it telling me? [Some things feel better organized but I still feel the individual facts selected feel random.TheGrappler 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  12. Lack of financial information. Since this is being run (at least partly) as a commercial venture, it is near-essential to know details on turnover and profit/loss. Whether this thing has been a millstone around the Scouting Association's neck, or whether it's been a handy little earner for them, is a vitally important feature of the place, surely?
  13. Lack of geographical context. I think that this building's exceptional location is central to its identity. I've passed through London a few times in my travels so I can probably infer more from "South Kensington" and "opposite the Natural History Museum" than most readers can. But I get the feeling that the House could be teleported to Hackney or Slough or Newham and only a couple of words would have to be changed (you could probably even keep all the photos!) while in reality the House would assume a quite different identity. The article should at least give some hint about the context of the area. A particularly relevant fact to include would be whether the area is a hotbed or not of the hospitality industry (it's been a long time since I've been anywhere near it, and I honestly can't remember, but it's definitely relevant), or (given the scouting link) the educational provision in the area. A map would be great, even if it's just a locator map (rather vague map of London with a dot in... have a look round Commons:Category:Maps of London).
  14. To me, judging from what I can see of it, this building looks ugly but maybe some people are fierce proponents of it. Has nobody ever commented on its appearance? Hopefully somebody outside the scouting movement - that would at least bring in a greater diversity of sources. I can't believe that no architecture critic has had anything to say about it. Given the illustrious area it is in, shouldn't this building look quite incongruous? Maybe it doesn't, but this relates back to the lack of context given in the pictures.
  15. On a related theme, shouldn't some mention of local transport provision be made for an article about a hostel? I would have thought that was a key feature as well.
  16. After reading this through several times, I'm still not completely sure what this building actually does. Is it mainly a center for scouts that does a minor sideline in commercial work? Or is it basically a commercial hostel that does a special sideline in scouts and makes a bit of money for the Scouting Association? Is it more a hostel or a hotel? What is the quality of the accommodation? Given that this is an article about a hospitality center, this is an important point! I get the impression it's not "four star" but kind of place is it? As a hostel, is it affiliated with or reviewed by any organizations other than the scouting movement? It's briefly mentioned that it is involved in the conference industry but it isn't made clear whether it does so on a commercial footing or whether it's a major or minor part of its business. And what does "big or small events" mean - what end of the market is it operating in? Could it hold, say, the Conservative and Unionist Party conference? A FTSE100 company's shareholders' meeting? What kind of clients does it have? Mainly scouting ones? Please say! [The scale of the place is now a lot clearer. But "large and small events" is weird. It doesn't sound like it can hold particularly large events. And overall the actual usage of the building remains unclear. TheGrappler 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Having said all that, I am perfectly satisfied with the length of the article (it's information and coherence it needs, the compactness is a good feature) and I think that it is definitely quite a good one. It's not currently better than most other articles on the good article list - at the moment in quality terms it's quite a nice GA but it'll need quite a bit of work to polish it up to FA. TheGrappler 13:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For a British-themed article, it's probably better to use British English. The article seems to be written at least partly in American English.
  2. Headings are weird. Check that headings correspond with their contents. Also, don't be afraid to use italics in section headings where appropriate.
  3. Assumption of scouting knowledge e.g. what are those souvenir badges? Is there some kind of special link between the badges and scouting? (Are they "official scouting badges"? What might you have to do to earn one?) What's the difference between the Scout Movement and the Scout Association?TheGrappler
  • Oppose per Giano and Worldtraveller. The article needs work. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source linked to in the first footnote (the Edward Wood source)? The "April 1971" makes me think it's a magazine, but if so, what magazine? I can't for the life of me figure out what M.I.P.R. means. That needs to be clarified. --RobthTalk 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It a booklet named The story of B.-P.'s House, written by Edward Wood, who is a Member of the Institute of Public Relations. The booklet was published in April 1971 by The Scout Association. I have copy-edited the ref. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/answers (if only this had been discussed during the long but uneventful Peer review of this article. Oh, well....

  • GBP is the WP:MOS standard. Wikilinks reduced to once
  • Citation enhanced to use standard cite templates, as pointed out
  • Uncluttered the lower part of the page, moving picture, and deleting one
  • Enlarged text on the current working of Baden-Powell House.
  • Enhanced picture captions
  • Removed overlinking
  • Changed See also references
  • Added information about the top location in London
  • Added additional reference
  • Cleared up the 'randofactitis' that I noticed

Note: I did not significantly enlarge the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, that's an improvement. But I think you're wrong about GBP. In a country-specific article, the MOS says to use the standard symbol of the currency in that country. I get the feeling that if you talked to the average Brit about prices in GBPs they'd be utterly lost. TheGrappler 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Additionally, some of the references should include author details. Check those website out again. TheGrappler 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the text above carefully again - the good style list isn't exhaustive, it's just pointing out that certain arrangements like "100$" are not considered correct, and that things like "$100" and by analogy "£100" would be bad in non-country specific articles. Context is important here (again, read the text above, and the note by "$100"). GBP would be great for a currency conversion or for use in a non-country specific article. That's not what this is, there's no need to disambiguate in what may strike British readers as a peculiar way ("GBP" will look utterly absurd to most British schoolchildren, and some other British readers may struggle unnecessarily with it; "pound sterling" is the usual UK usage to disambiguate the British pound from others). Since the MOS explicitly says you can use "$" for Australian dollars in what are clearly Australian articles (which is frankly a lot more ambiguous) I'm pretty sure that "£" is perfectly fine for UK pounds in a UK article. Again, read through those examples. TheGrappler 22:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you're adamant, I have changed it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC). And I checked all copyrights on the illustrations used. Only the one of the Jagger painting is odd, but can't be changed to the correct {{art}} tag as that is apparently unknown on wikimedia commons. I put it there nonetheless, though, to have at least the correct info there, even if the template currently doesn't workd. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks - although can you cut the spaces between currency and number, as per the MOS? The reason you can't use "art" on Commons is that that's a fair use claim, while Commons only allows genuinely free images. (If you import it onto Wikipedia to make a fair use claim, remember to include a full fair use rationale for each use, not just a standard template.)TheGrappler 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Baden-Powell_House/archive01&oldid=1039200853"