Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gilwell Park

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gilwell Park[edit]

Article on an important Scouting headquarters, activity and training center with lots of history behind it.Rlevse 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Probably the best history of any camp site I have ever read online. --JohnDBuell 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pretty nifty, can't think of anything I would add (apart from my tiny edit). Terri G 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good Article Coffeeboy 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support; I'm still not completely satisfied with the prose quality, but overall this is quite good. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Looks pretty good, but a few fixes are needed:
  • "Following Rolfe's death in 1422, the property was divided into two parts... even though they remained under the same ownership." Rolfe maintained ownership after his death? Mention the new owners if possible.
rewordedRlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Up to this time, ownership had changed several times." After seeing this I expect to see the text return to a previous time period (i.e. before 1736), but it doesn't. Why not just remove this sentence?
removedRlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "King George III and other royals visited the estate." Are more details available? When, why, who?
will add more later today.Rlevse 18:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)...added para on royal visits. Rlevse 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look out for redundant words—I removed "very" three times.
thanksRlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Wim on 8 Sep. Rlevse 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gilwell Farm is believed to date from the early 1700s be the oldest original building at Gilwell Park." Doesn't make sense.
rewordedRlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph of "Attractions" needs work (four consecutive simple sentences).
worked on this.Rlevse 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Spangineeres (háblame) 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now addressed each item, please review. Rlevse 23:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. It has mightily improved, but should have gone through a PR first. Things still to improve include:

PR's are a waste of time now, see paltry response to Boy Scout.Rlevse 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the defining/summarizing lead it mentions Activity Centre, but these aren't explained in the article proper
Done.Rlevse 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref in the summary/abstract lead should then be in that section
Done. Moved ref to new info text area. Rlevse 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is nice, but could do with some copy-editing. The Redundancy section of the famous Tony1 document should be a guideline here.
Worked this. Please be specific if there are more concerns in this area.Rlevse 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worked by Wim on 8 Sep. Rlevse 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sentence ' the Boy Scout Assocation (last of section 1.0) is oddly tagged on there. Should be move to 1.1 somewhere. And my preference is to have subsections at equal level, e.g. 1.1 'Pre-scouting history' and 1.2 Scouting connection
Done.Rlevse 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the linking to the Rogers booklet (excellent book, by the way: just bought it myself) can be done a little bit less: there are paragraphs with ref to it twice, and no other refs in the same paragraph.
No other source has been found for much of this. Changed to ref only once in those para cases and put it at the end.Rlevse 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An infobox should be looked for, e.g., London Place, or Campsite or Scout Organization (1st Gilwell Park Scout Group), etc
I looked and haven't found one. They can be nice, but are not required.Rlevse 11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the accommodation section is very brief: the notable buildings on the site, such as the Lodge, the White House, and Gilwellbury need at least a separate paragraph if not a subsection. And some info is hidden in the Activity section. Perhaps combining and copy-editing the Accommodation and the Attraction sections may be considered. (But don't copy the Real Tour of Rogers')
Done.Rlevse 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • notable contributors (people who gave time and effort) to Gilwell Park need to be added: at least a mention or better yet a descriptive listing of all Camp Chiefs Gidney, Wilson, Thurman, and nowadays the Scout Assocation Director of Camping Activity (or whatever the current title would be) should be provided. And also the extensive wood sculptures by Don Potter (I plan to improve his own article in the near future) ought not be missing
Whole para on this, found most but not all of it.Rlevse 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • illustrations, such as map pointing out the very proximity to the centre of London, and thus the top class location. And a map of the site?
Haven't found any not copyrighted. Should I use one and claim fair use? It'd take up a lot of screen space too.Rlevse 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • pictures? There is no picture of a camping field!
Added campfire photo and move White House image to accommodations section.Rlevse 03:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: the name of the white building is 'White House', not 'Gilwell Park White House'. And for the lead picture I'd prefer to have a really copyright free picture (e.g., the camping field picture mentioned above). The current illustrations by mr Carrington are good pictures, but give a US-only view.
Carrington's pictures are the only ones I've found where I have permission to use. Let me know if you find some; and he's BRITISH! so it's not US-only view. Changed White House caption. Rlevse 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • section 3.2 has very repetitive texts: copy-edit needed
Fixed.Rlevse 02:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the site is major asset of The Scout Association, and as such a commercial activity for them. Information of what they do there (departments, employees, etc) and what kind of money is involved (fees, contributions, revenues) are hard to come by, but available (e.g., see Baden-Powell House for leads here). Should be added.
Added pertinent parts from annual reports, but could not find a fact sheet on it.14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What did B-P do here on Gilwell Park? Did he live here (no), did he camp here (often), lecture (yes), give courses (yes), Boy Scout Association meetings (lots!), although most where in London.
Done.Rlevse 00:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: the Rogers booklet (should all fold into one ref) needs no accessdate; several are very brief (who published that data); the ref 16 of E S Carlos is merely a wikilink: just copyedit it as such, not a ref; jeal isn't referred to, although he has much info about it (I started reading Jeal again in the vacation, but it is thicker than my vacation is long, so I'm still at it).
The Carlos 16 link is wikisource and I don't know how to do an inline link to that. I don't have Jeal's book. I broke the Rogers links into two so people would see and get by the page numbers a better idea of where in the book it came from, but I've made it one ref per your input.Rlevse 11:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)...Wim fixed the wikisource for me, thanks!Rlevse 10:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the External Link section title is dropped a few lines to low
Don't see what you're talking about.Rlevse 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
un-italicized as I understood the guideline.Rlevse 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, these should keep you busy for a while, Randy. I'm quite confident that you'll make something out of this. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Additional comment

Although you indeed gave a jab at most of these issues, overall I'd say further copy-editing remains necessary:
  • the lead should give definition (ok) and a summary of the article. The latter is missing. Remove the comparables (Downe, BPHouse, etc) from it.
Agreed. So much has been added it lost its summarization. Worked it, will look at again tomorrow.Rlevse 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)...tweaked some more summary. Rlevse 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illustrations (pictures, map) are sorely missing
Disagree, there are five pictures in it. Many FAs don't even have that. You yourself have had trouble with finding good pics. I don't think a map is necessary (haven't found a non-copyrighted one anyway)...you don't have a floor plan of FA Baden-Powell House. Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MADE CUSTOM INFOBOX, could be modified for all sorts of purposes. Rlevse 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more photos..Rlevse 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I recommend separate sections: on major historic buildings (the warden's Lodge (the old one), White House, Gilwell Farm, and Gilwellbury), on current accommodations (camp fields, various blocks and PHC, fire circles, etc), and on attractions (museum, some statues, Eccles!, religious places, gates, etc). This will require regrouping, augmenting and copy-editing.
Disagree. Not enough info has been found to warrant this. Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two activities (camping+, and training), hence two subsections.
Done. Rlevse 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General copy-edit for redundant wording is still necessary.
Done and have asked those better than me to look at it.Rlevse 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Wim on 8 Sep. Rlevse 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More prominence to the current state of affairs (Scout Association HQ and ownership), e.g., by giving it a section of its own; and include data on which departments, #employees, etc
If I can't find it, I can't put it in the article, and I've looked. Found at best sketchy info. Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • and similarly for notable people there. Are these three the only wardens known? I for sure know that Bill Butler was warden there in 1981, when I was Assistant warden on Kingsdown Scout camp: he was married to kingdown's warden's daughter Sue. There must be more.
Have not seen one single complete list of Camp Chiefs, have not heard nor seen one ref to butler that I recall and googling "bill butler" and "gilwell" reveals not one solid hit on him.Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section heading for external links should go three bullets up
Moved one, the other two are refs, same format as in Eagle Scout article. Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better explanation for the See Also: what would you find there? As this isn't obvious from the links alone.
See also is a set of links, not summaries. But did clarify the campsite in Hong Kong Rlevse 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)...rm'd Exlporer link. Rlevse 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment 2 (objection retained) several replies are of the kind 'I can't find such information'. In my perception, that doesn't do away with the requirement that the article should be comprehensive. Having visited Gilwell Park several times, I don't think it covers the subject well and complete yet. But I promise to give you a hand later this month (busy with work). I already did the infobox for you. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Everyone else disagrees. I think you're being overly picky. Encyclopedias are not full fledged books. Your FA on Baden-Powell House doesn't even have the equivalent of some of the info you're asking for here. For example B-P House doesn't have a floor plan (map) nor a full list of directors (camp chiefs). I think you're applying a double standard. We'll just have to disagree on this one. Rlevse 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind everyone else: apparently they are all American (not sure of one) who perhaps never visited Gilwell Park and seem to think that two US-oriented statues are more important than Eccles, the campfire circles, or a simple map of the various fields. So I agree with you that we disagree. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Stevecull is Irish and TerriG I am not sure. I checked other 4-5 FAs on parks. Not one has a map of the park itself, just where it is in its country. You seem a little-anti US here. You fail to mention the 3 images that aren't gifts from the US--one of which IS a campfire circle by the way. The problem with more photos is finding non-copyrighted ones, which even you admit you had a problem with. I'll check Carrington for more photos. I can Fair Use the map from Rogers' book and wikisource it as it'll be too big to stick directly in the article if you like. And if by chance there is US bias in the voting, FACs are open to all Wikipedians and it's not anyones fault others haven't participated, just as it's not our fault we haven't been able to visit it. I'll keep working on it, even after it passes or fails. Rlevse 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment New Gilwell photos were put on the web on 04 Sep. I got permission and uploaded two of them, one of a campsite with tents. Rlevse 02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional comment 3 (change to support) I have contributed to the article myself with copy-editing and other additions (infobox, section reordering), collaborating with RLevse. With these improvement, I think it is worth the FA status now. I have further information to the article that I will add over the next weeks, so I don't think it is stable yet, but given everybody's attention to the FA quality, I'm pretty sure it will only be improved upon. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support very nice work now. Sumoeagle179 19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very comprehensive Stevecull 21:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive article at this point. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The logo is too large now- its pixelated.
Yep, I've been fiddling with it and it hasn't been cooperative. A graphics buddy its helping me now.Rlevse 14:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)...check the one there now. Rlevse 16:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
  • Support — Looks great to me. I feel like it meets all criteria. Ryu Kaze 00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed a small punctuation typo, by the way. Ryu Kaze 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'd like to see a citation for the Dick Turpin claim but it isn't a deal breaker. Yomanganitalk 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the Rogers book, so I just reused-the ref. Rlevse 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gilwell_Park&oldid=1058220395"