Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Girl Scouts of the USA

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Girl Scouts of the USA[edit]

Self-nomination. Current GA on Girl Scouting in the USA. Had a peer review but little input was received, although what was suggested was taken in and improved (Wikipedia:Peer review/Girl Scouts of the USA/archive1). Darthgriz98 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose with a general read I found a few significant issues.
  • American Heritage Girls (AHG) started in 1995 by some people concerned with the current program of the Girl Scouts. needs a cite or it reads as a POV statement on who these concerned people are, also is this still the "current program" or has that changed in the last 10 years.
  • History lots of facts and figures but only one cite doesnt appear to support stats being quoted as it quotes 3.3 million members article quotes 3.7 whats the source for this.
  • Activites - section uncited, maybe a news/media reference
  • Awards and badges - section uncited, should be a hand book that could be quoted.
  • Image:Gsusa.JPG is of an indentifiable but unknown person no release for use of their image

I'll have a more in depth read over the next couple of days and list any further concerns. Gnangarra 12:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re: Gnangarra the image was an upload by the subject of the image (who is also the FAC nominator) and is a PD-self release. I don't understand what the problem here is. Please elaborate. Rlevse 14:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, the girl in the picture is indeed myself, I give release and will give release on the page if need be. I have also reworked the American Heretiage Girl part it now is POV free and cited. Darthgriz98 14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for noting is that the image appears to be a candid shot not a staged shot and as such author(photographer) of the image wouldnt normally be the subject of the image. Gnangarra 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • She added "The subject gives her release to be on Wikipedia freely as the subject is the author." Is this sufficient? I'm fairly certain the photographer gave her the photo to keep herself.Rlevse 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the copyright license(PD) says I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. If shes the creator/author of the image then she can release the image as PD. In this case she's the subject, not the creator/author as such she doesnt have the right to release as PD with such a statement Gnangarra 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So she should get the photog to release it and state that in the tag? Rlevse 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{norightsreserved}} would be ideal if possible with a release statement from the photographer, otherwise {{Fairuse}} with a statement similar to this, The subject of the photo is myself (User:Darthgriz98}, and the photographer took the photo at my request, while I have released the image I am unable to indentify the photographer to obtain a Public domain release, that photographer may choose to exercise their rights. Gnangarra 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cited the 3.7 million, the article before that cited that there were 3.3 million Scouts in the 1990's, so now there is an official GSUSA statement from 2005. I have also cited the awards and badges. Darthgriz98 15:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, to see your working so diligently in addressing concerns, Gnangarra 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the tags. Darthgriz98 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changed my Oppose to support, and congratulate the editors on their eforts in addressing concerns raised. Gnangarra 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Controversies - Creation of Studio 2B - This section has one footnote, but this leads to an article that doesn't mention the controversy itself. Thus the opinions and actions in the controversy are unreferenced. Kingbird 19:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Studio 2B controversy section has been removed from the Studio 2B and the GSUSA articles as it is uncited and no citations can be found for it after multiple searches. Also, citations have been added for both the activities section and the Destinations section. Darthgriz98 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice article. Kudos to Darthgriz98 for rapidly fixing Gnangarra's concerns. Sumoeagle179 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Since your working so hard to improve the article and address concerns raised here are some more to think about.
  • In the lead three sentences begining "The GSUSA" makes it a repetitive read early and discourages further reading.
  • The redlink of Senior Roundups if you think its worthy of a full article either create a stub or delink and expand the sentence to a paragraph. Same applies to other redlinks. They always be linked again once the articles are written.
  • Section on segregation I copy editted the first para, the second needs to be rewritten just disjoint facts(well cited) which doesnt make good prose.
  • The promise is a significant official statement by members of GSUSA and therefore to say variations of the promise is okay, needs a cite from an official document.
  • In age levels there been changes to the divisions in 1938, 1963, 1984 and 2003 as well as mention of a "current revision" these changes need to have cites.
  • Awards and Badges is great place to get some 3d party cites from media or other organisations.

After your worked on these suggest that you put a request to User:Tony1 for an opinion if hes the time available. Gnangarra 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Taken care of. All citations for years are now in place, promise and laws have been cited, copyedits are taken care of, redlinks are gone, and honor pin is now cited. I am going to try to find some other award citations as I go. Darthgriz98 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • What is the GSUSA useage of Native American? I ask because the BSA preference is American Indian, and is based on feedback from the community. The American Indian Scouting Association is a BSA/GSUSA program.
    • What is a Roundup? This needs a definition.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deffinition of Roundup is now in the article. I am assuming that they would be called American Indians due to the program then. Darthgriz98 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I already changed it to American Indian. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No official stand on sexuality: the last sentence needs at least two cites- one for each position. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, note to whoever wrote that section of the article, if you have a source for those please step up, because I have never heard anything about gays before in Scouting in my experience. But in the meantime, I will look for a source. Nevermind, I found two.Darthgriz98 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: Book references on GSUSA and Other referenced sites- The book references have specific pages noted, but I don't see how this works into the article. I think the parts in quotes are chapters or sections. These should be put into standard citation templates or removed.
  • Other referenced sites- These can probably be worked into the article as standard references. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uniforms: I don't know how important uniforming is to the GSUSA, but it at least deserves a mention.
  • Training: Is leadership training available for youth and adults?

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I have a few concerns:
  1. The title "Girl Scouts of the USA" should IMO, be "Girl Scouts of the United States of America." I don't think the acronym "USA," which is informal should be used in the formal title. Rama's arrow 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 2 paragraphs are necessary on the impact of Girl Scouts on American life. There are so many famous people who've been girl scouts. The organization is a big part of American life - there is also a light-hearted rivalry with the Boy Scouts. this must be covered.

Please see what can be done. Thanks, Rama's arrow 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with spelling out the name is that the formal name is "...USA", NOT "...United States of America". Griz will work on your second paragraph's issue. Rlevse 21:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)...PS, a redirect already exists from the spelled out version to the USA version. Rlevse 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the chartered name is Girl Scouts of the United States of America [1]. Perhaps the name was changed, or this might be a DBA (doing business as) name? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a DBA name as I've never even seen the Girl Scouts org use the spelled out name. Anyway, no one uses the spelled out name.Rlevse 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have started a section on the impact of GSUSA on America, I will work on this more over the next few days as I attempt to balance my school time, so if I slow down on my edits, that's where I am, I won't give up though. Darthgriz98 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Do you know of any sources saying that there is a friendly rivalry between BSA and GSUSA? Darthgriz98 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naah... that was a shot in the dark based on some of the deriding jokes men crack like "What are you, a girl scout?" Rama's arrow 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was friction between the two early on. See History of the Boy Scouts of America#Early controversies, last paragraph. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --evrik (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good article. I suggest improving "Impact on American life" to bring it equal focus to "Controversies." Rama's arrow 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article still needs a decent copyediting before it's ready for FA; I played around, but it's been well over two months since I've actually done a copyedit of this style. — Deckiller 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article also needs a merge: Wing Scout should be merged into the article. The information can easily be compressed and worded into three paragraphs of FA-quality prose, which will only extend the article by 1-2 KB and give the article a complete feel. That should be it for orgnaizational and content issues (as far as I, a person who knows nothing about the details of scouts, can see). — Deckiller 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can tackle this latter either today or tomorrow. Darthgriz98 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anyone opposed to the merge of Wing Scout with GSUSA? Darthgriz98 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it can be done as proposed, otherwise it'd be a mess. Does Wing Scout warrant 3 paras in this article? Was it of that importance? Rlevse 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about for now then I re-write the Wing Scout section so it doesn't sound like a campy brochure, and then see latter about mergeing it. The whole WS article needs proper citations as well if it eventually were to be merged. Darthgriz98 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Rlevse 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I fixed up that section. It needs citations, and for some reason the only thin I can come up with from Google is the year Mariner and Wing Scouts started.Darthgriz98 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments — if possible, can some others critique the prose of this article? I went through it fairly quickly, so I'm not sure how everyone else feels. If necessary, I can allocate further time to this one. — Deckiller 16:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA&oldid=1136097695"