Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell
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 promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.
Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell[edit]
Humbly I propose the article about Baden-Powell, who both had a outstanding career in the British Army for 30 years, and then founded Scouting and made him even more famous than he already was. The article well covers all details of his life and achievement, and as I see it complies with all requirements of a Featured Article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Support per nom. Andy Mabbett 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor fixes needed before full support. Looks great, though I am wondering about a few things that could be cleared up for clarity:History: Wouldn't it be better titled "Personal life"?Founder of Scouting: Why not just "Scouting"?Prolific artist and writer Prolific? Is such a peacock term needed. Why not title it "Writings". There is no evidence of art here anyways. Oh, and a redlink to "ripping yarns"? Do we need an article about this? Why link it at all?- Sexual Orientation Why is this separate from the other aspects of his personal life? Seems to violate basic organization principles.
- Do we need lat/long for every location listed? Isn't it enough to wikilink to the location's article, and have the lat/long listed there?
- As a whole, this is really close, but I think it needs the above fixes to be truly "brilliant."--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Jayron, for pointing out these clear opportunities for improvement. All first three recommendations are implemented. The reason for keeping B-P's sexual orientation in a separate paragraph is that this particular subject is considered controversial, and has lead to high discussion. By keeping the subjective information contained in this one paragraph, the subject won't get an overbearing in the article. In my perception, we've therefore done your minor points. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Just to be complete in my answer, I also removed the first of the coordinates from the article, where wikilinking provides better points of reference. I retained the cemetery reference: it's listed nowhere else.. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose The contention that "he was subsequently transferred to the British secret service" is weak, given that the article on the BSS states it was founded in 1909, well after his intelligence work.The statement "a not uncommon age difference in that time" requires referencing.The claim "By 1922 there were more than a million Scouts in 32 countries; by 1939 the number of Scouts was in excess of 3.3 million." needs referencing. What about "Baden-Powell believed strongly in the harmful effects of masturbation — a view not shared by all educators of his time"? Are you sure? I thought it was frowned upon by the Victorians? Quite a number of the images have copyright problems.The photos don't have sources, and the watercolor says it is painted by someone who died over 70 years ago, which is clearly wrong as Baden-Powell died in 1941. DrKiernan 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The secret service quote was indeed wrong. I have copy-edited the text so that it gives correct information, and added due referencing.
- 'uncommon age difference' is now referenced, although I couldn't do better than an appropriate wikilink
- numbers in 1922 and 1939: reference added
- The Victorians (and very relevantly the later Edwardians too) where more and more free in their sexual moralities. Baden-Powell's view should definitely be regarded as very early Victorian here.
- I found only the watercolour to have a copyright problem, only due to the wrong Public Domain tag having been used. Corrected now. I can't see anything really wrong with the photographs. Missing sources are merely suboptimal, not really wrong, are they?
- Thanks for pointing out these issues. I hope to have taken care of all, to your satisfaction now. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:07, 19 April 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.