Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Merit badge collecting (BSA)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merit badge collecting (BSA)[edit]

Self-nomination. I am submitting this article as a featured article candidate because I want it to be the best it can be and I feel it is well written and an excellent guide to the topic. This is the first time it has been submitted and it just completed a peer review. It is currently 25.9k in size. Rlevse 00:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - The very first photograph REALLY should have a caption to indicate which badges are shown, rather than having to scroll down through the article. Also, someone should check and see if those designs aren't still protected by BSA copyright, and better fair use claims should be made on all images, especially if those copyrights hold on the older badges. The newer ones I can guarantee are protected by copyright. --JohnDBuell 01:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving my original Object vote stand - for now. The caption on that first image is now FAR too long. It should only relate to the badges in that initial image. Also, you might want to consider internal article links to the portions of the article that describe what "Type A" "Type J" etc. are. Finally, because the artwork on the badges IS copyrighted, you should submit proof that the BSA National office granted permission - see Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. --JohnDBuell 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added opening group photo as you wrote the above. Added caption that inclueds all MBs shown. Obtained permission from BSA Legal Div for image use on morning of 13 Dec 2005 and updated all image copyrights. Rlevse 17:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A letter from BSA on the copyright is in the works. I wrote exactly what they told me to on the image tags. I took the photos of the merit badge images used in this article. The merit badges are in my personal collection. The motif/design of the badges is what is copyrighted by BSA, which I secured permission for on 13 Dec 2005. Written confirmation of this is in the works to be submitted to Wikipedia. Where should a list of imaged badges go?Rlevse 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just implemented the changes (I consider them minor, others might object), about shortening the first caption and allowing for intra-article navigation. I am changing my vote to Neutral at this time. --JohnDBuell 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I REALLY LIKE what you did with the layout. What suggestions do you have to get to a support vote? In the opening group image of 5 photos, should I increase it to all MBs I have images of or would that make the image too big? Rlevse 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as MY comments go, a bit more work on the Fair Use justifications on each image, and I think that will meet everything I have objected to. --JohnDBuell 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support My objections have been met, and QUICKLY, I might add. There's a bit of text that could use a little touching up, but I don't think it's sufficient to NOT support the article. --JohnDBuell 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I wouldn't have supported it before, but I gave the images some heavy re-sizing and tabled/sectioned the article to be navigatable and readable, and now I think it looks fantastic! Thanks for the info! Staxringold 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Object - I thought you took those images, if they are copyrighted you should be very careful and if not you should have copyright info. And yes, those description boxes look just plan silly now. Staxringold 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did take the photos, it's the motif/design that I have permission from BSA legal to use. A letter from BSA on the copyright is in the works. I wrote exactly what they told me to on the image tags. I took the photos of the merit badge images used in this article. The merit badges are in my personal collection. The motif/design of the badges is what is copyrighted by BSA, which I secured permission for on 13 Dec 2005. Written confirmation of this is in the works to be submitted to Wikipedia."Looks plain silly" is a non-specific opinion. I do agree it looks better than with the images below it.Rlevse 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal opinion. The bulk content of your article is in description boxes, which simply isn't going to cut it. That's why I moved the content around. As for the images, whether or not you took them, NONE of the images (save the single image that brought me to the article to begin with that I tagged) have copyright tags on them. Staxringold 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote exactly what the BSA lawyer told me to.Rlevse 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the 'canned' copyright fairuse tag to my photos and added more explanation.Rlevse 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much better - I had to go through the same things myself with my own images, so I sympathize. But you DO need to let your fair use statements indicate that YOU took the photographs, and YOU can license them under GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses, but that the artwork depicted on the merit badges IS protected under copyright held by the Boy Scouts of America national office. Hence statements that it won't hinder the rights of the copyright holders to sell the image is a little awkward - it's your image, but the BSA sure as heck is going to sell more badges (because of all of the boys in the program striving to earn them!). --JohnDBuell 19:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Ditto JohnDBuell --Computerjoe 17:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Lists should be converted to brilliant prose. -Scm83x 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which list are you referring to? The caption of the opening photo has been fixed by JohnDBuell. If this was not your concern please be more specifc.Rlevse 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errors vs. variations section. Also, there are not enough references, and none of the references stated are actually cited inline. Also, isn't a lot of this information, such as the "merit badge care" section non-encyclopedic. -Scm83x 02:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY FEW references on this even exist. I can't list them if they don't exist. The book I cited is the only one I know of specifically on MB collecting. Two of the three refs listed are connected to the article via footnotes. On top of that, I've seen other FAC articles criticized for using inline references, so whom are we to try to please? If I do it your way, someone else would object to it. There should be more standard guidance on this vice everybody telling us different ways to do everything. What are we to do when one person doesn't like a section and another one does? You can't please everyone.Rlevse 02:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rlevse, please don't take our comments personally. Please see Wiki's suggestions about staying cool when things get hot. We are all just trying to maintain the standard of FA by only letting in the best articles. If now isn't the time for this article, you can come back as many times as the article needs to get to FA. Thanks. -Scm83x 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I'm just making the point that it's impossible to please every critiquer when they think things should be done differently.11:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Started adding refs that aren't MB-specific, but do touch on them.140.32.75.168 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Observation All of this is about the images and layout. Nothing about the content wording itself. Rlevse 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response Images are content, and actually in this article a large part of the content. And if you don't think style applies in FACs you are crazy as a sentence like that would be edited. If the content is ugly, wrong, or difficult to follow the article certainly shouldn't be promoted to the front page. Staxringold 19:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to refer to the wording. And you should give people a chance to fix such errors before reverting to things like calling them crazy.Rlevse 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but you make a GREAT example of how to use images to illustrate badge types, so we're just trying to help insure that their uses are properly justified under US copyright fair use provisions...and that Wikimedia doesn't get sued :) --JohnDBuell 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Observation A scary amount of images on Wikipedia have questionable/nonexistant information regarding their copyright status. I wouldn't even consider voting in favor of this type of image heavy article until there was a good consensus on the legal status of the images. Is the BSA aware of the terms of the GFDL and that these images can (and most likely will) be used for commercial purposes? - JustinWick 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But does that keep the BSA from selling merit badges? No. A more interesting question to ask is "How does the BSA license the images for the books that collectors use for this hobby?" Those authors are obviously making a profit, and the BSA is selling more badges. --JohnDBuell 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC) One other observation here - If anyone ever tries to do an article like this for the various BSA council patches, worn on the shoulder, that's going to be a LOT of letter writing, as each council has its own design! :)[reply]
BSA said I could use my own photos of my own collection for this. If it's okay with them, then why all the concern? Rlevse 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I welcome the recent modifications to the page's structure. However, the text still needs a lot of work, because it tends to ramble disjointedly, particularly in the discussion of the sequence of types. Many sentences lack connection, grammatical and semantic, to the sentences around them. As a result, each paragraph presents a jumbled collection of facts rather than a unified whole. --Smack (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. One of you rewrites it and thinks it's fine and another thinks it jumbled. It's a guide to collecting merit badges, not an essay. The two types of written articles are inherently different. It reminds me of school, turn a paper into one teacher and you get an 'A'; turn it into another and you get a 'C'. I amazed anything makes it through the FAC process. Rlevse 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up a question. Is this intended to be a how-to guide on merit badge collecting, or a general overview? From my understanding, guides and how-to's are supposed to be at Wikibooks, though I could be wrong. The Catfish 04:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a general overview. If I wrote a how-to, it'd be 50 times as long. Rlevse 11:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Always nice to see some work done on Scouting-related articles. Featured article status is becoming harder and harder to get every day, and the requirements are quite rigorous. Best of luck, and good job so far. However, I think there's a few issues that need to be dealt with before this becomes a featured article:

  • Lists: Wikipedia featured articles are "well written," i.e., "the prose is compelling, even brilliant." My main criticism here is with the large number of bulleted lists. Granted, the list of tables is a central and necessary part of the article, but can't "Caring for your collection" be worked into a normal paragraph or two? The article as a whole doesn't flow right when everything is bulleted.
Removed "Caring..." section (see below). Do you think the rest of the "Error vs variations" section should be unbulletted, bulleted but more prose style, or something else? Rlevse 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant Prose: I think that the prose sections of this article require a major copyedit. Although there's really no big grammatical issues, it does tend to flow disjointedly. Each sentence in this article states a fact, but there are few transitions, explanations, and other additions to make it sound and look right. There even exist a few sentences that are flat out wrong and don't make sense, for example: "The number required for Star, Life, and Eagle varies, as has the ratio of required merit badges vs. non-required merit badges for those ranks." Of course, here I'm still ignoring the style problems within this sentence itself and the surrounding ones, for example "Star, Life, and Eagle" being repeated. Other sections of the article jump around from being encyclopedic, to being second person, for example, "be careful of ones that could conceivably be..."
  • Sufficient Background Information: In the example in the previous section, you reference required vs. non-required merit badges. If I hadn't been very knowledgeable of BSA requirements, I might have been a little confused as to what this was referring to. Reading the next sentence, the unknowledgeable reader would see that there's a required list (of merit badges, apparently), but there's still insufficient information here to make the point obvious to the reader. In addition, since this is a "Purpose of merit badges" section, you might want to review the fact that Scouts earn them by completing requirements, as opposed to a very general and uninformative, "merit badges exist to allow a Scout to explore areas of interest to him and to teach him advanced skills." The term "Scoutcraft" may be unfamiliar, and it's a red link so far - discuss it a bit further.
  • As a how-to guide (User:The Catfish): If this isn't a how-to guide, why does a section for "Caring for your collection" even exist? If your article is only here to cover the history of BSA merit badges and their evolution through the past century, fine, but this section isn't necessary. If it is, then this article is hardly complete. Where can I get old merit badges? What is the value, monetary or otherwise, of doing so? The list goes on and on. Of course, there's a limit before an article gets too detailed; you can always branch a section to a different article. There still has to be some substance, but branched articles have far less impact on the candidacy for the featured article itself.
As several have commented about the "Caring..." section, I've removed it. Rlevse 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: I'm not going to get into the whole copyright status of the images again. However, have you ever considered displaying the images a bit smaller here? Your average user runs his monitor display at 800x600; I'm running much larger at 1280x1024, and they still seem enormous to me. If the images were shrunk a little, which can be done in the Wikipedia article notation itself (you don't have to manipulate the original image at all), it might make the table a bit easier to read. As for the table, you may want to consider merging it all into one table with an additional column describing the merit badge type; that way, there won't be as much subsection clutter.
Cut image size by 33%. I like the tables the way they are as it makes it easy to navigate to the Type sections. What do you think? Images copyrights were fixed. Rlevse 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation: The line, "certain other organizations (such as fire brigades) issue badges/awards they call merit badges," seems quite out of place, and probably unnecessary, because the page is already directed to Merit badge collecting (BSA). If you browse through Wikipedia policy pages, you'll find one on disambiguation, and how to separate different items of the same name. For example, Washington (disambiguation) differentiates between various people, places, and other subjects. It seems more fitting that a fire brigade's merit badges be mentioned somewhere else, least of all as a conclusion to the opening section regarding the BSA.
  • References: A featured article needs good references. It's best to cite where some of your numbers come from. For example, the Eagle Scout requirements are actually listed on this Wikipedia somewhere; search for it, and link to it when you discuss them. The number of offered merit badges is listed online, and in the back of any merit badge pamphlet. Cite something there. I[1] don't[2] mean[3] for[4] your[5] article[6] to look like this, but there has to be something more backing what you have to say up. Wikipedia is not a repository for original research and commentating - nothing here should be a primary source.
  • Badge history: This is hardly a comprehensive section. Besides a few detailed examples, you note the shift as largely, "depending on factors such as their popularity and changes in society (such as the shift from an agriculture based society to an industrial based society in 20th century America)." Is this in reference to a valid source? Can you give any more specifics? You might want to start talking about the change in design here, as well. -Rebelguys2 12:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awful lot to cover :) I'm not sure how best to do badge history unless we made a table of badges by Handbook edition. That'd have to be an internal link, or, at best, an external one. However, I did add that First Aid used to be a specific requirement, I might be able to add a bit more without making the article too long and unwieldy. There's a list of requirements in the Sixth Edition handbook for Scoutcraft, that might work for a definition, or to start an article. The "Caring for" section has been dropped. And I'm starting to wonder if I need to recuse myself and cancel my vote :) --JohnDBuell 14:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure about what to say about that section. My main problem is that the title of this article, "Merit badge collecting," seems to encompass all of these things. As a result, it's sorely lacking in the how-tos and details of actually going about to collecting badges. Rlevse's removal of the "Caring" section, though, is also a little odd, considering the circumstances. It seems now that the article isn't so much "Merit badge collecting," than a merit badge history article - tracing the different styles of badges. The "Merit badge" article itself is just a list of current merit badges. I'm not sure how to tie this all together very easily. As far as the image resizing - it looks a lot better. -Rebelguys2 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there have been some differences of opinion on whether the article should be a how-to or not, and is a how-to article encyclopedic? Perhaps some of it (like the 'care of' section) could just use a good rewrite.... --JohnDBuell 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should rename it "Merit badge history (BSA)". It already has redirects from "Merit Badge Collecting" and "Merit badge collecting"...those came from the peer review...the BSA was added as it's specifically on BSA merit badges. Rebelguys2--LOVE your suggestions...I wish you'd seen it while it was in Peer Review-;)Rlevse 15:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking the same thing myself, either "Merit badge history (BSA)" or "Merit badge design history (BSA)". --JohnDBuell 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC) You'd have to rewrite your introduction and bits of the first couple of sections to properly change the article focus though.[reply]
I like "Merit badge design history (BSA)". Adding 'design' to the title would limit the scope and make it more manageable. MB history could have a book written on it. Rlevse 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's an official policy then - you may have to withdraw the FAC nomination for this article, re-name it, rewrite the first part of it, and submit a new FAC nomination under the new name. --JohnDBuell 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Merit_badge_collecting_(BSA)&oldid=31336921"