Wood Badge is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Since the version promoted in 2007, this article has become listy and excessively wordy (eg, "Scouts Canada holds numerous Wood Badge training courses on an annual basis throughout the country" - d'oh). There is also uncited text throughout (sample). Dubious sourcing abounds (samples, [1], [2][3], [4] and more ), missing page numbers on books (sample, Diamond Jubilee Yearbook. Manila: Boy Scouts of the Philippines. 1996. ISBN 9789719176909.), missing publishers and dead links (samples, 2006. "Wood Badge Framework". Retrieved March 31, 2023. And "Wood Badge Framework". Retrieved March 31, 2023.) and more that can be detailed. The sourcing is far enough off the current standards for featured articles that I am listing this article at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in GoingBatty; I provided a considerable list of samples above. At the level of determining whether an article still meets WP:WIAFA, a top-to-bottom approach to rewriting by dedicated and FA-knowledgeabe editors is usually more effective than piecemeal editing that results from maintenance tags. This thing needs such a top-to-bottom rewrite for the reasons and examples I provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved in work that ended up being the lead on FA rescues but I'm not so sure about taking a deep dive on this one. On those others I said that I wasn't concerned about FA status but enjoyed improving the coverage of the topic. I think that I'd be up for that again but since the issues on this one look more like meticulous FA items I think that my kind of work would be secondary on this one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
