I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been highly unstable and a constant target of people bickering over its format, content, and people pushing their POV--and that includes users on both sides of the fence (pro and anti-Boy Scouts of America, basically). It does not meet modern FA standards, has several tags for cites missing, refs that do not support claims made, and an OR tag. Hopefully users can come together and get it to modern FA standards. FA criterion 1d and 2c especially apply. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Needs major repair and FA Status has been a detriment to that
This has significant problems and needs significant repair. Many of the problems give the article itself a POV rather than just covering a POV. Those who prefer to keep it that way cite FA status as a way to discourage significant needed repairs.
This is essentially a "criticism of" category article, one who's subject is itself POV. Such is proper if were handled within Wikipedian standards.
One pervasive problem is that has gone outside of the scope for such articles is two significant areas. One is positioning to both cover and claim exclusive right to cover the OBJECT of the criticism rather than just the criticism.
It also has substantial sections which, instead of covering the POV, seek to make the case for the covered POV, most commonly by covering specially selected material/ examples (e.g. other Scouting organizations) not within the scope of this article for "comparison" purposes, to bolster the POV rather than covering it.
It also rife with reference "bluffs", where the provided reference does not support the statement which cited it as a reference, and, in some cases the provided reference even refutes the statement which cited it.
It has numerous examples of obvious implying of cause and effect with no basis, and followed by a half-hearted disclaimer of such. As if one said: "the number of child molestations rose when John Smith was elected president. However, the is no proof that his election is the cause of the rise"
It also cites references which are at the extreme end of the POV spectrum (such as the "BSADiscrimination.org" website, the most heavily used reference in this article) for FACTUAL material on the OBJECT of the controversy. But it would be proper to cite that website as an example of the criticism/controversy, or for information about the criticism / controversy itself.
There is a much good content in the article, and many sections that do not have the above problems. In particular, the sections that cover the POV itself rather that making the case for the POV or trying to cover the object of the POV do so largely within Wikipedian standards. But it needs significant repair. It does not meet FA standards, and FA status has been quoted and used to prevent the much needed repairs. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Featured Article Review notice be in the article?
(copied from the article's discussion page)
It seems that major notices about an article are generally put in the article. In this case this notice is only in the discussion section, which most people who read the article never see. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No. FAR is just a review. Issues such as OR that triggered the review are in the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 11:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Somebody commented that the FAR wasn't receiving much comment. I'm going to have to tell them that such is not very indicative because FAR notices are only put in places (the discussion section) where most article readers never see them.
I'm going to copy this to the FAR page for this article and suggest that anything further on the thread be put there.....
That is not how it's done. The FAR discussion goes here, with the tag notifying of it at the top of the article's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and clarification.
It was an experienced editor that made that comment about the small amounts of posts on the FAR being indicative of something, and it appears that even they did not understand which led me to misunderstand. Notably, that FAR procedures are such that a lack of a flurry of comments is normal rather than indicative of anything. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Delist - Unsourced information (including quotes) and possible original research are two major concerns. However, another major concern is the issue of recentism and undue weight in the article. The majority of the article (all but a tiny, unsourced paragraph at the end) focus on the issues of homosexuality, athiests and agnostics, all relatively recent issues. Information on the BSAs controversies with regards to race and gender are not explored at all, which they should be in an article that thoroughly covers the controversies of the membership of the organization. Other, more minor issues, include missing alt text, dead links, improperly formatted references. The Bush image has a free-use tag, but the original upload log specifically states "Either fair use screenshot or else not covered under copyright as US govt work." Also, there are a ton of real free-use images on WP, why is only one non-free-use shot used? Dana boomer (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Delist -per Dana. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.