336:. Another solid article. Reading through it briefly, I didn't see any big problems to fix. I'll admit that I wasn't too familiar with Wood Badge, though, and the whole "working the ticket" reference in the lede is difficult to understand. It kind of makes sense — I guess it's explained as a project — but then the phrase "attain ticket goals" again sounds a bit odd at first, until you substitute the word 'project' in your head. Not a huge deal, but I just think that ledes should always be an extremely strong section, as it's all that most people will bother to read. Tickets are explained later in the article, but at this point, it serves more to confuse the average reader who just peruses the lede. —
76:- This is a great article. I'm still reviewing it to look for little things that might be improved. I would like to see some citations in the lead. I know it is not mandatory, but I feel they are helpful in case a reader wants to validate a fact when they first encounter it. Please consider this an optional suggestion.
116:
I'm aware of what WP:LEAD says. I agree it should not mention topics that are not found in the main body of the article. However, even if the lead is just summarizing what is said elsewhere in the article, the reader will still be encountering the fact first in the lead. For that reason, it makes
157:
First mention of "new curriculum" near end, without really explaining how different, other than it apparently replaces "program-specific" courses, which are also first mentioned here. What are they? The three references don't appear to say anything about replacing previous program-specific courses.
277:
This is exactly the kind of article that
Wikipedians must strive to raise to FA status. Why? A vast majority of Knowledge (XXG) articles are just like this - small articles on non-grandiose, non-detailed, simple topics that nevertheless make an important part of the encyclopedia and an interesting
92:
the lead should be summarizing the article and not go in depth (that's what the article sections are for). So it would simply not be appropriate to add footnotes or references to the details in the lead, as there oughtn't be any. I typically move them from the lead to the core sections of the
154:
Apparently "Camp Chiefs of
Gilwell" is different from "the Camp Chief". Should be clearer. Also the link there uses an anchor, and the section heading in the target is different.(fixed)
286:
252:
399:
40:
30:
17:
265:
369:
I can't find anything wrong with it after a first look over, I'll go through again later and check the prose again. Seems to be FA quality.
136:. Had a rare computer glitch and lost a long reponse. Short response then: there are a number of places in the text with jarring surprises:
148:
It's ok, but I would probably have used the paragraph on the origin of the term "working your ticket" as the intro for that section(fixed)
117:
sense to put footnotes in the lead. It will do no harm if the same footnote follows again in the main body of the article.
158:
Those refs (and some others) are rather schematic like a presentation slide, which isn't ideal either.(fixed, with new ref)
384:
357:
344:
328:
310:
236:
211:
195:
186:
173:
124:
110:
83:
67:
163:
Will try to get back to this later. With the various scouting FAs and GAs, have you thought of organizing a
139:
Clan
Maclaren mentioned in the lead but it may not be obvious to a non-Scout why that is relevant.(fixed)
377:
321:. This is a great article. I believe it meets all the FA criteria and I can find no problems with it.
302:
228:
102:
342:
168:
63:
Currently rated A-class by the
ScoutingWikiProject. An article on an adult leader training program.
279:
245:
208:
89:
372:
296:
222:
96:
145:
Gilmore field initially said to be purchased is later said to be donated. Confusing.(fixed)
338:
164:
322:
118:
77:
354:
353:
I changed "ticket or project" to "ticket, also project", that should help some.
262:
192:
183:
64:
57:
244:
Image:GilwellLogo.svg - please provide a fair use rationale for this image.
398:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
151:
Seems numbers should go before mention of annual reunion.(fixed)
142:
Date in format usually only found in notes.(huh?...fixed by you)
219:
Very good article. Randy just beat me to it for nominating it.
293:Well said. I completely agree with your idea here!
392:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
402:. No further edits should be made to this page.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
191:did not know about featured topic, good idea.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
400:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
182:Working this, pls give a few days to fix.
88:Citations as in references? According to
7:
207:quite nice with these new tweaks.
24:
1:
385:03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
358:11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
345:05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
329:05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
311:00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
287:02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
266:02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
253:01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
237:23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
212:02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
196:02:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
187:20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
174:04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
125:05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
111:23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
84:15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
68:17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
31:featured article nomination
419:
395:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
52:03:45, 3 March 2007.
410:
397:
380:
375:
309:
284:
250:
235:
109:
48:The article was
38:
418:
417:
413:
412:
411:
409:
408:
407:
406:
393:
378:
373:
294:
280:
246:
220:
94:
61:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
416:
414:
405:
404:
388:
387:
363:
362:
361:
360:
348:
347:
331:
315:
314:
290:
289:
271:
270:
269:
268:
256:
255:
241:
240:
214:
201:
200:
199:
198:
189:
177:
176:
165:featured topic
161:
160:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
131:
130:
129:
128:
127:
60:
55:
54:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
415:
403:
401:
396:
390:
389:
386:
383:
382:
381:
376:
368:
365:
364:
359:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
346:
343:
341:
340:
335:
332:
330:
326:
325:
320:
317:
316:
312:
308:
306:
305:
300:
299:
297:Wim van Dorst
292:
291:
288:
285:
283:
276:
273:
272:
267:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
251:
249:
243:
242:
238:
234:
232:
231:
226:
225:
223:Wim van Dorst
218:
215:
213:
210:
206:
203:
202:
197:
194:
190:
188:
185:
181:
180:
179:
178:
175:
172:
171:
166:
162:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
137:
135:
132:
126:
122:
121:
115:
114:
112:
108:
106:
105:
100:
99:
97:Wim van Dorst
91:
87:
86:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
71:
70:
69:
66:
59:
56:
53:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
394:
391:
371:
370:
366:
337:
333:
323:
318:
303:
298:
295:
282:Rama's arrow
281:
274:
248:Rama's arrow
247:
229:
224:
221:
216:
209:Sumoeagle179
204:
169:
133:
119:
103:
98:
95:
78:
73:
62:
49:
47:
35:
28:
339:Rebelguys2
58:Wood Badge
170:Gimmetrow
93:article.
50:promoted
367:Support
334:Support
324:Johntex
319:Support
275:Support
217:Support
205:Support
134:Comment
120:Johntex
90:WP:LEAD
79:Johntex
74:Comment
355:Rlevse
278:read.
263:Rlevse
193:Rlevse
184:Rlevse
65:Rlevse
374:Darth
16:<
379:griz
304:Talk
261:Done
230:Talk
104:Talk
327:\
167:?
123:\
113:.
82:\
33:.
313:.
307:)
301:(
239:.
233:)
227:(
107:)
101:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.