Talk:Baden-Powell House

GA status

2 little things to keep the GA tag. First, expand the lead. Secondly, remove the nowadays and bring it a bit more NPOV. Lincher 13:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do a bit of this. I'm sure the creator will gladly work on this too. Please allow some time for the updates. Thanks for the input.Rlevse 14:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Randy (Rlevse) and Lincher thanks for supporting GA and providing further improvement recommendations. Of course, we'll work on these promptly. I intend to open a Peer Review for the article soon, and hope to have these two things taken care of before that. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Lincher, Wim acted very quickly, please let us know if you have more concerns. Rlevse 15:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Peer Review page, please? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

New peer review output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Further feedback

Big improvement here. Can the Worshipful Company etc. by wikilinked? I expect it'll be a bluelink. Not sure about including the name of the current warden - I'm generally wary of including details, even down to the name, of largely non-notable living people.

I'd still be interested to know if this hostel is signed up to any particular rating system for quality of accommodation. And the revenues estimate of 2-4 million is weird - was this an estimate by a Wikipedian, from other sources? TheGrappler 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Worshipful etc: wikilinked, and yes it is blue!
• The warden's name is out: I had my doubt when I found the titbit of info
• It is Four Star, and part of YHA: added info and references
• the income is was 1.3 some years ago and growing. Copy-edited, added refs

So, all done. Any other help you (or anyone else) can provide? I'll go for re-FAC soon, then. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

You might want to wait a week or so to see if I come up with anything else :-) I'm sure you've spent enough time on FAC to work out what kind of objector I am! If I can't find anything to quibble about then it'll probably pass...

• Further thought 1: is the "M" really capitalized in "Modern architecture"?
• Further thought 2: "The architectural term for Tubbs' design style of the six storied Baden-Powell House is Modern architecture, which was mainstream architecture at the time." sounds awful, maybe "built in the [[Modern architecture|]] [[architectural style]] that predominated at the time"? The architecture section reads at the weakest-written at the moment. "Also Le Corbusier's Sainte Marie de La Tourette priory, near Lyon, has clear similarities in its facades with Baden-Powell House." --> don't like the "also" at the beginning, maybe "additionally"? In fact, you might want to state to whom the similarities were clear... presumably this is coming from Cropplestone (since that's referenced) but I'm uncomfortable the "clear similarities" as it stands. For instance, why is it even relevant that these similarities exist? If you wrote "The architectural critic/historian (whatever he is) Trewin Copplestone has commentated/commentated/discussed the similarities between..." and if the source gives you it, "..and has suggested it was the original inspiration for (whatever aspect of the design)".
• Further thought 3: what is a Scout Activity Center? It's not too much help saying that it is one if you give no explanation and the term is redlinked. Presumably being a Scout Activity Center is pretty central to this building's existence?

Just for your consideration, I hope this is all proving useful. I suspect it is, since the article's quality seems to be well on the rise! TheGrappler 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, TheGrappler, for these furthering thoughts. Accepted in great appreciation.

1. Yes, Modern architecture is the name of a specific architectural style. So I propose to retain the capitalization of Modern architecture. Or should that be Modern Architecture, then?
2. From your questions, it is clear that this paragraph isn't clear. I therefore rewrote it, and hope this is a logical paragraph now, where the similarities, obvious to the trained architectural eye, support the style denomination.
3. Instead of explaining more in this text (superfluous here IMHO), I simply created the Scout Activity Centre article.

Having done these improvements, I plan to re-nominate the article for FA again. Having incorporated so many of your good proposals, I optimistically expect that you'll support the nomination now. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

For "Modern" vs "modern" see the usage in Postmodern architecture#Brief discussion, where it's referred to as "modern architecture". In the Modern architecture article it's always "M" but only since "modern" always seems to be at the start of sentences! TheGrappler 11:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good ref: I'll change it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 11:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Many of the references were last accessed over two years ago, and some are now not working. It needs someone who knows more about it than me to fix it. In particular the ScoutBase references have problems, but I added one that covers the re-openning and commented out the one that was not working. --Bduke (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baden-Powell House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512160435/http://www.towntocountry.co.uk/bphouse/ to http://www.towntocountry.co.uk/bphouse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 feedback

As part of the FA sweeps of old FAs, I've taken another look at this article to ensure continued compliance with the featured article criteria. I believe there are some issues that would need to be addressed to retain its status:

• A major element in terms of coverage is that the house was sold; it's only briefly mentioned in the lead, but not fully up-to-date, and not in the body. Given that it resulted in a change of ownership, that means the entire article needs to be recast to reflect that.
• There's a few spots throughout where it's unclear if content is referenced, e.g. Scouts representing every county were present at the opening and a Starbuckscoffee (discontinued before 2015)
  • Likewise, I'm not sure some of the referencing is good enough for the claims used, e.g. This painting, a personal favourite of Baden-Powell, is often used in publications throughout the Scout movement is sourced to the Scouts using the painting elsewhere, which is a pretty weak source (and doesn't necessarily source it was a favorite of Powell.)
• The references used are heavily weighted to primary sources (i.e. from the Scouts itself) which I don't think is good, either from demonstrating the notability of the building or fleshing out details beyond the uncontroversial. Others seem unreliable, not high-quality, or borderline irrelevant (listing TripAdvisor and Yahoo Travel pages.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the recommendation and call for attention to the recent major ownership and purpose changes of Baden-Powell House. I have assessed the recent updates brought by Rafmarham and find they fully address the above improvements pointed out. Special thanks to him for this contribution. Wim van Dorst (talk).
• @Wimvandorst and Rafmarham: Are either one of you interested in addressing additional concerns in this article? I see there are still some uncited sentences, and perhaps better sources can be found for the article. @David Fuchs: have your concerns been addressed, and if not what still needs to be completed? Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The out-of-date information is definitely addressed, and the unreliable refs have been removed, but I think the over-reliance on primary sourcing still remains. I will see about pulling any info that comes up in a research search on my end as possible sources for incorporation this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

    Uncited text, issues unaddressed for several years, listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs: Would you be interested in bringing this to FAR, as you can explain your concerns best? Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Z1720 I'll take a look today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)