Talk:Gilwell Park

FA status
Looks like a fair bit of work is needed if this is to retain FA status.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Demote it now. We will look at it in a few years. --  Gadget850talk 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

FA in need of review
I'm echoing what Dr. Blofeld said way back in 2014: this article needs work to keep the FA status.

Most notably:
 * Article has several unsourced paragraphs (I'm tagging some in the mean time);
 * We need smaller page ranges for Peter Roger's book. The book is used 30 times in the article, each time with the range pp. 5–46. That's the whole book, by the way;
 * "Gilwell Park provides The Scout Association with over £1,000,000 a year through conference fees, accommodation fees, and sales of materials." - The source for that is from 2005, that's 15 years ago. All of the figures provided in the article are a bit dated;
 * A third of this article reads like an ad for Scout Adventures, complete with accomodation and special events.

Article does not meet the current FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)