Talk:Yawgoog Scout Reservation/Archive 2

Assement
This is a very quick first pass review. There has been a lot of good work done here, but there is a lot of extraneous material that needs to be pruned. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Style
 * Lead needs a lot of polishing and expansion
 * Use English and metric units consistently; some sections have equivalents and some only have English
 * Overall: needs a lot of polishing—see the links on the right for help


 * Content
 * History- expand a bit on the Rhode Island Boy Scouts, a sentence or two
 * Capital projects- What is YAA?
 * Camps- move history up to History section; lists of directors are not notable; songs are not notable
 * Programs- what standard and unique programs are offered?


 * Images
 * Image:Yawgoog ri.jpg is just not that useful. The coordinates link to much better maps.
 * Image:RopeCourse.JPG is nice
 * The other images are frankly boring; empty boats and the like. These need to be replaced with a few active and interesting images.
 * The segments just are not encyclopediac. If a list of this stuff is desired, move these to ScoutWiki.

My Peer Review of this article
First of all, I wish to point out that you had another editor critique this article a few months ago and have not made much effort to address the issues pointed out. This being evidenced, for my peer review I will point out major issues (according to the GA criteria) while being bold and making several edits myself. However, please don't request another peer review unless you have made substantial changes according to this review.

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * The link to the reservation no longer works, so it will be hidden until a working link can be found.
 * Add Wikipedia geographical coordinates to the page header and body in lieu of 41.44N -71.79W.
 * I removed a lot of WP:POV text
 * What does YAA stand for? It is used but never introduced.
 * I consulted another editor and the songs/cheers had to be removed because they were WP:trivia

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) contains no original research.


 * This is now the biggest issue and would be quick-failed before any GAN review were conducted!

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).


 * Don't list camp directors, as they are not notable and that information is too detailed—should be delineated on reservation website; only name current reservation director (which I included)
 * The songs and cheers were really bogging down the article so I moved them to a separate article, which is linked in this article.
 * I removed quite a bit of other tangential information.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Okay. I took out a lot of POV and potential advertisements (listing staff).

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.


 * No prior issues

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect: (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]


 * I shrunk the sizes of the award segments and removed discontinued or non-working images; Wikipedia is an encycolpedia, not a dictionary, so we can't house every little tidbit here (see WP:NOT).
 * Image:Yawgoog Pond at night is too dark, so removed.
 * I reorganized pictures to go with sections
 * I had to remove a couple other pictures because there are too many in this article and you already have several galleries (for the segrements); you only need one pic of a dining hall, etc.

Summary
I hope the article looks a lot better, as I put a bit of effort into it. It has a lot of good information, but without citations, it will not progress on Wikipedia (and may even die). Let me know if I can help out further. Best --Eustress (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Segments
The segments are not notable and should be removed. The use of this many non-free images is well outside the guidelines. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the segments are notable (IMO, one of the most interesting aspects of this camp), but possibly not verifiable. (what 3rd party RS would publish these?) Regarding the images, the fair-use rationales look okay.  Where is the guideline for the number of fair-use images per page?  Mitico (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why all these images are tagged as non-free. Most (if not all) of them are below the threshold of originality and thus in the public domain. --jergen (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority are probably public domain, but I agree with the view that the information is not verifiable or particularly relevant. It may be of interest to those familiar with scouts, but that isn't really an argument to keep it. We should focus on what reliable sources have said about the institution. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Gadget850 tagged this article with a request for merge to Rhode Island Boy Scouts. Based on other similar tags, probably meant Narragansett Council. I believe this article is independently notable with the sources provided. However, if merging this article is the consensus, then splitting Yawgoog & Camp Cachalot from the main article into Camps of Narragansett Council should be considered. Mitico (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yawgoog does not belong to Narragansett Council, it is owned by the Rhode Island Boy Scouts trust organization. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But operated by Narragansett Council? Depends on how you interpret "belong" I guess. Still, I think America's Oldest Boy Scout Camps provides at least minimal independent notability. Mitico (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge withdrawn. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)