Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scouts BSA/1

Scouts BSA
There is very little detail about how girls became a part of what used to be called "Boy Scouts". There is a history section with one unsourced sentence. If one or more editors could improve the article, that would be great. I just want to see what others say.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Scouts_BSA/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delist Uncited text and concerns on broadness Aircorn (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are serious issues with this article. Large swathes lack verifiable sources so it's impossible to know if they're accurate. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the editors involved with the creation of this article no longer edit. thoughts? --evrik (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to do some work on it. IMO it hasn't slipped below GA level. I'm not sure that there is a lot of sourced material available about adding girls to this specific program. Speaking from experience, it got decided without a lot of fanfare and implemented and quickly became the norm.     Since the change involved multiple programs (e.g. including Cub Scouts)  most of the news etc. about the transition is not unique to this  program and so coverage in sources is more at the BSA level and so the BSA article is where more sourcing/coverage would be available regarding the transition.  Sincerely,   North8000 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I see significant issues here. There's large quantities of uncited material, as well as an incredibly lacking history section.  One section for the history of this organization is not enough.  Membership figures are extremely outdated (2013).  What makes ScoutXing a reliable source?  A lot of this content is sourced to sources with 2007-2009 accessdates; there's no guarantee that some of the various procedures haven't changed in the last 10+ years.  What makes Boy Scout Trail an RS?  Ref 12 is dead.  Most of the sourcing is either primary or to sites of dubious reliability.  Needs significant work, so delist unless significant work is done soon.  GAR is not a holding cell. Hog Farm Bacon 01:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not overly concerned about GA status of this article and so am just giving my opinion on that. I've done I think about a hundred GA reviews.   My general opinion is that it hasn't slipped below the bar of GA.  This isn't FA and doesn't demand that level of flawlessness.  On another note,  just to be clear, this isn't an /the article about the Boy Scouts of America this is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Since it started out as the sole program of the BSA, early history would be a duplication of that of the BSA.  And the "changes" to that status are not changes to the topic of this article, they were creation of other programs within the BSA while this / the original program continued. Of course membership numbers need updating, but I think that generally the article has been kept updated in the important areas.   The very recent addition of girls to this program and the structures related to that have been covered. Again, regarding plans of what to put in and expectations on what to see here, remember that this isn't an article about the Boy Scouts of America, it is an article about a mere program within the BSA.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * North8000 makes a valid point. There are separate articles for Boy Scouts of America and History of the Boy Scouts of America, as indicted by the History section hatnote. This article is about the one specific program and the History section just needs to be beefed up to cover the inclusion of girls in this previously boys-only program. There are numerous independent RS available on this wide-publicized change, such as NPR, CNN, CBS, etc. &mdash;  JGHowes   talk  19:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delist, no comment on broadness (3) either way, but per Buidhe there remain swathes of unsourced text, months after this nomination. CMD (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't de-list (above I just made comments) This isn't FA, it's GA and IMO it meets that threshold.North8000 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - Laying aside the broadness issue entirely, there is a very significant amount of uncited text. Multiple sources (Scout Xing, The Scouting Pages) do not appear to be RS.  Fails WP:GACR 2b.  This seems to have met the 2008 GA criteria, but more is expected, and has been expected for years. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - a lot of sources that are just...not reliable at all, not to mention the broadness issue. versacespace  leave a message!  15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist far too much unsourced information. Link20XX (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist: I had to read the Lead of the Boy Scouts of America to grasp that there are programs for age groups in Scouting. Saying  flagship membership level  does not get the drift of an age-limited program group in Scouting.
 * I wonder if the Other sections part of this article is relevant to Scouts BSA? Is it?
 * Youth Leadership Section is a bit WP:PROSELINE with he does this, this scout calls the roll, that scout collects money, like this.
 * The first paragraph of Development reads like it has been lifted from some other document.
 * Development (n the main) seems to rely on a single reference and there is no reference to Girls in this nor the previous leadership sections, Youth Leadership and Adult Leadership. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)