Talk:Baden-Powell House

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New peer review output

message: 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:
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)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.  and 
**Likewise, I'm not sure some of the referencing is good enough for the claims used, e.g.  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)
replies: text: * Would you be interested in bringing this to FAR, as you can explain your concerns best? Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *Z1720 I'll take a look today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] feedback