Talk:Our Chalet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Our Chalet was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-03-30
Scouting Wiki Project Our Chalet is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force

[edit] Architect's name?

I have a book that gives the architect's name as M. de Sinner, but I notice Our Chalet's website gives it as von Sinner [1]. Anyone know anything more? Kingbird 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

von seems to be more common on a web search. Note that von and de both mean 'of' in German and French respectively and that both those languages are spoken in Switzerland (though German is more common). It could be a matter of a translation that went too far. --Erp 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a probable explanation. I think I'd trust the Our Chalet website over my book in that case, so I'll change it in the article. It can always be changed back. Kingbird 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Pass/Fail:
    a Well written:
    b Factually accurate:
    c Broad in coverage:
    d NPOV:
    e Stable:
    f Images:
    g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor


[edit] More specific comments

  • Good article Criteria #1: Well written.
  • Prose:
  • The intro should be a summary of the rest of the article. Rewrite.
  • This sentence: An American Girl Scout leader, Mrs. Helen Storrow (1864-1944), agreed to donate the money for construction and first four years of operation as long as it was built in Switzerland
  • Awkwardly worded, see bolded section. Maybe add a the in there.
  • This sentence: Ida Von Herrenschwand (1887-1961), known as "Falk", and a Swiss Scout,
  • Confusing: is she also a Swiss Scout or also known as Falk and Swiss Scout? Awkward wording.
  • The list in the history section needs to be converted to prose.
  • Avoid "cute" terminology and descriptors, like little house.
  • The WWII section is confusing and doesn't seem to flow well.
  • In general, the prose is not very compelling and could use some work. I recommend Wikipedia:Peer review for a broader perspective.
  • Structure
  • The structuring of this article should be reconsidered. There are too many subsections which could be combined in the history section.
  • Seminars and major events could go together with activity program under simply "Activities" or Actvity programmes.
  • MOS
  • Lead does not conform to WP:LEAD.
  • Delink red links or write the articles.
  • The accommodations section reads way too much like a travel guide. See WP:NOT
  • Jargon
  • Swiss Guide?
  • Black day?
  • World Chief Guide?
  • Juliette Low is referenced far before the section (which should be merged elsewhere, see above) concerning her and the conferences.
  • Good article Criteria #2: Verifiable
  • References
  • Book references are improperly formatted, lack ISBN numbers and the inlines need page numbers.
  • A few more references wouldn't hurt, there is too much reliance on the official site.
  • Inline citations
  • August 24, 1939 is known as the black day for Our Chalet. Need a cite here probably, also why?
  • This sentence: The seminars provide a platform for young women to:[11] share their views and experiences, develop a sense of universal citizenship, enhance their leadership skills, appreciate cultural differences, broaden their international understanding, and prepare for national and international leadership.[7]
  • That is an odd way to format inline citations, put them both at the end of the sentence.
  • Reliable
  • Appears mostly reliable.
  • Original research
  • Looks like its okay here.
  • Good article Criteria #3: Thoroughness
  • Major aspects
  • We are lacking info on the present and the 21st century in general
  • Who uses this place mostly?
  • What is its significance within scouting in general?
  • What makes this place unique, are there others like it?
  • What about its architecture? Or its historic status?
  • Focus
  • Passes.
  • Good article Criteria #4: NPOV
  • Fair representation
  • "Major events" is highly subjective terminology.
  • Terminology like "world class" is subjective.
  • All significant views
  • It really does seem to come from a pro-scouting viewpoint, although some care seems to have been taken to avoid to much POV. Be careful with flowery language or any language that tends to make the location "look good."
  • Good article Criteria #5: Stable
  • Passes this criteria.
  • Good article Criteria #6: Images
  • Tags/captions
  • Fair use images all lacked a detailed fair use rationale.
  • Image:OurChalet.jpg This image could be easily replaced with a free use image. I am proposing it for deletion.
  • Image:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg: borderline for FU, am considering deletion as this could probably be easily replaced with a free use image that you or someone else took.
  • Lack of
  • NA
  • Free use
  • Should do what you can to get free use images here.

IvoShandor 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/u/r/Talk%7EOur_Chalet_5220.html"