Talk:SPICES (Scouting)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that keas, joeys, cubs, ventures and rovers develop their SPICES, with social, physical, intellectual, character, emotional and physical development through scout activities in five countries? Source: https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/home/244842/after-24-years-allenwood-scouts-open-den.html https://gps.scout.org/handbook/cross-bridges-ireland/#1603807896348-c75e519a-f3b2 https://www.scouts.ca/resources/bpp/policies/program-standard.html https://scouts.com.au/blog/2018/08/21/the-spices-of-scouting/ https://scouts.nz/programme/ https://www.facebook.com/MaltaScouts/videos/1658554660887403/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John F. Quirk
  • Comment: 5 of the (5 associations each with 4 or 5 youth sections) are chosen because of diverse names, and show the age spread

Created by Bogger (talk). Self-nominated at 14:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/SPICES (Scouting); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I am afraid this article requires additional work, Bogger. Although it is technically long enough, much of it is due to the lead, which summarizes the rest of the article; and a section has been tagged as incomplete since September. Furthermore, I am concerned about the sources: for example, I do not see where citation #4 verifies the sentence. The article relies almost exclusively on sources which are not "independent of the subject", which throws into question the subject's notability and the article's neutrality. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bogger: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:I've removed the incomplete template, and added more sources. Happy to let this nomination go due to the sources being two dependent/inter-related. Thanks for the review -Bogger (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: can you continue this review? Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am honestly torn here. A lot of effort was made here and the article looks good, and yet it does not feel right to promote an article that relies almost exclusively on the subject organization's own website(s). What tips the scale for me is the nominator's apparent willingness to let the nomination go. Surtsicna (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)