Talk:Philadelphia to become largest city in U.S. without Boy Scout building

Nice article, but...
Hi Evrik. This article is well written, but reads more like a Wikipedia item. It seems to be a continuation of your article from June 1, Philadelphia breaks 80 year old building lease; moves to evict Scouts, which was a current news story. But this one reads more like a history lesson rather than a current event, as written. Any thoughts? All the listed sources are essentially external links. Can you find any current news sources for this article? Jcart1534 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed...these are all official home page links and do not constitute as sources. DragonFire1024 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay ... so I went out and found some new sources. I included the council links only as references, those can be dropped.


 * The current news versus history issue ... This was meant as an update of the story last week. The new item is the issue of Philly not having its own building. It's rare that something like that happens, almost unheard of in a major city. When I wrote it, I tried to reference the events last week, give some background and write something about the impact. Any ideas how to strenghten the article? --Evrik 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the sources you are referencing now. There doesn't seem to be anything new to your story from June 1. You already dealt with the issue of the building. In the last paragraph of your previous article, you suggest that they are preparing to build their own facility. There is nothing new since June 1 with regard to Philly not having their own building. The only new assertion, regarding Philly being the largest city without its own Boy Scout building, is not sourced. I just don't see a new, or even updated, story here. Where did all that background information come from? It isn't sourced either. Every fact must be sourced. Again, I am just concerned that this article is more encyclopedic than Wikinews is supposed to be and that there isn't a story here. That is just my opinion though, Evrik. And to be frank, I am not sure how this particular article can be fixed.  Jcart1534 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * one possibility is to do some original reporting. send e-mails to both sides, ask them what are they doing to resolve the dispute(or to live with it, as the case may be). how do they feel about it? and so forth. –Doldrums(talk) 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Publish
I have taken a quick read through this - there doesn't seem to be any problems —Symode09 13:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved back to ready, pending further review of other editors. (notably the ones who commented here) --SVTCobra 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there has been no more comment. I'm going to republish it. --Evrik 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected

'is is' -> 'is' Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

✅ &mdash; Gopher65talk 02:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please add category
editprotected Category:Boy Scouts of America

Thanks Evrik (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. --Pi zero (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)