Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/February 2006
Considering the youth of the portal, I was amazed to see the completeness of its content. No redlinks, loads of categories, lists, articles, pictures - the works. Full of information, relevant colour scheme, good organisation. I like it. Mind you it is quite controversial, but I don't think that's a huge issue. 
Deano (Talk) 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- A few comments on layout: the right column is significantly longer than the left. This may be due to the changing sizes of certain sections, but if it's not, you may want to rearrange the boxes somewhat for a more balanced look. Also, only two of the other Wikimedia project links actually go somewhere; I'm not sure if directing visitors to non-existent pages in other projects is a good idea. —Kirill Lokshin 21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Much appreciated Thanks for the support. I'm going to keep working on this one, and I'm happy to hear suggestions. Justin (koavf) 04:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- The big problem of this portal is neutrality. Koavf made surely a great editing work, but we can see in every sentence and every flag a very big pro-polisario stance. Remember that WS is still a disputed territory, WP is an organ of information not of moral jugement. This portal could be better if neutral and unbiased. Daryou 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I second Daryou on his mentionning the fact that this portal has a huge point of view problem. It looks like a portal created to promote a cause rather than to provide a neutral, balanced, set of articles on a given theme. --Yobaranut 06:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree there is too much POV in this. Rlevse 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)