Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/February 2014
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The portal was promoted by OhanaUnited 04:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
| Participation Guide | |
|---|---|
| Support | |
| Cirt - Support as co-nominator | |
| Miyagawa - Support as co-nominator | |
| Sven Manguard - Support | |
| Jj98 - Support | |
| Neutral/No vote | |
| REVUpminster - Commented | |
| Oppose | |
| none | |
Co-nomination. (This is a co-nomination with Miyagawa.) I've got another Featured Portal candidate discussion going on now for Portal:Technology, but since that one and this one are both co-nominations with other editors, I thought it'd be okay to nominate this 2nd one. We believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: User talk:Miyagawa, User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media franchises, Portal talk:Star Trek. — Cirt (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Support, as co-nominator. I did the re-structuring process in preparation for quality improvement, and Miyagawa was quite helpful with addressing issues as they cropped up and filling in selections throughout, not to mention contributing lots of great quality content. — Cirt (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as co-nominator. With a big thanks to Cirt for being the driving force behind this as I inevitably got distracted along the way. :) Miyagawa (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As this is a summary of Star Trek pages the franchise article is listed as Star Trek. I have queried this on the talk page but have been ignored therefore should the portal show it as Star Trek|Star Trek franchise within[[]] REVUpminster (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @REVUpminster - I don't see any prior comments by you, which talk page are you referring to? And can you please clarify what you would like to see changed, I'm a bit confused? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see your comment from 28 November 2013. I think that is an issue for the article, not the portal. The portal introduction simply reflects the WP:LEAD text of the main article. That issue could be resolved at the talk page of the main article in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - While I wish that the selected pictures section was better, there is little or nothing that we could feasibly do to improve it. The things we'd need are all copyrighted for a very long time. Other than that, my concerns were addressed in the Peer Portal Review. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much, Sven Manguard, for the Support. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. JJ98 (Talk) 08:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the Support, Jj98. — Cirt (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The portal was promoted by OhanaUnited 04:59, 5 February 2014 [2].
| Participation Guide | |
|---|---|
| Support | |
| Cirt - Support as nominator | |
| Quadell - Support | |
| Neutral/No vote | |
| Sven Manguard - Commented | |
| Oppose | |
| none | |
Self-nomination. Though I know I've got Featured Portal candidate discussions going on now for Portal:Technology and Portal:Star Trek, both of those are co-nominations and both have zero unaddressed comments. I believe this portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: User talk:Crtew, User talk:Lquilter, User talk:Sven Manguard, User talk:Wehwalt, User talk:Cirt, User talk:Crisco 1492, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, Talk:Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as nominator. — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I have little experience with the Featured Portal process, but I have a lot of experience with the Featured Article process, and I've carefully read WP:FPO?. The topic is unambiguously useful, and it certainly showcases high-quality content, much of which is already featured. It is attractive in its layout and choice of colors. The portal is ergonimic, with a logical and effective layout. It seems to be well-maintained, at least over the past three months, and assuming the "news" and "in this month" sections stay current, this shouldn't be a problem. In addition, it does seem to adhere to the standards of MoS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech. The nominator is quite experienced in improving portals, so it's no surprise that this one has no problems with self-reference, foundation links, or image use.
...But[issue resolved], in regards to the attractiveness criterion, some versions of the portal contain too much whitespace on the right-hand column, due to the fact that some "Selected article" summaries have far more words than recommended. (The criteria recommend that they "should not significantly exceed 200 words in length", but Manifesto of the Sixteen and First Amendment each have 363 words, and McCarthyism has 357, for instance.) – Quadell (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Quadell, for your kind comments. I've gone ahead and trimmed the text size of those selections, perhaps you could have another look? — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks great now. I've no further objections, and I'm glad to support. – Quadell (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks great now. I've no further objections, and I'm glad to support. – Quadell (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Quadell, for your kind comments. I've gone ahead and trimmed the text size of those selections, perhaps you could have another look? — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have had reservations about this one for some time, which has prevented me from posting anything thus far. Cirt - The content of this portal seems heavily weighted towards the United States and the UK, with a tiny bit from Australia. I know that there's always more content from countries where there are large numbers of English speakers, but I am surprised at just how heavily concentrated it is in this portal. Is there anything that can be done to represent other parts of the world? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sven Manguard, this is a problem for all of Wikipedia, not just this particular topic. However, if you could suggest any other content that you feel should be added to this portal, I'd most appreciate it. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside comment: I looked over the portal with this in mind, and found that it skews toward English-speaking countries in some sections, but not in others. The head section ("The Freedom of speech Portal") is admirably international. The categories and wikiprojects boxes have no regionalism issues I can detect. The "This month" section covers both the US and Iran, and the long "Topics" section covers everything from Moldova to Singapore to Somalia to China to Tunisia. So most of this portal's problem with regionalism, I think, is in the "Selected article", "Selected biography", and "Selected picture" sections, which rotate based on the existing Featured and Good free-speech-related content. It looks to me like the only way to fix this would be to create more Good and Featured content related to freedom of speech in the non-English-speaking world. That's an admirable goal, and I strongly support it... but I don't think it should be an issue for this nomination. (For instance, of the 51 FACs currently open, none is clearly related to free speech in the non-English-speaking world.) – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Quadell, I agree with you that it should not be within the scope of the portal nominator(s) to create or improve more quality content for a portal. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside comment: I looked over the portal with this in mind, and found that it skews toward English-speaking countries in some sections, but not in others. The head section ("The Freedom of speech Portal") is admirably international. The categories and wikiprojects boxes have no regionalism issues I can detect. The "This month" section covers both the US and Iran, and the long "Topics" section covers everything from Moldova to Singapore to Somalia to China to Tunisia. So most of this portal's problem with regionalism, I think, is in the "Selected article", "Selected biography", and "Selected picture" sections, which rotate based on the existing Featured and Good free-speech-related content. It looks to me like the only way to fix this would be to create more Good and Featured content related to freedom of speech in the non-English-speaking world. That's an admirable goal, and I strongly support it... but I don't think it should be an issue for this nomination. (For instance, of the 51 FACs currently open, none is clearly related to free speech in the non-English-speaking world.) – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.