Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/September 2010

Add links
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 Bencherlite 10:08, 1 September 2010 [1].

Portal:Volcanoes

[edit]

I am nominating this for featured portal because I've put a lot of work into the portal, and it's vastly improved. The tips left from the first nomination way back when were particularly helpful. ResMar 15:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...could this be a sign from the gods? ResMar 04:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not showing up on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates for some reason. Volcanoguy 10:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is for me...perhaps it is the redirect. ResMar 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have relevant WikiProject talk pages been notified? -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know the answer to that one...ResMar 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the info, here on this page, regarding what notifications have been given. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Volcano Project, Geology Project, Volcao talk, WP Rocks and minerals, Mountains project. ResMar 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey Mario, do we have Happy Ending drive enabled?" "Duh Luigi." "Well, check anyway." "Oh for Pete's sake look it's right here and it's set to...off?" "...Crap." "This might end unhappily." "Zomg." ResMar 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current page seems very U.S.-centric to me. --Avenue (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say "nonsense", but that's a really valid point. FAs are 6 for NA, 1 for Europe, 2 for Asia, and 3 for other planets, and FPs are 6 for NA, 3 for Europe. 2 for Asia, and 3 for other planets. It's pretty late now but I'll handle it tommorow. ResMar 02:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two more South American articles to the listing, but the bias is still there. Truth of the matter is, the listing uses 15 of the 23 featured articles in our scope, and the rest are all American or Canadian. The bias can only be removed by deleting existing FAs, something I'm not going to do. ResMar 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added List of volcanoes in Indonesia. Now, for featured pictures (on second thought, maybe tommorow...). ResMar 02:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better now, thanks. The bias in featured content is not really the portal's fault. (It's probably due to some combination of editor interests, how complete and accessible research in different countries is, and the public domain nature of US federal government publications.) --Avenue (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we really don't have anything in Africa, for example. Pity. ResMar 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in general this is an attractive portal. Just a quick comment or two, but Enceladus in the SA section is missing a caption for its photo, as is the Io moon SP. Can these be corrected? Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And done. ResMar 01:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and looks like the portal meets all the criteria in my opinion, so Support. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's lots of good stuff here, but a few parts still don't look as good as they could.
1. The "collaboration of the month" hasn't been updated since January.
Perhaps I should rename it Project collaboration? I don't like cycling collabs if no work has been done on them. ResMar 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's no point changing the topic just for the sake of change, but a six-month-old "collaboration of the month" makes the portal look stale. Renaming it would be fine. --Avenue (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed "Project collaboration." ResMar 19:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. --Avenue (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. It seems odd to me that the "Featured content" list includes good articles, and doesn't even mention featured pictures.
I believe you are refering to Mount Pinatubo? I've kept it despite its delisting to help counteract the centricity. ResMar 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to the list of "featured work" further down, between the "What you can do" and "Related portals" sections. Good articles may be worthy in their own right, but they are not featured articles, so either they should be removed or the title of the section should be changed. The problem is especially glaring when featured pictures are omitted from the list. Maybe the gallery would take up too much space here, but we should at least include a link to it. --Avenue (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the gallery, enough? I could remove the GAs, but I'm not so hot on that...ResMar 19:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the GAs are worth highlighting (and valued pictures like this would be too). So the problem is the title. I've changed it to "Featured work and other approved content" - is that okay? --Avenue (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a link to a new gallery of relevant valued pictures. --Avenue (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm with it. ResMar 13:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Project-related tasks seem to be given undue prominence in the "What you can do" section, especially given the maturity of the project.
I've added <small> tags. ResMar 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is more about the ordering and length of the list. I think putting project-related work at the top and bottom of the list makes this portal seem quite inwardly focussed on the details of the Volcanoes WikiProject. Is tagging talk pages with a project banner really the most important task we can think of? I think it would be better to prune this back to the three or four most pressing content-related issues, and perhaps also include a link to a separate project-focussed list. --Avenue (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Avenue (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging talk pages is a pretty common first item. I designed to portal to have as little maintainance as possible, so the To do list is forked from the project list. I've trimmed it down to the five most pertinent items. ResMar 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it now meets the criteria. --Avenue (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After deciding that I don't really know enough to help extend some prose in of all places a Featured List Candidate, this was my first port of call. Aesthetically it's very good, the selections of content are interesting, the pictures are absolutely beautiful, and I found several of the most useful articles directly from this portal. I'm oblivious to any Manual of Style considerations, but on all other criteria I think this is worthy of joining our other featured content. --WFC-- 01:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems to meet the criteria. Volcanoguy 00:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this portal is quite close to Featured standard. I liked the strong & appropriate colour scheme, and I particularly enjoyed the interesting & varied selection of images. Some relatively minor comments follow:
  • Are there any more biographies of a suitable standard available?
Not really. Geologists and volcanologists are an under-represented caste on Wikipedia, mostly because sources are pretty sparse: they write a lot of things, but usually not about themselves. ResMar 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any more DYKs available? They seem to come up relatively often; I'd be very surprised if there had only been 32.
I've been keeping active track of that. I think that there may be enough content for another listing, yes. ResMar 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. Apparently I did a crummy job on that, because searching archives gave me 23 more dyks, almost enough for 3 listings :) ResMar 02:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sections had typos/grammatical errors in the blurbs as well as in the instructions -- I've fixed those I saw, but a careful copy edit would be useful.
Looked over them again. ResMar 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear why Triton is included in Selected Articles. The blurb should mention something related to volcanism.
Added references to cryovolcanism. ResMar 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the frame around the Selected Pictures detracted from the layout -- is it necessary?
I liked it really. It predates my involvement with the Portal, and I found it very appealing. ResMar 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the layout with a single column for 5 boxes at the bottom of the portal a little dull. Could some of these continue in the two-column format?
Slid two items into the left column. ResMar 02:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usual to link the subject in the bold start to the blurb, not in Read more. You do this in Selected Articles but not in Selected Biographies.
Fixed. ResMar 02:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Introduction, I'd suggest joining up two short paragraphs which both relate to intraplate volcanos.
Done. ResMar 02:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The portal is inconsistent with using full stops at end of image captions and no punctuation; also at end of attribution to quotations.
Done I think. ResMar 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need the link to Recent additions in Did you know?
Pretty much. ResMar 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to add images for all the biographies? Possibly pictures of the volcanoes with which they are associated, if no image of the person is available?
Most geologists don't stick around any particular volcanoes, but work a lot of them in their time. As for the images, almost all of them are on their ~sites on copyrighted university networks. ResMar 02:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does News need to have the header News monitor? The format of dates in the archive should be standardised.
Done. ResMar 02:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of minor tweaks in Selected pictures: there is a redlink in Selected picture 19; in Selected picture 6 units need translating.
Done. ResMar 02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this is helpful in improving the portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some very good points, thanks :) ResMar 02:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Sorry, holiday weekend over here.] Looking good, support. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've handled all the issues, Addict hasn't been on since the 27th (taking a break, I think). Is it ready for archiving? The nom has been open for a mean 35 days. ResMar 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note This nomination has been closed as "promote" but there may be a delay until the bot processes this. BencherliteTalk 10:18, 1 September 2010 (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 Cirt 18:05, 1 September 2010 [2].

Portal:Speculative fiction

[edit]

Well, after many months of steady and progressive work, I think this portal is finally ready to become a featured portal. It has a lot of features which take care of themselves, and a minimum of maintenance is required to keep it going. The "Upcoming conventions" and "Speculative fiction releases and news" are the only ones which require regular work to maintain, and it's not that hard to do. All of the other sections are handled with the "random" feature and can be expanded as needed with very little work required. The "related portals" section on each tab is customized for each of the tabs, and the random components on each tab are also tied into those on the main page through some transclusion trickery.

As I was creating the portal, I ran across the articles we have on future centuries and millenia, and created the "Possible futures" random component to add some more interest to the portal. The "Selected picture" component features as many speculative-fiction-related images as I could find, a majority of them having been featured pictures.

So, please let me know what you think. I think this is one of the most complete and interesting portals on Wikipedia. I look forward to your comments. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have relevant WikiProjects been notified on their talk pages? -- Cirt (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of the projects which have project tags on the talk page of the portal have been notified. If there are other relevant projects, I am not aware of them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but it went for an entire day with no comments at all. I guess I'm not used to how deserted this featured sections tends to be. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Speculative fiction/archive1.--BelovedFreak 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That was very useful. PrincessofLlyr royal court 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully expect to support this. Having looked at it several times during peer review, I know it's really good and I had no further concerns at the time. I am having another good look through it though.--BelovedFreak 00:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at the peer review and more fully exploring the portal, I have no concerns. It is very well laid out, informative, and aesthetically pleasing. Great work! (Do I actually have to clearly !vote? If so, Support) PrincessofLlyr royal court 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a "Selected quote" module to the main page of the portal. I grabbed the sourced quotes off Wikiquote. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, support, with a few minor issues. I feel that it meets all of the criteria, it's attractive to look at, very comprehensive, covers a broad & interesting topic and will be well-maintained as most of it uses dynamic templates. My comments relate, I suppose, to criterion #2.
    • In the "science fiction" tab, in the main intro article, you have a citation, but when I click on it, it goes nowhere. I presume this is a relic from the main article. You could either delete the citation or add a notes section to the portal version of the article. I think the former would work best since it's cited in the main article, citations don't seem to be the norm in portals, and it's not backing up anything particularly contentious. I think most readers would agree that sci-fi can involve outer space / aliens. this comment also applies to Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected science fiction work/9, Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected biography/3 and Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected biography/17 (which also has an inline maintenance tag)
    • In the "people" tab, the opening sentence (starting "There are multiple lists containing...") seems a little awkward. Maybe something along the lines of The following articles list notable authors who work in speculative fiction? Or something else, I don't know...
    • In the "publications" tab, in the intro sentence, it would be nice to see that expanded a bit, if possible, although I suspect at this stage you've added about as much as you can! No problem if not. I don't think that "and so on" is necessary though, seems redundant.
  • That's it! --BelovedFreak 17:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Espresso Addict: This is a nice-looking portal, with bags of content covering an extremely interesting breadth of works. I'm glad to see plenty of women in the authors even if my favourite isn't among them (Le Guin, for the record). I have a couple of comments regarding the separation of material into the main & subpages...

  • I wasn't sure if it was the best possible use of the main (front) portal page to list all the Upcoming conventions & Speculative fiction releases and news. I'd suggest some of this material was moved to one or more subpages.
  • I'm not clear why People is a separate tab. The Selected profile just seems to duplicate that on the front page?
  • I still believe it would be a better use of the space to have, say, conventions on a new tab, in place of the People tag which is largely a duplicate. The lists of people could be accommodated in a box on the front page of the portal.

Minor nitpicks:

  • I can barely see the navy blue on black "Show new selections" link, and would certainly have missed it if I hadn't been familiar with portals and known where to look
  • It's still a bit difficult to see -- try bold, perhaps, or a slightly larger font?
  • It should be clearer how to get to any month from one month's anniversaries
  • There's no way of viewing all selected quotes
  • No means of suggesting anniversary entries or quotations
  • Not fixed for anniversaries
  • In Selected profile &c, I'd prefer if the bolded names were linked, rather than just having a Read more... link
  • Did you know probably shouldn't link to the general DYK archive, just the specific ones selected for the portal
  • I still think this shouldn't link to recent additions, unless you have a filtered list of just new articles related to speculative fiction.
  • You don't need the link to Picture of the Day from the pictures. If you retain it, they should all be formatted the same
  • Johannes Kepler, Cordwainer Smith, Stanisław Lem, Frederik George Pohl, Jr. & The Eye of the World blurbs all have red links
  • It's my reading of the featured portal criteria that red links should be restricted to "how you can participate" type boxes, but I take your point that "Red links are limited in number and restricted to aspects that encourage contribution" is a bit ambiguous. Perhaps the FP directors could clarify?
  • The Hobbit blurb appears to have lost a bit at the end of in paragraph 2
  • The upcoming books releases is spattered with red links -- it's not clear that all of these will be sufficiently noteworthy to merit articles, so probably best if they're all delinked
  • I can't see how an unpublished book can possibly be known to meet the notability criteria for books? They'd have to count under "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" ... "whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study" and I'm just not seeing this for the great majority of the red links. I'm a card-carrying inclusionist but have deleted lots of such articles at prod in the past, and am not sure more should be encouraged.
  • On the Science fiction tab, the main blurb seems a bit long. The fantasy/horror ones are a much more appropriate length.

I hope these points are of use to you in developing the portal! Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will address the issues you raise in order:
  • Le Guin is now one of the biographies.
  • The upcoming conventions and news sections are there to balance out the left side of the portal. Also, I have fairly static (and randomly updated) sections on the left, and current information on the right, so they fit right in. I don't think they would be very effective as subpages as I don't think there should really be more subpages/tabs as there are already 6 of them. We don't want to make the portal too complicated.
  • People is a separate tab for two reasons: to provide a more effective and appropriate way to link to portals about specific people (of which there are several) without crowding the "related portals" on the main page, and to provide a place to link to people-related lists without cluttering up the main page. I'm open to suggestions for further improving it, too. I should also note that the selected profile is "random", so it's possible to go from the main page to the people tab and see the same profile being featured.
  • I've adjusted the color on the link to show new selections. Is that better?
  • There is a link to the quote archive now.
  • Regarding linking the topic of the selected work/biography, etc., I'm following the format I've seen used on many other entries in portals. I'm willing to change it, but it will take quite a while as there are over 100 selected entries. I don't think this should hold things up, though, as there is a link provided for every entry. I just plugged through all of them.
  • The "Did you know..." module links to both the archives for this portal (the "Archive" link) and the full DYK archive (the "More" link). I think it's fine linking to both.
  • All of the selected pictures have the same formatting now (the only thing which was different between then was the POTD link).
  • Yes, and redlinks are not necessarily a bad thing. They encourage people to create the articles. The only redlinks I left in were those I believe will be created. I removed quite a few others.
  • Fixed the Hobbit blurb (missing three letters/punctuation).
  • The only books that are redlinked are those which are likely to have articles created, and all of those have the author linked, too. Again, redlinks are not necessarily a bad thing. I try to be sparing in what redlinks are left linked.
  • I've reduced the science fiction tab intro. I agree that it was rather longish.
Again, thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please let me know if you have any other questions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responses interleaved above. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a little difficult to respond to easily, but I'll see what I can do (next time, please just make a new list for ease of responding). In order:
  • We're just going to have to disagree on that. Conventions change regularly, and should be on the main page. People do not change much, and work better as a separate tab for the opposite reason (that tab isn't going to change all that much). The main page of the portal is for things that regularly change as that's the page most people are going to visit.
  • The "Show new selections" link is already bold, and it's not dark at all. If it's still dark for you, please clear your browser cache. There's nothing below an 8 in the color code.
  • The link has been updated for the anniversaries section.
  • Part of being a good portal is to also have links going to other parts of the site. I think it's fine to have a link to the full archive of all DYK snippets on the site. I've modified the link title, though, to better indicate what it is.
  • I don't think they need to clarify, really. There aren't all that many redlinks in the selected profiles and works, so it's not a big deal. Out of 54 profiles, there are about six redlinks scattered throughout them; out of 51 selected works, there are about 4 redlinks. It really isn't as big an issue as you're making it. I appreciate the comments and the opinion, though.
  • I'm sorry for any confusion. The only books I've redlinked are those where the author is very well known and all/most of their other books have individual articles (or the series is very well known/award-winning, and all the other books in teh series have articles. Describing it as "splattered with redlinks" is not accurate as all. "Smattering" would be a better description as there really aren't that many of them. Again, I appreciate the comments, but I think we're going to have to disagree here. I don't think this is as big an issue as you are making it out to be.
Thank you for expanding on and replying to this again. I appreciate your time and your assistance in improving the portal. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, the only red link in the news box is for the new book Bullet in the Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series. All the other books in the series (18 of them) have articles, which is why I redlinked it. It is very, very, very likely to have an article created as some point given that it's the only book out of 19 in the series that doesn't currently have an article. The other books in that list which have had redlinks are similar: all or most of the other books in the series have articles. I agree that it would be useful to have the FP directors clarify that point, but I don't think I'm abusing redlinks here. I'm certainly not including them for every upcoming book as I don't think that would be helpful or useful. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking to see if anyone else wants to comment since it's been a week since the last ones. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any last comments? This featured portal discussion has been open for over a month now, so it may be closed by the featured portal directors at any time. If you have any additional comments, please make them now. I appreciate all of the comments by everyone who participated here. I think the portal has been improved significantly due to all the great feedback. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nihonjoe. Happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for the support, and I appreciate all your constructive criticism and comments. They have helped make the portal better. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments, questions, criticism, or concerns? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will likely close this within another week barring any objections/concerns/comments. Feel free to remind me if I don't. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to wait two weeks since the last comment? Seems a little excessive given how few people even bother commenting in this area. It's already been one week since the last comment (until today). :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a matter of "want", just a heads up comment from one of the two featured portal directors. If it is closed earlier by OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), that is fine too. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the explanation. This is (as I've stated before) my first time through this process, so I'm a little unfamiliar with everything. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note I have closed this as successful based on Cirt's comments of one month ago and several subsequent supports. There may be a delay before the bot processes the close. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just my screen, or does Portal:Speculative fiction/Fantasy page is too wide? Plus in Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected fantasy work/16, it uses a stamp image. My interpretation based on that specific Commons tag is that the stamp does have copyright and the public domain tag was not applied correctly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Looks fine on my screen. (1) and (2) These points were important enough to revert a good-faith closure? BencherliteTalk 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solution: remove the image for now. Re-close this nomination. I have faith that Nihonjoe can investigate the status of that image, and at a later date return it to the portal subpage if allowable. Otherwise, it stays removed. A good compromise? Imzadi 1979 → 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the stamp image is shown to be not in the public domain it can be removed at that point. I don't see any reason to remove it until that point. WP:AGF and all that (referring to the uploader). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reviewing the copyright information (in English) for Moldova, it doesn't explicitly mention postage stamps as covered or not covered. So, I'll go ahead and remove it. Anyone know of a good replacement image? That blurb really needs an image. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for OhanaUnited (and please don't take this as an attack, I'm merely curious): why did it take you three months to post any concerns? I understand that you may be busy with other things, but this discussion has lasted three times longer than the "standard" 30 days which I understood most featured portal discussions should last. Also, as Bencherlite mentioned, that could have been brought up outside of this discussion. All of the images used were personally checked and verified to have the proper licensing on Commons, so any discussions of whether a particular image has the correct licensing belongs there, not here. If an image is found to have been improperly tagged there, there are bots which will remove the images. As for the size of the fantasy page, what resolution are you using? Which browser and OS are you using? Knowing this information will allow this issue to be troubleshot. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to start closing nominations.[3] So I look at the oldest nomination and work my way up. Of course, it will be very irresponsible if I just promote it without going through the portal myself so I feel obligated to go through each section to take a look. Since there're many articles and tabs to go through, this is probably the portal that took me the most time to reviewed. The cut-off screen and the stamp issue caught my attention so I decided to raise the concern. Going to the screen issue on the Fantasy page, I have tried on my laptop and able to reproduce the issue. Both my desktop and laptop are on 1024X768 with FireFox 3.6. I suspect the "Related portals" on the bottom causes the screen to stretch. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. I slightly resized the images to allow for people with tiny resolutions (especially compared to what I'm used to using as a graphic designer) and it should be fine for you now (I tested it at that resolution). Any other concerns? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OhanaUnited, I drew the backlog here to your attention; furthermore, Nihonjoe had previously raised the length of this discussion on more than one occasion at the FPoC talk page, but you did not join in the discussion. You did not reply to my message. The backlog of noms has been here for quite a while, as you would have seen if you paid any attention here. Rather than hassle you or Cirt again, I closed this nomination. You reopened it. You have not explained, despite my request, why you reverted a good-faith closure in accordance with the archival instructions which say that any editor in good standing may close a nomination. You still have not explained, despite being asked by me and by Nihonjoe, why you had done nothing with this nomination for virtually three months, and only acted after it had been closed. Do you intend to reply to me or Nihonjoe on these points? BencherliteTalk 08:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't so much care about why it's taken so long, and I don't really care if OhanaUnited answers that question or not. The featured portal area is apparently known for having very few participants and very slow responses (something shared with other featured areas outside of featured articles and featured pictures, apparently). I don't think there's anything else left to be addressed, though. Every issue which has been raised has been resolved as far as I can tell (including the width of the fantasy tab), so unless there are further concerns to be raised, I don't see any reason to keep this discussion open any longer (since it's been over three months since it started). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note

Six supports and no opposes. Further nitpicking and minor issues, may be addressed at the portal's main talk page. Promoting... -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2010 (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 Cirt 18:36, 1 September 2010 [4].

Portal:U.S. Roads

[edit]

This portal is supported by the U.S. Roads WikiProject with regular monthly updates. Unlike some other portals I've recently browsed, our project as a whole updates it with monthly nominations for selected article, photo and DYK hooks. The portal is also updated one extra time of the year for April Fool's Day, where the introduction and other sections of the portal change with alternate versions for the day. Additionally, a special selected article and photo are used. We strive for regional balance with our selections, attempting to shine the spotlight each month on states that have never been selected for articles or photos. Any comments are appreciated.

This is a second nomination. There were no issues left over from the previous nomination, which was closed for a lack of consensus to promote. Additionally, there was a lack of reviews related to this portal. The applicable project has been notified through its announcement template.

On behalf of several members of WP:USRD, Imzadi 1979 → 20:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: P:USRD is laid out well, covering different types of articles in different parts of the country, and is diligently maintained, nearly monthly since mid-2007, by WP:USRD. —Fredddie™ 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could notify other related WikiProject talk pages along relevant parent and sub topics? -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HWY (the parent project), WP:UKRD and WP:CRWP notified. Imzadi 1979 → 00:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's sad that this portal was failed purely for lack of support rather than for any outstanding issues, so I'll try a review even though it's not a topic I know anything about... It's a clean-looking portal, perhaps a little dull. Personally I much prefer rotating contents but it does seem to have been consistently maintained in the past and there's not been consensus to change the requirements. My comments are minor...

  • I don't think "Over 10,000 articles have been written on Interstate, US, and state roads." is appropriate, particularly not in the lead.
  • Related portals might be better towards the bottom, rather than encouraging people to click elsewhere immediately.
  • The news box seemed long, and some is several months old. I don't think it needs referencing, and certainly not in so prominent a fashion (perhaps a link at the bottom to a subpage might be appropriate if references are needed)?
  • Still of the opinion that this is overly long, given that the earliest two items are from March, and I'm not convinced about the need for references in a text box at the top level.
  • The images don't have hover text.
  • Not fixed.
  • The bottom half of the portal has no graphical content and visually is rather dull.
  • There is still a lack of graphical content, both at the bottom of the portal and in the right-hand column.
  • Some copy editing throughout would be useful. In the lead, the capitalisation is inconsistent and east–west &c needs an en rule; in the news, there are hyphens & en rules mixed after the date; DYKs have hyphens in place of en rules &c&c. (Are the DYKs from the main page, by the way, or does the project select its own?)
  • Capitalisation of highways still differs between State highways & Interstate Highways/U.S. Numbered Highways in the lead. Archived DYKs still need en rules, as does archived articles.
  • "Things you can do" seems a bit lacking, and in particular shouldn't start with "See also".
  • Suggest the archive order should be reversed (most recent first).
  • Still prefer this the other order, but agree it's more a matter of taste.
  • Also, not directly on the portal, but I found it rather off-putting to find a huge stop sign when I clicked the talk page of the US Highways WikiProject -- not very friendly to potential new editors coming in from the portal!

Hope this helps you to develop the portal! Espresso Addict (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few comments for now that are just my opinion:
  • I moved the related portals down and made it full width, which should help balance the graphics out.
  • I disagree with removing the references. We require/request references in articles, so why not here when not all of the news items will necessarily be added to articles.
  • We've kept about 8 items in the News section. As new items are added, the older ones are archived. There hasn't been many news items to add lately, and I can't make the state highway departments regularly change highway designations, build or open new major roads and such.
  • Hover text? Is that required and where is it required? Isn't there text pop-ups for the related portal graphics already?
  • Copyedited the lead. I didn't where there were needed en dashes for the DYKs. Are you talking about the current DYKs or the archives?
  • The DYKs are a mix of previous main page DYKs or any other article hooks.
  • The last comment you made isn't really applicable to this nomination, but I don't see the problem. We've had people direct comments to the main project page instead of the appropriate subpages, so some kind of box is appropriate, and a stop sign is appropriate to a highways project.
Thanks for the review. I'll comment more later. Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with Expresso that the "Over 10,000 articles..." is a bit random and should not be put in the lead. Rather, it is an uninteresting fact and could be put in the "Things you can do" section, but overall I think the fact should be omitted. --PCB 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been removed. We've been working on some infobox updates, so my progress has been a little slower than normal on this, but I'm still working on it. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't see a reason to flip the archive order. I'm not sure that it matters what order the archives are in, as long as they are kept in order, as for the rest, all applicable suggestions have been implemented. Thanks for the review. Imzadi 1979 → 19:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too busy at the moment to do a full re-review (prod me if I don't get around to it), but there are still obvious copy editing problems -- just in the first article of news, for example, the date is misformatted and "accommodate" is misspelled. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was recently added, and I might add, recently corrected. For something so minor, reviewers are allowed and even encouraged to make minor adjustments like that. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'm game for mucking in, but my RSI is flaring up after a round of copy editing to a friend's FAC. Sorry, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised comments interleaved above. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here together to a few points:

  • Consensus among the project has been to cite the sources of the news items, because as I said, not all of these developments will merit inclusion into specific articles. This is unlike the selected article blurb, where a variation on the lead is used on the portal and the lead is a summary of the referenced material in the selected article. As long as there are to be references, there will need to be a place to display them. I don't think there's a way to link a footnote from one page to appear on another.
  • Could you just put the references into an archive copy? ie put the current news in the news archive with references, but delete the citations for the news that goes on the portal front page.
  • Second, I asked before, but what is "hover text" and where is it required? How do I add it?
  • Hover text is the text that appears when you mouseover an image. As far as I'm aware it's required for all images. You add it where the caption goes: [[File:Image.jpg|right|240px|Hover text here]]
  • I don't know whether or not FPs also require descriptive alt text, which is what is read out by eg browsers for the blind. That is added using the alt parameter: [[File:Image.jpg|right|240px|alt=Alt text here|Hover text here]]
  • I can't speak for anyone else, but I have Tools/Navigation popups activated, so when I hover over any link, I get a small preview of the content. I'm guessing that's not what you mean by "hover text". I assume "hover text" is created by specifying alt text itself. Last I knew, alt text is recommended but not required for any image. —Fredddie™ 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interstate Highway and US (Numbered) Highway are proper names, state highway is a generic term unless part of a name (State Highway 1). That's why the capitalization varies. An interstate highway just crosses state lines, but an Interstate Highway is a part of the Eisenhower Interstate and Defense Highway System. Technically, most US Highways are interstate highways as well. A US Highway is a part of that system, while a US highway is any highway in the country.
  • Ok, thanks for the explanation.
  • What graphics or images would you have me add? Adding blank highway marker signs to the projects list or the numbered highway nav box would likely run afoul of MOS:ICON. The current news items don't have photos in their articles. I'm loathe to go back to the practice of defaulting to highway shield markers just to have an image, which was done in the past with the selected articles and phased out.
  • I think you're a better judge of what's available than I.
  • As for the archives, I'll run through them later this evening. A project member recently when through the archives to switch all of the "Recent selections" to bullets from any mixture of en dashes and hyphens. I'll examine the actual text myself then. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies here, as interleaving them breaks up who's saying what:

  • Um, the only way that might work is if editors who add news items comment out the references and remember to uncomment them out when archiving. Otherwise you're suggesting immediate archival, which is different than how the SA/SP processes work. Let me be clear, you have not convinced me, based on the Featured Portal Criteria that removing the references is required. WP:V should apply here just as much as in an article. The Main Page might not have references because content there is recycled content from linked articles. As I've explained here, not all news items will be worthy of inclusion in their articles over concerns with WP:Recentism.
  • I've just told you that there's no images that can be added at this time to the news box, and that adding images to the project or nav box is going to run against MOS concerns. This objection is therefore not actionable.
  • I'm working on the archives, at the moment. I'm loathe to change much more, as it is a historical record of what was on the portal at the times indicated. I will change typography, and some minor details, but no more, to preserve the archive, warts and all. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hover text", aka captions, added to the main content on the portal. I will add to the archived versions later this evening. If alt text is specified, I'll leave it in the archives, but I won't add it at this time unless someone can point me to a requirement for it. Last I know, FAC still hasn't required it again, and the guidelines on alt text have been in flux lately. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still concerned over the references, and I'm sure similar concerns have been raised on other portals before, but I'll leave it up to the FP directors to rule on that front. I think the archives should change any remaining spelling/grammar mistakes, but agree that changing the wording of what appeared previously isn't useful. I agree there's no clarity on whether alt text is required for portals (perhaps again that's something that the FP directors could comment on). I can't see hover text on two of the three images on the main portal page at the moment, and it's also missing on some of the recent images in the Selected Article archive; I didn't check all the archived images. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swept through the archives for minor grammar and spelling. I've swept through for captions, fixing them where the |alt=|link= coding interfered with them. In some cases though, the best caption is duplicative of the text below the image for the SPs. (That's the correct term for your previously confusing "hover text". If a photo is not in a thumbnail, the caption is displayed using a "tool tip".) All of your concerns, save the references, have been addressed, and I've given a logical rationale why they are being kept to address that concern. Imzadi 1979 → 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having the added references can only improve a portal subpage's quality and that of the portal overall itself, not hurt it. However, there are certainly multiple various ways to hide the references from display on the main portal page and only have them viewable on the portal subpage. "Commenting out" is one suggestion, and using <noinclude></noinclude> is another. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Cirt. This portal has done above and beyond by having references and properly maintained each month (close enough...) Just a non-binding suggestion, for April Fool's day selected picture entries, perhaps you should include the reason why it's humorous. Then again, April won't come for another 9 months so this thing is close to the bottom on the to-do list. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are now hidden. Thanks to TwinsMetsFan (talk · contribs), the references are now in a collapsible section. In weighing possible courses of action, it was felt that since many project editors add news items to the portal, unlike the SA/SP/DYK sections that are maintained by a select few editors, that the process should be kept as simple as possible. To that end, commenting out the references until archival; immediately adding the content to both the current list and the archive, and the archive containing the references alone; the use of <noinclude></noinclude> tags or other suggestions were too complicated. In the end, making the section collapsed on the main portal page was judged to be the best option. The references are still present, nothing about the news item submission process has been changed or complicated, and the references are still accessible by readers for verification of the content. (Yes, we know that the [show] link is in blue instead of white, but that's a technical issue related to how the site handles things. If anyone can suggest a workaround, please do so, but I don't think one exists.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear I'm not keen on this solution. I remain to be convinced that it's impossible to hide the references, including the citations, on the portal front page, whilst maintaining them on the news archive subpage. Even if the section is edited by multiple people who are not necessarily familiar with the system, hidden text instructions work fine in other places, and your trusted portal maintainers could always watchlist the news & news archive and copy edit submissions that don't meet the style. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can I point out another problem with the current arrangement for references on the main page? If you click on the reference number, nothing happens because the references are hidden – if the references are on show, then clicking on the reference number acts as a hyperlink. Unless a reader happens to notice the "references" box at the bottom of the portal, he/she wouldn't be likely to discover the references... This present solution is not any better than the previous situation, and is arguably worse. Why not have the references in a collapsed section within the news box, so that the reader can more easily see that there are references and can click on "show" to find more details, but the look of the portal is not affected by having the references visible to start with? BencherliteTalk 07:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess my opinion then is to return to the original situation. EA asked for the FPOC directors' opinions. Cirt and Ohana have both stated that the references improve the portal. Cirt offered suggestions to hide them, but didn't express an opinion if that should be done. Ohana did not offer suggestions nor an opinion that they should be hidden. I'm of the opinion that the references improve the portal and should remain. EA doesn't seem to agree, nor budge on the insistence that they be hidden. I'd like to revert this and return to the original situation. The FPOC criteria do not disallow the references, and as stated by the directors, they can only improve the situation. Imzadi 1979 → 07:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do seem to be going round in circles here. I think Bencherlite's fix is the best I've yet seen, but it still leaves the problem of the citations hanging around on the front page, which to me is a deal-breaker. I don't see Imzadi & I coming to consensus on this, so I'm walking away from the discussion. Please count all my comments as comments, with no support or oppose "vote". Espresso Addict (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, have you considered using <categorytree>Roads in the United States</categorytree> in the "categories" box, rather than a partial and static list of categories? This is what some Featured Portals do e.g. Portal:Nevada/Categories; advantages are that (1) the list is complete; (2) it's easier to browse the category structure from the portal, rather than having to leave the portal to do so; (3) the portal is automatically up to date with any changes to the category structure and so no further maintenance is required. BencherliteTalk 17:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion! We might need to do a little cleanup of the category structure, but it looks good. Imzadi 1979 → 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't have done the news references in this way, but I don't think it's oppose-worthy really. Keep up the good work! BencherliteTalk 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note

Portal discussion has been open for almost 3 months now, with two supports, and no opposes. Promoting... -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2010 (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 Cirt 18:54, 1 September 2010 [5].

Portal:Barack Obama

[edit]

From the first nom (failed) this spring, I've tried to perfect a few things and Sceptre has helped tidy it out a bit. Any more suggestions are welcome, but I think that this portal is ready to become featured. —fetch·comms 01:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments it's a clean layout, but I have to wonder one thing. Why are all of the headers in red? In the US, red=Republican and blue=Democrat. I agree that the less directly related articles shouldn't be included in the portal's contents. IMHO, it distracts from the core topic. Imzadi 1979 → 02:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting observation. I thought it looked a bit clearer than blue, which is the current border color, just based off the colors of the American flag. I've changed it around, though, to see how it looks. —fetch·comms 03:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks good. A couple other comments before I can support promotion of the portal. There aren't captions in the photos for the SAs. Can they be added? It was commented at the current FPOC for Portal:U.S. Roads that photos should have captions (which is part of the FPOC criteria) and requested that I add these "hover text" captions. The second thing, are there any photos that can be added to the DYK hooks? If so, that would be great. Imzadi 1979 → 03:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I use the portal once in a while and saw this, so I decided to drop by with a comment. Some of the portal's did you knows are interesting but some make no sense, for example "... that the grandfather of Barack Obama's Cabinet Secretary, Chris Lu (pictured), was attorney general for the Republic of China?" So what does his Chris Lu's grandfather have to do with Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.171.167 (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we discussed this earlier on IRC... I will find some more for these indirectly related ones just as the less related selected articles were removed. —fetch·comms 21:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —fetch·comms 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I particularly like what Fetchcomms has done with this; I didn't notice this was here until someone pointed it out to me on IRC. I thought I'd do some work on it to get it through FPoC, but still: it's quite good work. Sceptre (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three thoughts: (1) Consider using User:JL-Bot/Project content to generate the "Recognized content" box, as it's then automatic (provided the articles have the project tag...). (2) Does Barack Obama have to be wikilinked every time Barack Obama is mentioned in the Barack Obama portal, whether in a DYK about Barack Obama, a quote of or about Barack Obama, a photograph of Barack Obama, etc? Overload, surely? (3) In similar vein, you could pipe many of the article titles in the "topics" box to reduce the sea of blue and reduce repetition e.g. change this:

Presidency: Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009) • Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2010) • First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency • Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration • Political positions of Barack Obama • Public image of Barack Obama • List of judicial appointments made by Barack Obama • Presidential transition of Barack Obama • Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet • Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates • Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, 2009 • Inauguration of Barack Obama • List of unofficial events for the inauguration of Barack Obama • We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial

to this:

Presidency: Timeline (2009) • Timeline (2010) • First 100 days • Foreign policy • Political positions • Public image • Judicial appointments • Presidential transition • Cabinet confirmations • Supreme Court candidates • Speech to Congress (2009) • Inauguration • Unofficial inauguration events • We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial

...etc. Otherwise, looking good. BencherliteTalk 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll figure the bot out.
  • Good point, will remove it from the DYKs, quotes, pictures, and stuff
  • Interesting idea. I'll work on that.
Thanks for the comments! —fetch·comms 02:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I set up the bot page, but it hasn't filled it yet, so waiting on that. Maybe I did it wrong (Portal:Barack Obama/Featured content is its temporary spot). Done removing overlinked words with the help of Chzz and AWB, and done with shortening up the topics list. —fetch·comms 01:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good. The bot runs once a week or so, and you just missed it, but it should be fine and it's then one less thing to worry about in updating the portal. BencherliteTalk 12:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Featured_log/September_2010&oldid=905827922"