Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Speculative fiction/archive1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal:Speculative fiction

I've greatly improved this portal over the last 2-3 months. I initially created it way back in October 2005, but was unsuccessful in getting things rolling then. As I was really new on the site then, I had difficulty figuring out how to do things and so the portal remained mostly unchanged over the next four years or so. I'd generally like feedback on everything. I created the portal logo to make it a little more attractive that it was previously, and I'm willing to entertain critique of it, as well. I'd like to get the portal to featured status eventually. Thank you for your time in helping out here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually do reviews of anything, articles or portals, so my comments may not be very helpful ;) I really like the whole look of the portal, it's very captivating. Having the tabs to the main genres right at the top is also a good idea. In the people section there are lists like the manga artists and women comics artists that aren't directly related to just speculative fiction, but I understand the reasoning for including them. The only major problem I see is in the Publications section that is missing links to lists of publications or categories of publications. –Cattus ^talk 16:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are very useful. I've added two sections to the Publications tab. Does that look better now? As for the manga artists and women comic artists, yeah, there aren't any lists of those here that are split out by genre since most of them seem to work in multiple genres (Rumiko Takahashi, for example, works in fantasy, science fiction/alternate history, contemporary (as in "no speculative fiction at all"), and horror). Thanks for your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what was missing. You're right, comics creators seem to work on many different genres in a way that makes it hard to classify them that way.–Cattus ^talk 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments or suggestions? I just redid the topics at the bottom of each of the tabs so they would look more like part of the portal. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cattus pretty much covered my thoughts and the changes you've made since look great. I'm wondering (and I'm still pretty new to wiki editing so this is truly a question); would it be good to make the "speculative fiction topics" near the bottom collapsible? They seem "roomy" but that may be fine. Like I said, I'm new. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely "roomy", though none of the other portals I've seen have them collapsed. I think it's not too big, and it is also at the bottom, so having it expanded like that shouldn't be too bad. Thanks for the comments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking really good, I like the colour scheme and the logo you've designed. I also like the tab system at the top, and the releases & news section. I think some of the article summaries may be a little bit too long; Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria suggests no more than 200 words. Also, I think it would be good (I don't know if this generally looked for or not) to have an easy way for people to make suggestions for selected articles - maybe a link next to the "archive" link on each one. I don't know if you have room, but it might be nice to have a "selected picture" section - but I don't know what pictures there are available, so that would depend on what there is. This is a pretty huge topic, so well done in putting together such a coherent & interesting portal! --Beloved Freak 16:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I would like to have a featured/selected picture section, but (given the nature of the topic) there aren't really many available for this topic unless I go with completely classical images (paintings and such from 100+ years ago). I'll see what I can do about the length of the summaries. I tried to keep them fairly small, but still large enough to be interesting. 200 words is really tiny, all things considered (your paragraph, minus your sig, is 146 words, so 54 more and it would be 200).

For having a place where people can suggest articles...I'm not sure how that would work. I'm not sure where I'd point them to suggest the articles, either. Any ideas? Thanks again for your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know it's pretty small. As far as suggesting articles, I didn't really look hard enough at what you already have on your article archive pages, and what you have is enough I think, as you have instructions on how to add another article. I've been trying to make instructions at Portal:Tanzania (Portal:Tanzania/Featured_article#Nominations) more with an view to instructing people who want to make a suggestion but aren't really experienced with Wikipedia or portal editing. But that might be overkill, I don't know. Yours is fine I think. Maybe you could add the word "nominations" or something to the archive link? (à la Portal:Barack Obama) I've run out of suggestions now! Nothing jumps out at me, but I'll have another look.--Beloved Freak 21:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added the nomination link to the template used for that, so it should show up the next time you reload the page. Does that work? Nice idea, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks good.--Beloved Freak 23:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of another little nitpick. In the anniversaries section, there seems to be some inconsistent linking. There's overlinking, in my opinion, of some words like nationalities. I don't think "American" needs linking at all. If you do decide to link it though, it's not consistent at the moment, some instances are linked, some are not. Also, links like "science fiction" and "horror" - do you need to link those at all, given the sections you have on each? If you do keep them, I'd just link the first occurrence for each date. Do "televeision" and "film" need linking?--Beloved Freak 11:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mostly just copied from the first lines of the articles, and the articles are inconsistent about how they link. I'll be going back through them once I have all the redlinked dates completed in order to remove excess links. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The portal seems very nicely laid out and visually appealing - you clearly have done a great job in putting it together. However, it seems to me that there may be a significant mismatch between the structure and the content. Specifically, the portal is called Speculative Fiction, a term that is strongly associated with the written literature of books, a fact emphasized by the prominent display of a quill in the portal artwork. However, the planned content seems to be strongly skewed towards movies, television shows and games. If the main focus of the portal is to be science fiction/fantasy/horror media and games, then the portal should be given some other name. But if the portal is in truth a portal for Speculative Fiction, then the portal content should be primarily concerned with the written literature of speculative fiction. --BehemothCat (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any confusion, but speculative fiction covers more than just books. Also, I'm having trouble finding featured articles on books. If you know of any, please let me know and I'll be happy to add them. And since I made the logo, I can tell you that I was not trying to emphasize literature specifically. I appreciate the feedback, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here are links to catscans showing featured articles which are in Category:Science fiction novels [1], Category:Fantasy novels [2], and Category:Horror novels [3]. Not too many of them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's certainly possible to make the case that speculative fiction stretches far enough to encompass various non-literary works, it is clear that the term primarily refers to written literature. Wikipedia's speculative fiction article discusses the phrase solely in terms of written literature. The lead-in sentence of the article defines the term as "a fiction genre", while fiction is in turn defined as "a branch of literature". The Internet Speculative Fiction Database linked to by the article concerns itself solely with written works of literature. Another article link is to Dictionary citations for the term "speculative fiction". These citations were prepared for the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary, and again, all of them indicate that the term refers to written literature. This evidence strongly and unambiguously shows that the term Speculative Fiction refers primarily to written literature.

As to the logo, the fact you didn't intend for the the quill in the logo to emphasize literature doesn't really matter - when people, unaware of your intent, see a quill, they will think of written works. If, say, a projector and a joystick were included in the logo instead of the quill, the logo would then better represent the current planned content of the portal.

If you'd like to build a Portal that is mainly concerned with science fiction/fantasy/horror media and games, that's fine, but it should use some other name. The perceived scarcity of featured articles meeting the criteria of the portal shouldn't govern (or even influence) the portal content. Not all content has to be featured article quality - it's likely that there are plenty of suitable articles that could be used.

I hope that you don't think that I'm trying to rain on your parade - I really like the look of what you've done, and appreciate the work that went into it. It's simply that I feel that the portal as currently structured doesn't deliver what it purports to deliver. --BehemothCat (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree. The article we have is wrong if it's stating it only refers to written works, and the definition you give of "fiction" is far too narrow; every science fiction, fantasy, and horror film or game is "a work of fiction", and most even include a statement to that effect. If our article states "fiction" only applies to literature, then it is blatantly wrong and still stuck in the 19th century.

Additionally, literature is hardly the only repository of speculative fiction. The phrase is used in countless magazines and academic papers (I've helped run a speculative fiction academic symposium for the last 20 years) to refer to science fiction, fantasy, and horror regardless of media.

My intent for the logo does matter, and I've changed it to show that it applies to more than just written materials. I'm designing a portal to cover all of them, not just games, TV, and movies (as you seem to be insisting I'm doing). All of them: books, movies, TV, games, and anything else which is science fiction, fantasy, or horror fiction works. Insisting it doesn't and can't cover more than just written works is academic snobbery. I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh, and I'm not attacking you personally, but this is the kind of thinking which turns off people interested in only one of the speculative fiction genres. As they are so closely related, there is absolutely no reason to limit it to just science fiction or just fantasy or just horror, nor is there any reason to limit it to just literature or just media and games. There is so much cross-pollination between them that to try to do so would be pointless.

Again, I apologize if my comments come off as harsh, but this is a sore point and very closely connected to traditional literature buffs turning up their noses at speculative fiction because they think it's not worthy of their time or notice. Now a similar argument appears to be being applied to speculative fiction films, television and games just because their creators chose a different medium with which to tell their fanciful tales. I really do appreciate your feedback here, but your comments are missing the intent of this portal.

Regarding the inclusion of more than featured articles, I agree there are probably some good and B-class articles out there which would be good to add. However, I'm working on adding just the featured articles right now. Since I'm the only one working on it, those articles will have to wait until I work my way through the FA set and add all of those. Once I have, I'll move on to GA and B articles. I don't think it would be effective to add any assessed at a lower quality, however. If you know of any GA or B-class articles you think should be added, feel free to post them here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've expanded the number of selected articles to include 48 biographies (mostly authors), 21 science fiction works (mostly books), 5 fantasy works (this will be expanded a lot more), 9 horror works (this will be expanded), 11 publications, 78 DYKs, and there are only 83 redlink dates left in Anniversaries. So, a fair number of items. I want to get at least 20 works in each type in order to give a good variety. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone else like to offer any comments? Anyone who has already commented who would like to offer additional comments? I's significantly increased the number of literary works in the "random" works section of the portal (addressing a concern from BehemothCat), as well as adding more authors to the profiles "random" component (most of them will be authors anyway, as they are more likely to be directly related to this topic). I appreciate all the comment so far. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, I'm afraid don't have much to offer in the way of criticism, but thought I'd comment. I've just had another look, and I think it's looking really good. I'm very impressed (and a little jealous...) of the number of articles you are featuring in each section. I think that's great and makes for the kind of portal that people will want to revisit.

I've just been in your DYK section, ready to complain that there are only 10, not the claimed 78... and then I scrolled down the page! In the meantime, I clicked on red link Portal:Speculative fiction/Did you know/11, and I love the instruction notice! What a great idea! How do you do that by the way? I'm starting to sound like your portal's biggest fan, so I'll mention the only two things I could think of. Firstly, and this is probably more a reflection of how my brain works than anything else, I'm not too sure about the image in the "horror" section. I mean, I just don't find it that scary or horrifying. At very first glance, it seemed more sci-fi to me, just because of the green colour. And then, I don't know, it seems a bit light hearted, a bit scooby doo-ish? I was expecting something either more gory, or something more ghostly. As I say, that might just be me...

The only other thing was that when you click onto the "people" section, after the other sections it seems, at first glance, a bit bare. There's a lot of white space there, that may not grab the casual browser. I would maybe swap the list section with the profile section so that there's more text, and potentially an image, right at the top.

Just thought of a third thing; #5 of the criteria suggests linking to other Wikimedia projects where relevant. Do you have any of those? Is there a relevant page or category on commons you could link to? I imagine some of the other projects might have relevant pages or topics, either to do with speculative fiction, or specifically horror, sci-fi etc. Anyway, that's all I can think of so I'll stop rambling. I think you should definitely take it to WP:FPOC.--Beloved Freak 11:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. The instruction notice is placed by using the "Group notice Page notice" links (in this case, the "Group notice" link) pages. This shows up when anyone edits any page in the portal, so I thought it would be useful to place those instructional notices there for easy access.

I agree with you on the Horror section image. I used it mainly because it was used in the Horror fiction template. I've changed it to an image of a zombie. If you know of a better image, feel free to suggest it.

I added an image to the People section. The way things are currently set up, it would be difficult to put the random bio section in place of the intro (and also defeat the purpose of having an intro). If you have an idea for a better image for this section, please suggest it.

I've added a "Related portals" box at the bottom of each of the tabs in the portal. How does that work? There was already one of these at the bottom of the main portal page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better horror image! I see what you mean about the People section, but it looks better with an image. The related portals links look good - I like how they're different for each tab. No more suggestions!--Beloved Freak 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is still paying attention to this peer review, I've now added a randomized "Selected picture" section using speculative fiction-related images from the Picture of the day. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(looking round) Er... just me then? Pictures look good. Are you going to nominate it for Featured Portal? I personally can't see anything left to sort out on it. Unfortunately this section of Peer Review seems a little deserted. --Beloved Freak 22:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hanging in there. :) I have a few more redlink dates at Portal:Speculative fiction/Anniversaries to bluelinkify before I do that. Once I have those, however, I think I will nominate it. It's been a lot of work. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added two more sections: a randomized "Possible futures" section (on the left, culled from the 22nd Century and related articles) and an "Upcoming conventions" section (on the right). Thoughts? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.