Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured Portals in Wikipedia

A featured portal is a portal which is regarded by the community as being particularly good. This page is where featured portal candidates are considered by the community.

Please see "what is a featured portal?" for general standards and criteria.
Shortcut:
WP:FPOC

Featured content:

Featured portal tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Check the featured portal criteria and make sure the portal meets all of them before nominating. Consider using portal peer review before submitting a portal here.
  2. Place {{portalnom}} on the talk page of the nominated portal.
  3. From there, click on the "leave comments" link.
  4. (If you are resubmitting a portal) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Foo → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portal:Foo/Archive 1
  5. Place ===[[Portal:Foo]]=== at the top.
  6. Below it, write your reason(s) for nominating the article.
  7. Add the portal to the current candidates list. You can add this list to your talk page using {{FPcandidates}}
  8. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Foo}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to replace "Foo" with the name of the nominated portal.

Supporting and objecting

Please read nominated portals fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the portal nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
  • If you approve of a portal, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to a portal's suitability for the Wikipedia.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Consensus must be reached for a portal to be promoted to featured portal status. Consensus shall be determined by a nomination closer who is not materially involved in the portal's development or maintenance, or any related WikiProjects. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.

To archive a nomination:

  1. Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the portal in the edit summary.
  2. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted portals or log of failed candidacies, as appropriate.
  3. Update the log tallies in {{Featured portal log}}.
  4. On the article's talk page, change {{portalnom}} to {{featuredportal}} or {{portalnomfailed}}, as appropriate.
  5. For promotions:
    1. update Wikipedia:Featured portals.
    2. update Wikipedia:Featured content/Portals.
    3. add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.
    4. add {{FA}} to the appropriate entry at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory.
    5. add {{Featured portal}} to the portal page, just above any interwiki entries.

Contents

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Portal:Robotics

Portal:Robotics
 Robotics Portal

Hey, this portal has been on the up and up for awhile now, and definitely deserves featured status. A peer review has been made, with all comments either done or addressed. Thanks. Joe I 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: All my comments were addressed in the review. Good work, [sd] 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support No objections here, looks FP material to me. feydey 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments. Replying your answers:
  • The main page provides the core standards for portals, and since it contains read more links, the portal should too. I also believe it'll be more helpful to inexperienced readers.
  • Althought the WP:MOS is not a policy (a guideline but still), each featured portal is still expected to adhere it. Linking years alone certainly isn't helpful in context, and should normally be linked to the subject year rather than the year itself.
  • Again, see the main page for example. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we normally expect the reader to access the relevant picture articles after their portrayal.
  • It'll simply be more graphically appealing if the projects are illustrated with images due the section's similarity to the "Related portals" section.
Since the projects are so similar to the allready illustrated portals, it would be a redundant use of images. Joe I 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
And if there is no cat for robots on whatever other wikimedia, you propose just deleting the link, even tho it would deny access to the one or two entries that reside under a larger cat. Related wikimedia should be readily accessible. Joe I 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll check it out, but the portal is well balanced now, and if I can't find more than 5, I won't. Joe I 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Library and information science

This portal has been peer reviewed and all concerns have been addressed. I believe that the portal satisfies the featured criteria. Thanks for your consideration. Planetneutral talk 15:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. The portal appears to up to the standards of Portal:Visual arts. All the existing issues were resolved in peer review. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very visually appealing and seems to be of the highest standards. Tarret 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: As Planetneutral said, "all concerns have been addressed." Great job, S.D. 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Everything I had was addressed in review, tho I would like to see a different icon for either computer science or IT portals(in related portals box), just so two(especially side by side) don't have the same icon. May I suggest Image:Nuvola apps kcmprocessor.png or Image:Nuvola apps krfb.png. Joe I 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the CS portal was added by another editor while I was out of town. I switched the CS icon over to that processor one, since the IT portal actually uses the icon that was already in place. Thanks for the support and suggestion. Planetneutral talk 20:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:AC/DC

The user who improved the portal thus far, HK51, has left Wikipedia. I'm taking upon myself the task to continue improving the portal towards featured portal status. I'd be happy to hear if anyone has any suggestions, specifically for coloring. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is this really a broad enough topic to meet the criteria? Planetneutral talk 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It's generally expected for a portal to have one non-stub header article, and at least three non-stub articles detailing subject matter. In this case, I've counted 60 AC/DC-related article. Yes, I believe it qualifies. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a pretty minimal expectation and I'm frankly astonished that it would be considered an indication of breadth to have four relevant articles. I'm trying to locating previous discussions or guidelines where what you've cited is laid out and am not having any luck. All I can find is where Portal:Tube was rejected for not being broad enough, even though, from what I could tell, it had well more than three non-stub articles available to it at the time. Respecting your considerable authority on the topic, could you point me in the right direction? Planetneutral talk 19:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Tube has barely 10 non-stub articles on Wikipedia; although this doesn't guaranty its deletion, it isn't sufficient to uphold a complete portal. I think there are more than enough articles on this topic, which led to a portal with quite a lot of content, no less than Portal:The Beatles and Portal:Rush (band). Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess my hesitation has less to do with the amount of available content and more with questioning whether an individual artist in any discipline is inherently broad enough to constitute a useful entry point, as per WP:WIAFPo. My gut feeling was (and really still is) no and since I didn't see anything comparable already featured, I thought it was worth discussing. If others see it the same way you do, I'll certainly lend my support, although that news section needs an update. I'm not a huge fan of the goofy guitar graphic either. Planetneutral talk 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. When I checked the portal, it showed a transcluded red link for Portal:AC/DC/Selected article/5. That definitely needs to be fixed before the portal can become Featured. Kusma (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, news section doesn't look like the best Wikipedia has to offer. Kusma (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any specific problem? I've given it an update, although I have trouble in finding any additional AC/DC news that might be considered notable. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly fond of news sections with 1 year old news items. Perhaps you should go for a much shorter News section, or no news section at all? Another problem is the complete lack of images on the upper half of the portal (except for that guitar icon). Perhaps the intro blurb is too long, and a selected article without picture doesn't help, either. Good pics for the album articles are probably difficult, but maybe you can find a creative solution. Kusma (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • With only 5 each selected articles and pics, I have trouble seeing this as broad enough.
  • Selected articles need the bolded title linked as well.
  • Year old news is not needed.
  • Quotes should use {{cquote}}.
  • No wikimedia.

Joe I 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Cuba

This is a second nomination. The first nomination failed miserably, (see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cuba/Archive 1) and since that time, various measures have been undertaken to improve the portal and address the previous shortcomings.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • Oppose Support. Has somewhat improved, but once again I suggest referring to the portal peer review. Comments:
  • Merge "Detailed site map" into "Main topics".
Do you mean move the site map into the Main Topics section?-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikiprojects" > "WikiProjects". Done The image in that section is absolutely unnecessary.
The image is the banner for the project, hence it's inclusion.-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Featured content" focuses solely on articles.
Previously I was told "If you are making a list then it should be named Featured content"-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Related portal should be related to the subject (e.g. the geography portal), not nearby countries.
Is that the case? I took my lead from other featured potals such as Portal:Germany. Besides, linking to other Caribbean portals is surely helpful to readers.-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No need in a purge link in a certain section, adding "Show new selections" below the introduction would be enough.
Having the purge link in the section is a guide to users to change the selections in that section. There are no other sections that are randomised in that fashion, so if the purge link was moved, and a user wanted to see new selections they'd have to go to an unrelated part of the page.-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Image thumbnails or frames don't go well in portals and disturb the background. Look at our featured portals for styling. Done
  • The "Did you know..." could use an image. I advice adding this one. Done
  • "Randomized selections" > "Selection by date", not to mention there are very few good Cuba-related articles and images.
Could you clarify the "Randomized selections" > "Selection by date" comment? If you are asking why the articles, pics and so on are updated by date and the DYK section is updated at random, why not?
  • "In the news" section:
  • Avoid shortening months in the "In the news" section. Done
  • Remove the space between the dates and the colons. Done
  • Style all the "read more" links the same for constancy. Done
Could you clarify the third remark?-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some Done's'. Some of the remaining points will require more thought and perhaps discussion. Regarding the other categories appearing on the main page, I don't know how to avoid that as they are transcluded from the sub categories on individual sub pages. Any idea how that is avoided? And could you clarify what "Style all the "read more" links the same for constancy" means in reference to "In the news".-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding each of the remaining suggestions:
  • The "Detailed site map" provides exactly the same content already found on "Main topics". There's no need to add a separate section for additional less-important topics.
  • What are your thoughts on this? Personally, as a topics section in a portal should only contain major topics, I suggest to entirely remove the "Detailed site map" section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Although freely-licensed images may be used without a strong purpose, the image here appears to be confusing, giving the viewers the impression that the section solely lists this WikiProject. Maybe a small image next to each corresponding WikiProject would be better. Done -- Zleitzen(talk) 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The section's name isn't appropriate for its content. Either rename it to "featured articles" or add a subheader for them, leaving place for any future non-article additions. Done -- Zleitzen(talk) 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It does seem that Portal:Latin America lists all its countries inside the "Related portals" section, but they're all directly related to the subject, as opposed to nearby countries. Once again, I suggest adding portals that are closely associated with the country aspects.
Not done Neighbouring countries are intrinsically associated with the country's aspects. Why remove them and make users have to go into another portal to locate Haiti, Jamaica, United States etc? I don't see that as a problem and it's an idea borrowed from featured portals Portal:Germany, Portal:Indonesia, Portal:Ukraine. -- Zleitzen(talk) 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I expect that a link inside a section would only apply to the section itself, not the portal in whole. Besides, the rest of the sections not being randomized is a subject to change.
Done -- Zleitzen(talk) 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a few benefits of randomized display:
  • There isn't a need to return and update each of the sections. When you have found an article that you believe should be selected, just add it to the selections list.
  • As I've said, there are 9 FA/A class articles related to Cuba, which can hardly last until the end of this year. There aren't many good biographies as well.
  • Viewers don't have to wait an entire month or day for a selections switch. Done -- Zleitzen(talk) 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michaelas, Regarding the detailed site map, the initial inspiration came from comments in the previous nomination, that the portal lacked detailed links. Not being in anyway technically minded and getting help from my own more savvy kids, obviously I'm not going to approve of its removal as it took months of work and hundreds of edits to hone! Personally I though it was a triumphant innovation for a portal as it provides links to many, many pages in a clear and easy navigational form, that would WOW onlookers with its wizardry! Apparently not it seems :( In my opinion I would prefer it if the main topics section was removed, the site map was retained, and the guidelines be damned. The number one priority is the usefulness of the portal, and since the site-map was created I have found it very useful.-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse if you think that the main topics section needs to be removed as a fork. However, unlike "site map", it is a very common section name in portals, so I suggest renaming the existing section following the removal. Anyhow I feel the portal has really improved since it was originally nominated, and I would be happy to support once all the corrections are made. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Michaelas, I've removed the Main topics section - renamed the section and the site map "Topics" and uncollapsed the nav bar, which kind of works better for the portal! I've also sorted out the categories. The one remaining change I haven't initiated on your recommendations is the removal of "neighbouring countries" in the related portals section. I'd be interested to hear other users comments.-- Zleitzen(talk) 14:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further suggestions

  • A few things I can recommend for further improvements:
Done With some reservations as to how it looks.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've modified it a little. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Purge server cache" - Duplicates the existing "Show new selections". Done
  • Make formatting changes to the new archive according to the current; similarly add references in the "November" section. Done
  • "Quote of the day" - "Nominate" > "Nominate...". Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Done

Support. A few more comments:

  • Related portals: I don't think "Related portals and portals of neighbouring countries:" is needed. Done
  • Categories: Maybe you could decrease the font size a little (example). Done

Other than that, the portal looks good! S.D. 12:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, your recommendations have been very helpful and have really improved the portal.-- Zleitzen(talk) 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Lots of work done, good job. Joe I 18:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Portals:  Featured (Criteria, Candidates) | List | Directory | WikiProject | Guidelines | Instructions | Peer review | Category
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_portal_candidates_5c66.html"