Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/April 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Portal:India

This is a self nom for the Indian Portal. The portal has gone through a peer review and suggestions and concerns raised during PR have now been incorporated. I feel it meets all the criteria to be deemed WP:FPORT. AreJay 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • No archives for "Did you know" and "News".
  • The picture archive is a mess of redlinks. Something to the effect of "No picture has been selected yet" should be given for each of them.
  • The topic box has a redundant edit link and a strangely placed list of car models.
  • What is the picture in the news section related to?
  • The entire selected article/picture process is misplaced, since it fails to use a subpage slash immediately after "Portal:India"; in other words, Portal:India Today's selected article/March 2006 is a subpage of Portal:India Today's selected article, which is a separate portal from Portal:India.
  • Finally, the material needs to be copyedited. The "Today's selected article" blurb for the Indian rebellion of 1857, for example, is filled with grammatical mistakes. Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Contributors are working to address your objections. I don't see the "strangely placed list of car models"...where is it exactly? AreJay 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed already. Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • REALLY small text : P (I know you can enlarge it but still!)
  • Wikiprojects should either be moved from it's current position and/or merged with Related Portals or India Topics
  • Associated Wikimedia should be at the bottom
  • Did you know should have a question mark at the end
  • In News you've stacked the links, line them together with seperaters
  • What's the difference between Categories and India Topics?

A good start, but still a while to go, if these things got addressed (and maybe a colour change?) then it'd have my support : ) Highway 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

1. 1. Wikiprojects is unrelated to Related Portals or India Topics. Wikiprojects provides a platform for collaboration on various India related topics. It is more a platform than an actual topic.
   2. Can you clarify what you mean when you say "line them together with separators?"
   3. Categories are Wikipedia Categories dealing with India. India Topics contains a collection of India related sub-topics, organized by theme.
   4. As far as text, we designed the portal to appear presentable on a standard 800x600 resolution with browser text-size set to Medium. Perhaps, your text-size is set to small? I'm not saying it can't be changed if it is a definate issue, I'm only saying that I would rather leave it the way it is for now. If you feel this is an issue, we'll address it. AreJay 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The text is TOO small for 1024x768 which is fast becoming the norm. OTH, london portal is perfect for 1024x768. Also, I changed resolution to 800x600 and london portal is still fine and I find portal India size to be still bit small (although much better than 1024x768). (Blacksun 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)) Strong Support

Comment: Some work done to address above concerns:

1. Font size restored to normal

2. Associated Wikimedia moved to the bottom

3. "?" added at the end of Did you Know

AreJay 15:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Kirill Lokshin's questions

• Archive link for the Did you know? section has been added.
• Archive for the news already exists. It is linked as More current events in the news section.
• Car model link was removed.
• We still have work to do on the Selected Picture and Selected Article sections.

- Ganeshk (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work. Kirill Lokshin 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Some more pictures has been added to Picture archive. This archive is for the whole year, so it appears like a mess of redlinks, but gradually by putting some more images, it does not look like so. It has already a backup of more than 20 days.

Selected articles/pictures do not have a subpage for Portal:India, but it does not mean the process is misplaced. Link on Portal:India to direct through WP:PINSA as well as WP:PINSP has been provided. Now, a well suited link also has been provided to go to Portal:India in reverse.

Yes, Portal:India Today's selected article/March 22, 2006 has some grammatical mistakes. But sometimes it could occur, I think all other articles have not such kind of mistakes.

All the contents are of high quality. If there is some need to work somewhere, suggestions are invited. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really agree on the selected articles issue. If it's part of the India portal, it should be done on a subpage; if it's a separate process, it should be in the Wikipedia: namespace. I'm pretty sure it's not a separate portal, in any case, so it's current placement is inappropriate. Kirill Lokshin 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

NOw Selected articles/pictures are the subpages of portal. If still there are some suggestions to make them improve, please suggest. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have commented out the whole host of red links in the picture archive. Per your suggestion, I have also added a note at the bottom saying Nominees past the above week have not been added as yet. Does this and the above summary of the remediation effort sufficiently address your concerns? Thanks. AreJay 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent work; this has my full support now. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rama's Arrow 06:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very impressive. Brisvegas 11:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong obvious support Shyam ^(T/C) 14:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful. -- Saravask 21:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support One of the contributors. :) - Ganeshk (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support India-related topics really have a body of editors here on Wiki. Staxringold 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support so long as red links are eliminated outside of Tasks you can do.The Related portals section seems to be substituting a See also section, which is not strictly correct - but this isn't a reason to oppose. Good work - this portal has long deserved a makeover.--cj | talk 10:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: red-links removed. Can you clarify your suggestion on the Related Links section? I'll be happy to address that as well. Thanks AreJay 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think, making a different template for requested articles can help in removing red links. I am not sure. If we display "Requested articles" only on the portal, it may help. Anybody can see these red links by clicking on the template. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support It's great : P Highway 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment it looks really good,but with the influx of Country portals isn't it about time to have some more specific standards for them?Like how maps and the like are handled?--Technosphere83 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, well-run and updated fairly quickly. Definite support. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support AreJay, Urshyam and others have worked hard and addressed all issues. Great job! deeptrivia (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yup, also has additional features like WP:PINQ :p --Gurubrahma 17:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Would like to see something more "unique" from the portal though. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Aviation

Self nom. One of the first portals created, I've had a lot of time to tweak and am happy with the result. The next obvious step was to nominate here. Many great features; auto-changing "Selected" Pics and articles, and my favorite: Today in Aviation. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good, but object until various technical issues are fixed:
  1. All "edit" links should go directly to the correct subpage; the selected picture and anniversary ones merely allow one to edit the template call!
  2. The category list seems pretty incomplete; is this intentional?
  3. The "thumb" attribute on the selected picture seems unnecessary.
  4. Not all the lines in the "Other projects" box fit inside the borders; you may need to subst: the {{sisterlinks}} template and fiddle with it by hand.
  5. Might it be possible to avoid having two narrow boxes stacked at the bottom?
• Also, the introduction could stand to be slightly longer; this may be just a matter of preference, though. —Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  Seems these items have been addressed by User:TheKMan. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  Excellent, support from me. —Kirill Lokshin 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• comments:
  1. Why is trains in the related box? I rather see this space reserved for portals that actually deal with aviation (airliner portal,figher plane portal,ect..).The transport portal link is a nice touch tough.Seeing that there is now a cars portal this space could get crowded with distant related topics.I prefer portals with a direct relation not aviation > transport > trains.

  I've removed the trains Trains link from the related box. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. I like how some portals are implementing "topics",these aren't categories,but a box with actual important articles related to the portal organized and with some sub articles (with aviation some obvious articles would be "airliner","airport" and "pilot").The second thing I have seen that seems to be a step in the right direction is a box with a number of important lists.I mostly prefer lists to categories,because they tend to be more user friendly and pleasing.

  Do you have examples of this, I'd like to see it in use. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  Portal:War has a small one; Portal:London a much larger one. —Kirill Lokshin 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  Yes london is the best example I think,In my eyes it has an amazing topical overview.--Technosphere83 19:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  Of course these comments are only observations and aren't requirements for a featured portal. :) --Technosphere83 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support I like this, esp the winged images at the top. Rlevse 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see you added a topics box, it's a nice addition Support --Technosphere83 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  I see now how much of an improvement to navigation this box makes. I just started it though, I think there are a lot of important articles to put in it. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellently maintained and beautiful portal. I think this meets all the criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object: A potentially very useful portal to an important topic. However, as it stands, I cannot support it for featured status - but it hasn't far to go.

  Firstly, although the wikiwings icon are cute, I really think they must go - they give off a certain amateurism.

  Secondly, the icons present in only a few of the box-headers should be cut - they are inconsistent with the other box-headers, and look unappealing in IE (which still does not support transparent .png's).

  Fixed - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  Thirdly, and most importantly, the "Today in Aviation" section is not maintained, and shockingly for a feature candidate, is at present a red link. Red links are against the criteria in all areas save contribution-encouraging aspects (which should be limited).

  The other stuff I'll work on later but I just want to note that this section isn't really "not maintained" but is not yet complete. If you look here you'll see that there is a page for almost every day of the year. You just happened to catch one of the ones I didn't get to yet. It's taking a long time to transfer over all the events currently listed at Timeline of aviation and various year pages. If anyone wants to help see:Portal talk:Aviation/Historical anniversaries. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  That is quite an effort! However, they really need to all be complete, or the box hidden when they're not, to meet the standard.--cj | talk 01:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry its taking me so long to reply but work is killing me these days. Ok, how about if I put in a filler on all the remaining redlinked days. Something along the lines of "No events have been entered on this date yet. You can help by entering them. See Portal talk:Aviation/Historical anniversaries." - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  Fourthly, the intro and selected article boxes needs to be formatted to account for an IE bug - because the edit link is respositioned in the right of the box-header, the box text needs to immediately follow the </div> mark-up (no spacings, no breaks) where an image is present, else the text will render lower than the image.

  Fifthly, the introduction is rather lacklustre and also self-referential.

  Sixthly, the left column is far greater than the right. This may be a consequence of the neglect of "Today in Aviation", but I suspect it is still longer with that box. Perhaps you might consider ameliorating this alignment by re-arranging the text of "Categories" to be more compact or by other means.

  Lastly, and this is a suggestion not an objection, perhaps you might consider making transparent the white backgrounds of the tables appearing in three of the right-column boxes.

  I've taken a look at this but can't figure out the CSS codes to do that. Can anyone help? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've made two transparent, but I can't get topics to become transparent. I wasn't fussed about this; it looks okay either way.--cj | talk 07:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I do think this portal is greatly useful, but I don't think it is yet featured-standard. I'll happily support it once my points have been satisfactorily addressed. :)--cj | talk 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks good to me. --Terence Ong 08:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support Tobyk777 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks great! Staxringold 13:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support if the issues with "Things you can do" are fixed - see talk page. --GW_Simulations 23:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - a lot of hard work has obviously gone into this portal. Brisvegas 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I'm happy to support this portal as soon as three things have been taken care of: an expansion of the introduction, the elimination of any red links outside of Things you can do, and the reformat of Categories to make it more compact, but in line with the right column. Thanks, --cj | talk 10:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've stewed over the intro for a while and, not being very literally inclined (see what I mean), every attempt I make to add to it sounds forced. Can anyone help me out? I've added show/hide to the categories section so it's now shorter, but do people find it to still be too long? The redlinks are being worked on. I'm down to the last few years in the anniversaries. Some redlinks were included in those but nothing that can't be fixed. (I'd almost like to leave them in to promote article creation.) - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • With my virtually non-existant knowledge of aviation, I've extended the intro by a few sentences (after grabbing some ideas from Wikipédia française). I'm not sure if it makes any sense. The categories section still seems disproportionately large. My suggestion would be to opt for the more compact listings as in other featured portals, and then transfer Aviation Topics from the right coloumn to the bottom at full width. The no red links criterion for showcase sections is because they should be highlighting existing content. Red links are permitted for those sections that acknowledge and encourage contribution to deficiencies.--cj | talk 03:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm obviously no expert, but I was just noting that the Did you Know section hasn't been updated since August of last year, a long gap. Would it be wise to organize updating of such sections like is done on the Wikipedia Main Page? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I've been thinking about that. I guess I can set up an auto-updating thing like the anniversaries for now, but if people want to see new DYK's they need to start suggesting them. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, this portal has gone a long way since the nomination started and it is much better now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Food

Nomination: Portal:Food is a well designed and informative portal, that meets featured portal standards. The portal is updated weekly, and much time and effort has been put into constructing and mantaining it. The portal was recently peer reviewed,and most of the following previous concerns were dealt with. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • Introduction should really be longer.
  • "Food news" is entirely uncited; some of the items, at least, are surprising.
  • Picture in "Food news" section overlaps with text.
  • Inactive WikiProjects probably shouln't be linked to; it doesn't benefit the reader to be directed there.
  • Small fonts are overused; the list and category sections, in particular, would benefit from a larger typeface.
  • Hiding the topic box is a very bad idea; have you tried it on a non-Monobook skin?
  • "Associated Wikimedia" should be properly aligned within its box.

I'll also add that I strongly dislike the recent trend of certain portals forking off their own "Featured article" process, formatting and all. Kirill Lokshin 11:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll cross off each of the above as soon as they are addressed. However, I'll have to disagree with the inactive wikiproject comment, as readers might be interested in reviving them. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 12:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. No further objections from me, then. Kirill Lokshin 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object:

1. Font is too small. There's no reason for it.
2. No need to be excessive with cites in Food news. Also, no red links.
3. Things you can do, as a secondary aspect, needs to be moved. I'd suggest beneath Categories and Food lists. Alternatively, you could remove the "Inactive" section (which is of dubious merit) in WikiProjects and shift Things you can do to the lower right column.

• An otherwise useful portal.--cj | talk 09:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• By "font is too small", I mean the font is too small. It is set at 90% of the normal size. --cj | talk 04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support great portal.--cj | talk 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, good portal, but maybe add the Food image to the first section so it doesn't push everything below? (Just an opinion, you don't need to change it). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yum, I mean, Support. Very nice. The "Food" image as a heading is a bit tacky, though. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 15 April 2006 @ 22:36 (UTC)