Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/October 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Portal:Poetry
I created this portal nearly 3 months ago, and since that time it has run flawlessly. About a month ago it underwent an aesthetic facelift. Knowing that I wanted to nominate it for featured status, I enlisted the advice of Ambuj.Saxena and Kirill Lokshin to give me advice as to how to improve it. I abided by their advice, made the proper corrections, and I believe that the portal is now nearly flawless; and more importantly, it is a great showcase of Wikipedia's poetry related articles, and it conveys information well. AdamBiswanger1 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support, everything looks good now. Kirill Lokshin 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. We don't expect featured quality pictures, but the current selection is way below the required level. At 8KB in size, it can hardly be considered a selectable picture for the portal, and it shows up highly pixelated in the magnification set at portal's main page. This is even more curious, because it was cropped from a 150KB PD image, which is lot better than this one. If the original (uncropped) image were used, this problem wouldn't have arose in the first place. I was tempted to upload the full version, but I am keeping myself from doing it as I haven't understood the logic of cropping in the first place. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have changed the picture from 300kb to 250kb, and the pixelation is not nearly as pronounced, although I don't see this as too much of a problem. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't about changing display resolution from 300px to 250px. It is about using image of higher resolution (150KB) as against the current lower one (8KB), which is the root cause of the problem. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but the problem emanating from the use of the smaller image has been somewhat alleviated. It is a bit of a flaw, and if it were not already the featured image I would upload the larger one, but nevertheless I don't think the issue is too serious, let alone strong enough grounds for deletion AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't about changing display resolution from 300px to 250px. It is about using image of higher resolution (150KB) as against the current lower one (8KB), which is the root cause of the problem. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have changed the picture from 300kb to 250kb, and the pixelation is not nearly as pronounced, although I don't see this as too much of a problem. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I switched out the image with the one for the following month; I will track down an image for that month later. I don't the point to retaining a less than full quality image. 38.112.153.190 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Support, with note that I have helped with this portal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Musing (talk • contribs)
- Support. All the problems with the portal have been adequately addressed. I still don't understand why uploading the whole image would be a problem, though it is no longer an issue as the current selection has been changed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support - (I too have helped with this one). Stumps 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Object - almost there but a couple of issues:
-
- a) The selected picture is not centre aligned and appears to have some sort of column issue with the link to the archives; and
- b) Entries into the "news" box should be dated in order to see how recent the news is.
- On the whole, however, it's looking good. DJR (T) 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- The first of your concerns has been delt with by Sam. As for the second one, I'm not sure if this is practical/possible, and I'm not sure that I would see it as constituting grounds enough for objection. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response. Have a look at featured portals such as Portal:Australia, Portal:India or Portal:Medicine (or pretty much any featured portal with a "news" section) to see what I mean. In order for something to be qualified as "news", it must be dated in order to appreciate how "new" it is. It's not very hard to do at all (as shown by lots of portals with news sections), but I feel it is crucial that a featured portal using a "news" box must uphold this principle. DJR (T) 08:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll look into it, but also keep in mind that poetry is not the hottest of subjects, and its very difficult to find any news. So, just how old it is is sort of something I'd like to hide, or at least minimize. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've added dates and weeded out things dated prior to Jan, 2006, but more poetry news is needed. Sam 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'll look into it, but also keep in mind that poetry is not the hottest of subjects, and its very difficult to find any news. So, just how old it is is sort of something I'd like to hide, or at least minimize. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Object as of my veiwing, things are missing, links dead, not really sure.Joe I 01:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)- Support Much better :) Joe I 00:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- What Adam hasn't fixed, I have. Thanks. Sam 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
FIX THE OCTOBER MATERIAL, much is missing. Rlevse 11:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Should be fixed now. Sam 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portal:Texas
Take a slow meander thru my home. Follow your eyes as you gander at the good life. I'll be waiting. :) Anyways, this maturing portal definatly meets criteria. I recently made the "articles", "bios", "pics", and "city" sections auto, because of the heavy workload. I will be filling these out with at least 24 articles per section, they all have atleast 5 as of now. Joe I 08:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support, looks good. One minor quibble: please hide the "WikiProject" prefix on all the links in the "WikiProjects" box, as it's implicit there. Kirill Lokshin 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support - nice job, well done. - Zone46 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Object - pretty much entirely on the "news" box. a) some sort of dating would be nice so that you can see how recent this news actually is; and b) the link to "FOX News" has just got to go - firstly because external links should not be advertised in such a way, and secondly because it is a source that is questionable within WP:RS. "More News" should be linked to a Wikipedia page with updates - bear in mind that Portals showcase what is on Wikipedia, not what is on the rest of the web.DJR (T) 15:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok it's a lot better without the news box (it's also less maintenance!). I'm happy to remove my objection, but a couple of minor adjustments I'd like to see include some
font-size shrinkage - mainly on the "Things You Can Do" section. A couple of your other boxes have succesfully used a smaller font-size, and I feel boxes/templates that contain lists of links such as these should always use smaller fonts in order to make them less overpowering. DJR (T) 08:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- One more little niggle - you have a box near the bottom called "Relative pages". Firstly, your terminology is quite ambiguous - perhaps consider changing to "Related pages". Secondly (this might be a browser issue), the links and images do not appear to line-up properly - have a look at the "Related Portals" boxes on other portals such as Portal:London for a syntax that should resolve the problem. DJR (T) 10:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't really sure how to explain what I was thinking, so I editted the box myself. I'm happy to change my vote to Support now. DJR (T) 14:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
