Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:AC/DC/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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. Michaelas10^{Respect 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). Michaelas10^{Respect 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)

• Fixed. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 17:31, 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. Michaelas10^{Respect 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)