Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:China/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Portal:China
Re-submitted. I feel that most of the previous comments were addressed. However, there were no final voting issued as the page received few attention. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments Just a few things:
- Intro - seems to be alittle to much space below the image on the left. "China" should be linked in the first sentence.
Shortened.
- Articles - article name should be linked in the first sentence. All article images should be the same size. A new article should appear each month(March and April are the same).
All fixed (including previous archives).
- Pics - There should be atleast one or two links in pic descriptions. The credit should appear directly after the pic, before the description. A new pic should appear each month(March and April are the same).
All fixed (including previous archives).
- On this day - seeing as how unpopulated this is, maybe you should condense it to a weekly or monthly thing.
The anniversaries is full with potential, and I have made the content for the next 30 days available.
- News - I have a problem having a news box without actual news in it.
It bothers me too. Some want an inclusion, some wants it completely out. Do you support the latter?
- Seeing as how it's country specific news, leaving it out wouldn't be a bad thing. Joe I 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The selection of articles and pics is concerning. A short history along with double duty for March and April. I don't think this should be promoted until a significant amount of future selections are chosen. Joe I 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a blank period at March, and I duplicated it, which I shouldn't have done so I admit my fault. I have now fixed it.
The rest of the history are legitimate, and it goes back to June 2006, you probably missed the archive for the previous year (hence the mention of "short history"). I have made an attempt to make the archive links more clear.
Thanks for the comments, looking forward to more! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Nice work. Joe I 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The portal looks very nice. I am sure, though, that more Anniversaries can be found, and would prefer to see a little more bluelinks for future anniversaries (say, try to do at least a week in advance for the next month, and see whether you can keep that up). I realize that this is a ton of work (I wrote all of Portal:Germany/Anniversaries), but I don't think a portal that looks likely to contain redlinked content soon should be Featured. Another objetcion is the lack of updates to Portal:China/Did you know — I am sure that decent candidates can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject China/New articles that do not give the impression that Wikipedia's newest China-related articles are 3 months old. Kusma (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and is there a reason for the absence of a zh-min-nan: and a cdo: link in the Wikipedias section? Kusma (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've now completed all anniversaries for the rest of April and the entire month of May. I also archived the current DYK listings and introduced ten new qualified ones. The absence of these two Chinese language Wikipedia is now fixed. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good; the DYK currently violates its own rules ("no more than 5"), though. Perhaps you can vary the DYK length to balance the two columns. I think the portal meets the criteria now if you continue to update the DYK and Anniversary sections as not to fail the "well-maintained" criterion. Support. Kusma (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good enough for mine, Perhaps a few more pictures though? Dfrg.msc 00:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Meets all of the criteria in my estimation.--Danaman5 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Danaman5. Cliff smith 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was hoping someone else would have pick this up by now, but apparently not. This portal will not be promoted so long as it has red-linked content sections. So, oppose.--cj | talk 03:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
