Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Free software/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Portal:Free software

Nomination - I really like what they've done and the organisational features they've chosen. --bdude Talk 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong object, for a number of different reasons:
    1. The "Featured article" isn't actually one; the section is also irregularly updated.
    2. The "Did you know" section hasn't been updated since December, and lacks an archive.
    3. There should be another changing content section; given the topic, a "News" section might be doable.
    4. There are too many to-do boxes; combine them all into a single box.
    5. The "Legal and legislative" section contains a number of NPOV violations in the way it uses redirects.
    6. The various lists of topics need to be better organized; nesting them in a single outer box (or collapsing them to a single box entirely) might help.
In short, this needs massive work before it could be featured. Kirill Lokshin 05:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate support (Note: I'm the main contributor to the portal) I think this portal has some innovative features, is well maintained, and is fairly clear. I think it will be a featured portal one day, and it doesn't bother me whether this happens at this nomination or a subsequent one, but I will respond to Kirill's comments (and I hope Kirill won't mind me adding numbers to the points so that the corresponding responses are clearer).
  1. Of course the "Featured article" is not a "Wikipedia featured article", and it doesn't claim to be, and it couldn't be (because there would only be 7 to choose from). There is a seperate box listing "wikipedia featured articles", and the portal's "featured articles" box has been updated 15 times in 20 weeks.
  2. Yes, the "Did you know" box was a failure and has now been removed. I don't like deleting contributions of others, but the person who added it never maintained it.
  3. This portal is not a news site, so I don't see the value in adding a "changing content" news section - and I do see the cost in maintaining it. (If someone else wants to add an maintain one, I have no objection, but no one else has done so - maybe others agree.)
  4. There were three to-do style boxes, and I've now merged two into one. Merging the remaining two would not make sense (one is a long list of needy article titles, the other is a short list of suggested tasks).
  5. For the "Legislative and legal" box, I have now added the names which proponents of those technologies use
  6. Better organise the lists of topics? Each is organised into a box, which seems fine. I do think the "Categories" box needs a rethink - it was made before an explosion of free software realated categories. Maybe there's a good way to organise the lists, I'll give it a think, but the current organisation is also good.

Gronky 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some further comments (using your convenient numbering system):
1. Then it can't be called a "Featured" article, period; this is why most portals have switched to using the term "Selected article" for such things.
3. The news section was just an idea; as it is now, only one of the boxes has any changing content on a regular basis. Whether this is a problem is, of course, open to debate. (Another interesting idea would be doing a "Selected biography" box; I think there are enough related bio articles to make it possible.)
4. Maybe move them to the bottom, then? The task list seems a bit too prominently placed.
6. It's a bit confusing, particularly where there is overalp between the boxes; there are multiple links to various articles and categories in some cases. My suggestion would be to have a larger topic box with subsections, like Portal:London has.
Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
1. ok, changed.
3. I'll keep the idea of another "changing content" section in mind. A selected biography doesn't really grab me for various reasons (Most bio articles are short and low quality, chosing them is boringly over-controversial, etc.).
4. The prominent placing of the task list is very much intentional. I was hoping the two column design could divide "for learning" and "for contributing", and the task list is to be an introduction to the "for contributing". Now that I (have to) explain that, I guess I should make that clearer - probably by mentioning the other boxes in the task list box.
6. I'll look into this.
Gronky 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Yeah, it's not all that obvious, particularly as the right-hand side also has some of the topic lists ;-) This is an issue that might be cleared up if you do rearrange the various lists of topics, though, so it's not too much of a concern.
The portal is still missing some things to be featured at this point, in my opinion; but it has definitely been improving since the nomination started. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak object - I'm being extremely pinnickity but I can't help feeling that the ergonomics and aesthetics of the page could be improved slightly... there's an awful lot of material and it's quite overpowering. Perhaps consider more liberal use of simple formatting tricks and maybe a different colour scheme. Portal:London and Portal:Australia are quite good examples. DJR (Talk) 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks better, perhaps consider piping the category links. It's understood that they're categories - we don't need to see the "Category:" namespace. It is improving though... DJR (Talk) 19:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support - lots of good work has been done which is very nice to see. I'd like to see the "Category" box come above "Task list" - I feel portals should be slightly more reader-orientated than editor-orientated. Other than that, it looks pretty good. DJR (Talk) 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Support - This portal is somewhat well maintained (my primary reason for being so weak), has a good layout, and is a good resource for those interested in the topic. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, lots of content and nice layout, but not quite 'complete' yet. --Xyrael T 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object because the portal:
  1. Uses copyright images
  2. Is self-referential
  3. Has red links external to contributer sections
  4. Is ergonomically unsound
  5. Contains formatting faults (thumbnails, section headings)
  6. Is presumably dependent on a sole maintainer.--cj | talk 10:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The portal has received a lot of useful criticism during this nomination, and I've acted on most, but you haven't given enough information for a constructive reaction. Please be helpful.
1. It uses logos, which are fair use, see Wikipedia policy
2. Self-referential? Are you refering to the task in the task list asking people to add the "portal free software" tag to free software articles? There is nothing wrong with that, it's a navigation aid. If someone arrives on a free software article, they might want to know what other info Wikipedia has on the topic, so the portal tag allows them to "come in via the free software door". It's not a secret portal.
3. There is one red link, and it's in the "Selected article" box. One goal of that box is to encourage people to contribute to the selected article. The purpose of red links is to show people which topics have not been written about yet. That's how wikipedia works.
4. Please describe.
5. Please describe - or better yet, fix one and let us learn from your example.
6. It has a primary maintainer, but I don't think the portal is dependent on me. The problem with a sole maintainer is that they may lose interest, but my track record proves that this theoretical problem does not exist in real life.
Gronky 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologise for the pithyness of my initial comment; I was testing the waters to see what level of attention this nomination was recieving, given I had noticed the nominator has not since returned. My objection was legitimate, however. I'll elaborate on my points now.
  1. Yes, logos are fair use. However, that policy has thus far prohibited fair use images on portals. It is an unacceptable state of affairs, but it is the present situation.
  2. No, I was referring to the few sentences in Operating systems and Free software licenses as well as to the Wikipedia featured articles. WP:ASR applies to all sections except the ones you mention – the "contribution-encouraging aspects".
  3. When I last viewed the portal, there were three red links external to the contributer sections, which is precisely what the "contribution-encouraging aspects" of a portal are. The criteria limits red links to those sections because the function of a portal is to display and provide access to as much good content as it can. Red links merely detract from that purpose. In any event, the red links are now gone. Please ensure they don't return.
  4. This I've largely fixed this myself. Referring back to the criteria, "the display of Wikipedia content should be a featured portals foremost aim, and encouraging contribution secondary." Thus, Task List was incorrectly positioned. There are other issues with regards to construction, but these are more relevant to my next point.
  5. Thumbnails should not be used on portal because they conflict with overlapping backgrounds. I've reformatted the image in Selected article as an example of correct usage. The images should be kept to a maximum of 100px. The Categories, Articles needing contributers/Contribute and even Task List/Things you can do sections are not user-friendly or attractive. These should be reformatted similarly to those on other featured portals.
  6. Even still, what could hurt it to make the future certain by converting to the auto-rotate system. Consider this point aside my objection.
  7. This is a new point. I don't quite get the point of Terminology when all that it discusses should be done in the Introduction. Moreover, Legal and legislative and Free software licenses are directly related, but superficially split. Operating systems could be made into a topic list.
The portal is getting better, but I don't think it is yet comparable to existing featured portals. Therefore, my objection stands.--cj | talk 07:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I should also add that Portal:London is pretty much solely maintained by myself, and that didn't stop it being one of the first two featured portals... DJR (Talk) 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The difference there was that there was an accompanying infrastructure that appeared as though it would provide continuous updates. I refer to the suggestions/vote subpages and WikiProject London.--cj | talk 07:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)