Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Graffiti/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Portal:Graffiti

I have done my utmost to ensure the standard of this portal is excellent, and that it is both informative and well designed. I have taken a lot of input (Portal:Graffiti has been though a review and applied all recommended changes. I've worked hard on her and would like to see her featured. Dfrg.msc 11:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As nominator. Dfrg.msc 11:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. At first glance the portal looks great, but there are major problems that need to be addressed. In Mozilla Firefox, the images in the "Related portals" and "Selected picture" are too big and go beyond the portal box.. —dima/talk/ 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment -What? I'm using Mozilla Firefox 2 and the pictures are perfectly fine. I've spent a huge amount of time making it perfect, I wouldn't nominate it unless everything was good. How about you change the size, and see what it does. Dfrg.msc 05:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - The portal needs to be perfectly fine in 800x600. Joe I 06:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - The whole portal? Or just the picture? 800x600 breaks the picture. I really just don't want a thing like the display on different browsers subtracting from it. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  The whole portal. We need to make sure everything is easily accessible to everyone. I would love to be able to showcase larger pics to. You could make the pic box 100%, such as Portal:Photography. Or you could bring it up at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria, which needs to be updated anyways. Joe I 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll take it up there. Dfrg.msc 07:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - as regards the "Related portals" images, I fixed that by reducing their size to max out at 70x70px, while converting the {{click}}'s to imagemap. That bit now doesn't overflow in the Acid2-compliant Safari, at least on my 1024x768 screen. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 00:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: in the three-months or so since this portal was created, its selected content has not changed, and I seriously doubt that there is sufficient quality content to sustain it as a featured portal. Put simply, it's too narrow. And on a design point, there is much white space at the bottom of the selected content boxes where the nominations/archives/more links are.--cj | talk 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment If you look at the history of the content boxes, I am the sole contributer. It's too hard to maintain and update alone. That's why no updates have been made. Dfrg.msc 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Then you can't expect it to become a featured portal.--cj | talk 07:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)