Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Portugal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Portal:Portugal

I believe this Portal meets the criteria to be a FP:

  • It is useful, there are hundreds of Portugal-related articles on Wikipedia, this portal creates a useful bridge between them and presents the most complete as featured content.
  • I believe it has a nice layout, with nice colors and red links restricted to requested articles.
  • It is ergonomic, since it presents things in a effective manner, just like the majority of the featured Wiki portals.
  • The portal is updated every week, by myself, and, on a less regular basis, by two other contributors — User:Joaopais and User:PedroPVZ.

As I said, I believe it meets all the criteria. But anyway, I'll try to quickly meet any objection raised. Afonso Silva 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, excellent portal in every respect. I would move the "Article needed" box down below the selected content boxes, though; it's not of much interest to the casual reader. Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I also suggest the "Things you can do" box go towards the bottom. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • We just placed the "Article needed box" in the top of the portal because it was the better way to have new articles. Our experience is positive, every request placed there has been met. But anyway, I'll move it. About the "Things you can do" box, do you think it should be the last one, is that it? Afonso Silva 11:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a great portal. I would suggest that you move the selected articles and picture to a queue system, similar to that used at Portal:Oceania (which has daily and monthly rotating sections) or Portal:New Zealand (which has weekly rotating sections) purely because it's easier to maintain; you can set up several weeks worth of content at a time that suits you, and then leave the portal alone at times when you are busy with other things. My support is not at all conditional on this suggestion being adopted.-gadfium 05:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I was thinking about creating a queue system when we finish having good articles to display, at the moment, finding a "selected place" is becoming difficult, so, I'll probably start rotating in the next update day (June 19).
  • Object: This portal has a very nice aesthetic, but I object to some elements:
  1. Contributer sections are secondary aspects for featured portals, and as such, Article needed (which I think is un-necessary with Things you can do) needs to be positioned after content sections.
  2. There are red links external to the contributer sections (in Selected biography and Selected place)
  3. The were a few formatting faults (mostly image-related due to a glitch in Internet Explorer). I have fixed these. Please ensure this format is carried through to ensuing weeks.
  4. Related portals and WikiProjects are separate concepts and must each have there own box.
Also, although not part of my objection, I concur with Gadfium's suggestion above that the auto-rotate system be adopted. Moreover, I find Portugal-related featured content self-referential, but realise that already featured portals have similar sections - hence I've sought comments on the criteria. Great portal, however, and I'll be happy to support once my concerns are satisfied.--cj | talk 06:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. As I said, we just placed the "Article needed box" in the top of the portal because it was the better way to have new articles. Our experience is positive, every request placed there has been met. But anyway, I'll move it. I just don't want to merge it with the remaining requests, because it is a unique way of presenting the most important requests.
  2. I'll remove the red links, I believe they are the first red links present in the selected text, you may check that in the archive.
  3. I only use firefox, I didn't realize that there was a formatting bug, thanks for the correction, I'll keep it like that.
  4. In the beginning, they had different boxes, but I thought this format was better. I'll put it like it was before.
I've replied to Gadfium about the rotating system, I'll start rotating the content, sooner or later. About the featured articles, why is it self-referential? We have, for example, "Portugal-related categories", why shouldn't we have "Portugal-related FA"? Afonso Silva 11:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Support from me.--cj | talk 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Brilliant. Political Mind 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)