Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Archive/April 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This archive contains the peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured portal candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

Contents

[edit] Solar System

All constructive comments are welcome. I have worked on this portal that was previously heavily under construction because it is on a featured topic and a featured topic deserves a featured portal. — Pious7TalkContribs 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, pretty good looking so far, just a few small things:

Joe I 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti

HI, I'm Dfrg.msc and I just finished work on this portal. I'd like any feedback you have to offer. I will try to follow your advise and try to make my (policy check, not "my" as per WP:OWN) portal better and better. Any help you could offer would be great as well. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 07:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, neat portal, but it does need some work:

  • Intro - Graffiti should be linked
  • Selected article - Pics should be placed at the beginning of the summary. An archive and nomination page will need to be created and linked.
  • Related portals - All pics should be the same size, and the underlines are really throwing me off.
  • Selected lists - They should not be selected, you should list all lists(if possible). And all list lists should be treated the same, not "see also".
  • Selected pic - Size formating. You have two separate descriptions, the "Street Art in Munich" and then the one labeled Description, narrow it down to one. An archive and nomination page will need to be created and linked.
  • Categories - Should be in some preferred order, most likely alpha.
  • Quotes - the cquote template has room for the persons name, it should be used.
  • Things you can do - Again, maybe it's just me, but the underlines are nuts.
  • You will of course have to find more content to add to the portal, and with it a rotation scheme.
  • The color and page setup are defiantly unusual, which most graffiti is, but you may find some who don't agree.

Good luck  :) Joe I 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done bar one. Dfrg.msc 03:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
All done, plus more. Thanks Joe! Dfrg.msc 11:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball

I've been working for the last few weeks on reviving Portal:Baseball, and I'd love some notes on how it's progressing. There are a few things I'm still not happy with (the "Topics" section, for instance), but for the most part I feel pretty good about it. Thanks in advance.--Djrobgordon 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have a few comments.

  • I would recommend rotating content for the Article, Picture, and Biography sections.
    • Portal is currently set up for all material to be rotated out weekly.
  • Your current article as well as some of the archived ones have been rated start class, I would recommend only displaying Wikipedia's best work, preferably FA-Class or GA-Class.
  • The bold article name in each section should be a link to the article you could still use the more option at the end.
    • Linked all article subjects.
  • Your selected pictures need an image credit.
    • Added credits to current and future selected picture.
  • A few of your topics are categories and should be moved to that section.
  • In your quotes section I see no reason for there to be an external link for each quote this would lead people away from Wikipedia.
    • Links removed, as per explanation below.
  • Some of the links to your Associated Wikimedia lead to create pages on the sister projects the should either be correctly linked or removed.
    • Redirected dead links.

These are just a few off the top of my head. Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. If you don't mind, I have a couple of question about your suggestions:

  • As of now, there are only fourteen articles under WikiProject Baseball listed as good or featured articles. In addition, one is a list and two are only tangentially related to the sport. On the nomination pages for selected bios, I have the lowest acceptable class as B. Is this acceptable, when there is a lack of peer-reviewed articles, or would it be better to rotate the few top-quality articles in more frequently?
That is a matter of debate. Personally I believe that all Portals should have FA or GA class articles for the selected article, however you will find some reviewers that don't have a problem with a B-class article. The problem that you will run into is; when you put the portal up for featured you will need support from all kinds. So I would recommend rotating the better articles and working to get more featured or GA class articles.
  • The reason for the external links in the "Quotes" section is that there are very few baseball quotes on Wikipedia or Wikiquote, so I had to get them from outside. Is it necessary for me to source the quotes, or is it okay to let them stand? I could add the sourced quotes to the applicable articles, but I don't really have the time to integrate them properly, and creating a "Quotes" section for one quote seems tacky. Perhaps I should add them, with refs, to WikiQuote?
There aren't really any portals that cite quote references, having a link to the quotes author is adequate. Not to mention that having an external link in the quote section could draw people away from wikipedia and since a portals purpose is to be a "portal" to certain parts of Wikipedia then having those links defeat the purpose.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on those suggestions right now. Thanks for your help.--Djrobgordon 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, as well.--Djrobgordon 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I need help developing this article. Steroid usage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid_Usage_Amongst_Domincan_Athletes CubanoDios 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maharashtra

I am looking for advice on how to improve this, eventually to FP, hopefully. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi YellowMonkey; this looks really nice :). I guess there are a few things to point out.
  • In the header of the portal it links to Maharashtra by just simply saying "(more)" at the end of the last sentance. Generally you should add to the right hand side "more about Maharashtra"; of course without the "". Notice that this is used on various featured portals like Portal:India and the same should be applied here in this case.
  • In the "Featured article"; I would suggest a name change from featured to "selected" as I am pretty sure that there are few Maharashtra featured articles. And once again most featured portals just say selected article". Also I notice that there is no archive, if there were previous articles they should be archived. Another thing; there is no real reason to add "the History of Maharashtra at the bottom...or at least add the read more and the history link on the same line. I would personally just remove the History link as it is not really common for other portals to do that. However it would be a nice selected article for the future.
  • The biography section seems a little long and the picture seems a little to big. I think part of the problem is that I feel that it is imbalanced. I tinkered with it and this is what I came up with [1] I think it looks better, however it can be tinkered with further if you feel necessary.
  • DYK: Nice however the link for the archive needs to be on the right side on the bottom, as the others are done.
  • Also: You should probably start some "nomination pages" just like other featured portals "Portal:India" for example. But it isn't 100% needed. All in all you have done some great work but it could use some improvement. Happy editing :). ~ Arjun 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Introduction: In my opinion, the map could be downsized a little. The point about "more" is covered nicely by Arjun.
  • Article: Nothing else to say besides Arjun's comments. =)
  • Biography: Nicely done, though, as Arjun said, the summary could be a little shortened.
  • Did you know: DYK archive links needs to moved to the right.
  • News: The news box needs an update. Also, the headers section, instead of "Maharashtra news," could be renamed to just "Current news" or "In the news."
  • Portals: List needs to be centered.
  • Categories: One category doesn't exist. Instead of a list, you might want to have a category tree (example).
  • WikiProjects: Looks good — might want to have a short description (example).
  • Wikimedia: No problems here.
  • Notes: You could consider creating pages for archives and nominations. You can also add randomization (examples: West Bengal, Electronics, Chemistry). Happy editing! Regards, S.D. ¿п? § 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello I have a few more suggestions to add.

  • The image in the lead needs to be resized so as to not expand past the text.
  • The subject of each section should be a bold link to the actual article not just bold.
  • Your pictures need an image credit.
  • You need archives for article, picture, bio, and news.
  • In the categories section the red category needs to be removed or created.
  • The text in the related portals section should be centered or justified not aligned left.
  • Since you don't seem to have rotating content you have a permanent hole on the bottom right. I would recommend moving something over to compensate a little, or if nothing else setting your selected picture up at 300px since that is pretty much standard on all featured portals.
  • Some of the links in your associated wikimedia section link to pages that haven't been created you should either create them on the sister projects or remove them.

These are just a few things off the top Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epitaph Records

Just created this portal. What do any of you guys think? If you guys don't think it's good or anything, I'll try adding more content as soon as I could do more researching about Epitaph's past and present times. Alex 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it needs some work but I'm sure you can get there.

  • The subject of all sections needs to be a bold link to its article not just bold.
  • Your lead needs to have a "More..." link at the bottom pointing to the main article.
  • Your selected article needs to be longer and you should only display Wikipedia's best work, FA or GA class articles.
  • You need archives and nominations for all sections, Article, News, Bio, Artist, Album, and DYK.
  • The selected picture needs an image credit.
  • I recommend setting up rotating content, for Article, Bio, Picture, Artist, and Album.
  • The portal is a little left heavy I recommend moving some sections over to the right to help with balance.
  • The associated wikimedia section had links that go to dead pages on the sister projects, you should either remove them or create the pages on the other projects.
  • Your bio doesn't seem to have an article linked to it, not to mention that it isn't about anyone in particular.

If you have any more questions about my comments don't hesitate to ask.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy

After having improved the energy portal, I would welcome feedback and in particular suggestions on further work required to bring it to Featured status. The key area already apparent is the need to turn over 'selected content' faster (currently running at every 6 weeks) - I'm hoping to involve the three related Wikiprojects in this and have posted messages to their talk pages about this today (see here). Gralo 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, overall very nice I do have a couple of comments and a questions.

  • Is there a reason you have the Read more, Archive, and suggest links set up in a nest? (One below the other and tabbed over) The reason I ask is it kinda throws the flow of the portal off.
There's a difficult three-way balance between giving too little information, giving too much, and looking visually attractive. The Archive • Nominations • Read more... style seems a little too concise for the uninitiated, the style I'd chosen not ideal either. I've changed it again but will consider other solutions.
  • In your associated wikimedia section some of the links go to pages that don't exist on the sister projects they should either be created or deleted.
They did all go to at least a spaceholder page, but I see that someone on Wikiquote has deleted the page for a second time...
  • The Major fields of technology section where your using the hide box is great but in some browsers the unhide function doesn't work so I would recommend moving it to your topics and categories tab and defaulting it to unhide.
I hadn't spotted that someone had added that! I've done as you suggest but, since the 'technology portal' is listed as a related portal, I may well remove it entirely.
  • As a norm most portals don't have a TOC. Thats not to say it won't go over here, but it's something you may want to look at removing or making it smaller so it's not as obtrusive at the beginning of the portal.
True, but I added it after I found it a useful navigation aid on the Medicine Portal, and use it regularly myself.

Again looks good with a little work you shouldn't have a problem going to featured candidate.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to offer your advice! Gralo 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, let's see what I can come up with:

  • Page contents I can see as an easy nav aid, but like the medicine portal, I would add it into a box. The beginning Portal:Energy/Title box seems most likely, although that would mean creating another for the other tab.
I like the uncluttered title box, which is why I didn't do the same as the medicine portal. Currently think about adding just adding a border around it, but with the white page background I don't think it looks too strange as it is...
  • Introduction, I'm sure you can find an image or two to place in there. It would liven it up.
You're right - done. May add another if I can find something suitable.
  • The {{Portal|Energy}} seems a little redundant in the archive pages.
True - removed.
  • Most generally, selected article summary images do not have a caption, which, personally is what I prefer, but I do think it is a personal preference.
Should probably also depend on how self-explanatory the image is - the first in the archive didn't have a caption, for example.
Fixed
  • I like the setup of the topics section
Thanks :-)
  • The major fields of technology template still remains. If you must have it, there has got to be a better place for it.
Having though about it some more since WilsBadKarma's post, I think it should go too - so it's gone.
  • As for selected content rotation, I would abandon the time rotate to a fully randomized way. Energy should have enough FA and GA articles to satisfy content issues.
Yes, I've been thinking about that. If there is not much response from the wikiprojects to my suggestion that they get involved, it's probably the way to go. Would just need to find the time to identify the articles (since there aren't actually that many that have been rated) and get them summarised. Due to time constraints I may start with randomizing the selected images, since several have been identified.

Other than those few minor things, definitely ready for featured.  :) Joe I 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Gralo 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robotics

Robotics Portal

Hey, I've been working on this portal for a couple of months and would apprieciate any comments. Thanks :) Joe I 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Let's go!
  • Introduction:
  • Move up the image on the right.
  • Color choice:
  • Like the light blue background, perhaps use blue in the box headers as well instead of gray.
Worked on the color, try it out. I went with the greys cause thats the color of robots(the metal of robots mainly).
  • Show new selections:
  • With all your italicizing, maybe you'd like to italicize this. Show new selections... → Show new selections...
Done
  • News:
  • Hopefully this section can be updated to include something that happened in March.
  • Archive → Archive...
Done
  • Other Wikimedia:
  • Other Wikimedia → Associated Wikimedia
Done
  • Templates:
  • Instead of {{Portal:Robotics/PortalNavFooter}}, use {{Portals}}
Done
  • Other:
  • WikiProjects? Things you can do?
Projects done
  • A selected biography would be nice.
  • A border (like in Electronics). Quite interesting portal, if I may say. Cheers, S.D. 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like I forgot a few things. :) I'll work on the rest. Thanks Joe I 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Section of portal Notes Score
Introduction Link robot on the its first instance.
Y Done		 9/10
Selected article Requires either a "(more...)" or "...Read more" link per the main page.
Remove the non-full date linking per WP:DATE.		 8/10
Selected picture The image subject link should be bolded.
The Turk isn't a robot.
An expansion could be useful for some of the caption, at least to adhere the first sentence of each picture's article.		 7/10
Selected robot Requires either a "(more...)" or "...Read more" link per the main page.
Remove the non-full date linking per WP:DATE.		 8/10
Related projects Rename the section to "Related WikiProjects".
Y Done
Each WikiProject has its own image found at the corresponding portal, please add them.		 7/10
News Appears to be short, I suggest at least five entires. Are you sure there aren't any additional news sources besides Wikinews? Just curious because bots with new functions are being invented all the time.
I'm not quite sure what does that image symbolize at first glance, add a (pictured) in one of the entries.		 8/10
Categories 9/10
Related portals Please move that section right above the "Associated Wikimedia" section with 100% width, both because it's a high priority section and the issue with images on large font sizes. 9/10
Associated Wikimedia The technology link doesn't belong here. 8/10
Overall Lacks a section or two, but should pass an FPOC once all the corrections are made. 8/10

First, I liked the idea of the table till I had try to reply. I tried within it to keep section work together, but failed miserably. :) Anyways, I'll mark things done within the table and carry replies down here.

  • Article - The bolded link at the beginning does this job. There is no consensus in featured portals for one to overrule the other. There is also no consensus on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for linking years alone. "The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another," and "If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context." which I believe these links do.
  • Pics - Bolding links would direct users to the article which this box is not about, it's for the pictures. The turk was perceived as an automaton by the public, therefore believed to be a robot. It also set basic design for early robot development, such as magnetic joints, forerunner to servos. Which is why the picture of the design of the turk was chosen, not the article. Most captions are from the image page, but I'll see what can be done.
  • Projects - Projects nor portals require a pic to accompany them. Very few portals use pics for projects.
  • I'll work on the news
  • Portals - just cause it's not 100% means it's no less important than any other section. I reduced the font size in box.
  • Wikimedia - There is relevant robotic news under that link.
  • Lacks a section or two? - Anything specific?

Thinks for the comments, I'll work on what I didn't address. Joe I 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the table, here's how the table would look with replies. Cheers, S.D. 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)