Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Dentistry/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dentistry

I am surprised (even though I should not be) that there is a peer review for portals! Well, the content of dentistry has grown since I have been here, and I have created my first (and probably only) portal. I am sure there are much more informed people out there than me who know what portals should do and look like, so I would welcome any suggestions/questions. - Dozenist talk 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, Dozenist. Overall, it looks good! Here are some comments for possible revisions. Rfrisbietalk 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Portals don't need TOCs, remove the contents footer in the intro.
    • Most portals have "...Archive/Nominations" style footers on the left and "Read more..." style footers on the right, in the same line. You might consider reformatting these.
    • If a section has an archive, it probably should have a nominations option.
    • "Photo credit" usually goes directly below the photo. The section also usually has a "Read more..." link. Some portal use more text, like for Featured pictures.
    • The superscripted comment in "Things you can do" just looks like a display error to me, even though it is displaying as coded.
    • Putting the headers under the images might look a little cleaner on the topics section.
    • "Dentistry" / "Dental" in box and within section headings or entries is redundant. They're usually not included but assumed.
    • "Biology" categories look out of place. They might be related, but that's what "Related portals" are for, making it even more odd when the Biology portal is not included.
    • For features portal status, the working rule of thumb (at least from me and a few others ;) is to have at least 10 items for each "Selected..." section. It's also strongly advised such content is automatically rotated, either on a schedule, e.g., monthly or weekly, like at Portal:Philosophy; or randomly displayed, like at Portal:Chemistry.
    • Would a "Selected biography" make sense for this portal?

Comments

  • Would recommend rotating content for article and picture preferably 10 each.
  • The subject of the selected article should be a bold link to the main article not just bold.
  • Since the picture description is centered under the picture so should the image credit.
  • The subcategories in the topics section don't seem to be in any particular order. Not knowing much about teeth I could very well be wrong so, is there an order that I'm not seeing?
  • Some of the links to the associated wikimedia go to nonexistent pages the need to be correctly linked or removed.
  • The second row of the topics section should be centered. On a standard monitor I'm sure it looks fine but on a wide screen it aligns left and leaves a big hole on the right side.
  • Granted this is just me being overly anal but the categories should be justified instead of centered that way the appear the same for standard monitors and wide screen.
  • In the WikiProjects section the superscript ":our main project!" looks off. It should be written in small text or standard, and should be "main project".

Other than that ascetically it looks really good. --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work so far, but on the removal of the assiciated wikimedia the logos now align left they should either be centered or justifed. This is quite common when someone switches from the template to their own version. In fact it happens so often that I have a workpage devoted to it with the exact code that needs to be pasted here User:Wilsbadkarma/workpage2 simply paste everything into the section and remove the logos you don't want to keep. --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the both of you. Your suggestions were most helpful. I think I followed all of your suggestions, except for two. I tried to move the picture above the headings in the topics section, but then I mixed up the format. If either of you have an idea how to do it, you can try and see if you like it. Then, of course, I have not had time to address the lack of selected articles and pictures. That will have to come with time. :-P - Dozenist talk 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I vertically aligned two of the boxes – Topics & Wikimedia. How do you want to rotate selections once you have them? Rfrisbietalk 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that rotating the pictures randomly is a good idea, and so I want to pursue that option. But figuring out how to do that may be a bit daunting. I will look at other portals, but if you have any suggestions, I would be more than happy to hear them. - Dozenist talk 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you have the hang of it. When I set up a section, I create the "archive/nomination" page (e.g., Portal:Science/Featured article) in a sandbox first, add the "layout template" to each page, create a few subpages, add the randomizer to the portal page, and then copy the sandbox page over to the now archive/nominations page. After that, I just add more items and update the "max" counter as they come along. Rfrisbietalk 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Actually, I just realized Wilsbadkarma's last comment. I'll look into that as well. Thanks again. - Dozenist talk 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Did I fix the Associated Wikimedia section at last? - Dozenist talk 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the links, the Commons link seems to be the only one worth keeping. The others are too broad or too sparse. With only one link, the box probably isn't work keeping. You might try getting away with adding it to the Topics box since you have an empty column, but count on someone complaining about it. Just say, "So?" :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You did good, I had to make one little edit. But its my fault so no worries, the <DIV> was closed on the inside of the table and ended up making the "what are portals" run into the section when viewed on the main page. Again my fault --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think I was able to figure out how to do random pictures and articles. Let me know if something does not work, or if there is something I can do to improve it. - Dozenist talk 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, the only thing I would recommend is rewording "Show another selected article and picture!" to something like "Show new selections" or "Show new content" and I would say not to use the exclamation point. — WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 05:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Good job. In relation to my note above, don't forget to update the "archive" page, possibly like this. Rfrisbietalk 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you again. The purge button has been reworded. And I will look at the last link you have posted later. I am way to tired after all that editing today. - Dozenist talk 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the idea of a selected biography, that may eventually be a good section to have but would not happen until probably way into the future. I barely edit biographies, and the quality of those kind of articles leaves much to be desired. - Dozenist talk 11:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The major concerns have already been corrected, so I believe it's nearly of featured quality right now. Just a few minor concerns:

  • Reduce the size of the lead by at least one paragraph, see the science portal and the mathematics portal for widely accepted sizes. I suggest getting rid of the last paragraph.
  • "More about Dentistry..." - Dentistry shouldn't be capitalized.
  • "Show new content." > "Show new selections" - Preferable for existing sections. Also remove the "Purge server cache" link at the bottom of the page as duplicate.
  • No need in explaining the main project in the "WikiProjects" section, rather obvious.
  • Add a freely-licensed image to the "Did you know..." section and put the entry with the image at the top.
  • I don't like to see the empty space at the topics section, put "Tooth development" on the right and "Tooth anatomy" in the middle. I also feel the section lacks something - Oral hygiene? Rename: "Topics" > "Main topics". Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Some box headers are italic, others are regular. Personally, italics are hard for me to read, so I prefer regular headers. Rfrisbietalk 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Reduced the paragraph size, removed purge server link, renamed words to "Show new selections.", removed "main project" label, added image to DYK, removed all italics from box headers. I will work on the Topics section tomorrow. Also, I was under the impression that there should be around 10 selections that cycle on a Portal before people would consider it for featured status. If that is the case, then this portal will not be featured for a LONG while. I am always working on increasing the quality of dental articles, but I am just not that fast. Otherwise, if you think despite not having as many featured articles to show on the portal would be acceptable, please let me know to nominate the portal for featured status before I write 8 more featured articles. :-P - Dozenist talk 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no hard-and-fast rule on the number of items required for a section of selected items. However, ten items is a ballpark number used by some reviewers, including myself, to indicate a portal has a sufficient depth of content. See Requirements and Rotated sections: Number of items requirement for two discussions. I expect three articles, five pictures, and no biographies would be very problematic in getting consensus support for featured portal status. Rfrisbietalk 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks. That is good to know. Unless the number of quality articles produced increases dramatically, I would not expect this portal to pursue featured status for about a couple more years, in truth since it does take me a while to write dental articles (at least if we are talking about featured status). But when we get there, I will be ready to nominate it. In the meantime, I at least feel that this portal looks awesome, thanks from everyone's input on here. - Dozenist talk 13:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, there's no real harm in giving it a go. My impression is the process has a hefty dose of subjectivity to it, so you're likely not to get "disqualified" simply because you don't have ten this or thats. I rarely weigh in on a nomination review for a portal I've worked on in some way, so you would get a wider hearing than what I've said. At the very least, you would come away with a good working list of things to do to get ready for your next nomination. Just reference this peer review in your nomination and let 'er rip! :-) Rfrisbietalk 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a different format to the topic section based on the mathematics portal section. If this looks worse or if I inadvertently wrote something incorrectly, please feel free to fix it or just tell me what I should do. - Dozenist talk 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I like it! I think that's one of the best topics designs out there! :-) Rfrisbietalk 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work Dozenist, I say its ready for FPOC. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur as well it looks great you should put it up for FPC asap. — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)