Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Featured Portals in Wikipedia

A featured portal is a portal which is regarded by the community as being an example of Wikipedia's finest work. This page is where featured portal candidates are considered by the community against the featured portal criteria.

Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. A portal should not be a featured portal candidate and at the same time be listed at portal peer review. Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed. Do not split a nomination page into subsections, which will cause problems in its archiving (if necessary, use bolded headings). Please respond positively to constructive criticism.

For a nomination to be promoted to featured portal status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. Consensus may be determined by any editor in good standing who is not materially involved in the portal's development or maintenance, or any related WikiProjects. The process is overseen by the Featured Portal directors Cirt and OhanaUnited.

A bot will update the portal talk page after the portal is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FPOC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

At present, there are 163 featured portals, of a total of 1121 portals on Wikipedia.
Shortcuts:

Featured content:

Featured portal tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating a portal for featured portal status on this page, compare it against the featured portal criteria and ensure that it meets all criteria before nominating.
    • It is strongly recommended that you use the portal peer review process before nominating the portal. Peer reviews help to identify and fix basic improvement needs before they might be used as the basis for opposing a nomination.
    • You may also wish to observe other featured portals in the same topic to get ideas on how to further improve your portal before nomination.
  2. Place {{FPOC}} on the talk page of the nominated portal, and click the "initiate nomination" link – This will allow you to initiate the nomination in the correct format.
    • Note: If you are resubmitting the portal after a previously failed nomination, it is important that you follow the following instructions correctly:
    1. Use the move tab to rename the previous nomination to a new title:
      example: move Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example/Archive 1
      Go back to the template you left on the talk page of the nominated portal, and replace the code {{FPOC}} with {{FPOC|Archive 1}}. Save the page and re-click the "initiate nomination" link to start the nomination again.
  3. Fill in the blanks of the page, including why you are nominating the portal and other necessary details about the portal that need to be covered.
  4. Click this link and place the following code {{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example}} (replacing Example with the name of your portal) directly under the header, and above all previous nominations. This will transclude the nomination subpage you created for your nominated portal to be seen on the main candidacy page. Be sure to include an edit summary that clearly states which portal you are nominating: e.g., nominating Portal:Example.
  5. Nominator is strongly encouraged to watchlist the nomination page.
  6. Nominator may wish to leave a neutrally worded notice at the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects.

Supporting and objecting

Please read nominated portals fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the portal nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
  • If you approve of a portal, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to a portal's suitability for the Wikipedia.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • Any registered editor may express an opinion. "Supports" and "opposes" from IP editors will be crossed out, but their comments on portal content should be considered.

Contents


Nominations [edit]

Portal:Singapore [edit]

I have been working on this portal and believe that it now meets the Featured Portal status. It contains:

  • 20 Selected Articles
  • 20 Selected Biographies
  • 20 Selected Pictures
  • 15 Selected Panorama
  • 10 Sets of 5 DYK lists

I had some helpful comments by Sven Manguard in the previous portal peer review, and I have implemented his suggestions. Although the portal is not really frequently edited, I modified it so that it requires little maintenance, if at all.--Lionratz (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the PPR, I'm not the most thorough of reviewers. I recommend asking Espresso Addict for his assessment. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Looks pretty good, I like the simple colour scheme, that the selected articles are mostly GAs, and the idea to have a selected panorama. The weaknesses are mostly related to the general weaknesses of portals on en.wiki (i.e. mostly random content rather than maintained content, focus on selected articles and minimal index function only, reliance on the disappointing content of Wikinews, etc), and probably can only be overcome with a more sweeping improvement drive of portals. Otherwise, some very minor suggestions:

  • The intro does not mention the population of the island-state while less important figures such as GDP and foreign reserve are included
  • Added the population figures.
  • In the selected articles section, SA8 Durian - is not explained in the blurb how this relates to Singapore. I think if included a more customised blurb is needed.
  • Done. Have changed some references to "South East Asia" to Singapore, as well as to add some Singaporean examples.
  • In the DYK section, "Singapore" is overlinked
  • Removed all links to Singapore
  • The inclusion criteria for the "related portals" section is unclear, with many but not all Asian countries included. I would suggest less "see also" type links is better, and limit the listed countries to Singapore's neighbours (Malaysia, Indonesia), and countries with which Singapore has strong cultural or economic ties (i.e. India, China), etc.
  • "Related portals" is a term commonly used on many portals (eg: Portal:Indonesia and Portal:Norway), so I don't really think that there is a need to change it. The portals were included on such a basis: Asia (Singapore is part of Asia), Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam (fellow member states of ASEAN, as well as the Hong Kong, Taiwan (Singapore's direct economic competitors; all share a very similar culture and a history of friendship), India, People's Republic of China (reasons as mentioned by you), Japan (Singapore and Japan share deep economic and cultural ties, and the fact that Singapore was only ever invaded by Japan)

Hope some of the above is of help. --ELEKHHT 00:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Have addressed the individual points above.--Lionratz (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, I think it is better now. --ELEKHHT 14:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Simple striking colours, useful map in the introduction, good length blurbs. I like the panoramas.

  • Is the wide fixed width necessary? If the width of the panoramas is a problem, they can be given a scroll box.
  • I thought it would look nicer if the whole image is ahown. Anyways, the whole length is intended as a sort of division between the content side of the portal and the projects side of the portal--Lionratz (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The styles of the headers for the boxes are different for In this month & In the news (lower case italics) than the other boxes.
  • In this month section needs a copy edit. It uses a hyphen as a separator; should be en rule or colon. Date ranges should use an en rule. In this month sections are usually organised by day in the month, not by year. Items use both present tense and past tense; needs standardisation. Can more items be added to the short sections?
  • Done. More entries not feasible unless we really want to go into much less important anniversaries. Singapore only has a recorded history since 1819, after all.
  • I'm not convinced of the utility of using Wikinews for In the news. The most recent item is over a month ago, and others go back over a year. Few if any items appear strongly linked to Singapore.
  • Same old argument. I think that a RfC or a proposal at the Village pump would be in order. For this portal, can we not go there?--Lionratz (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it means that it is not simply the opinion of one reviewer. As it does not add anything to the portal, there seems to be no compelling reason to include it. Also, IMO it is not a generic issue: Wikinews is strongly biased towards a number of topics, so might be ok for portals like Disasters, but that doesn't mean that it helps make other portals featureable. So why not just simply remove it?--ELEKHHT 14:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Removed and shifted In this month to the right.--Lionratz (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you know & In this month need links to their archives.
  • Can images be added to the Selected biographies?
Some have free images, but Sven Manguard mentioned that whether pictures are included or not should be standardized.--Lionratz (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you give a date in the credits for Selected picture & Selected panorama?
  • In Selected articles, can pictures be added to Cabinet of Singapore, Toa Payoh ritual murders and I am Not Stupid?
  • Not possible. I could add a picture of Singapore's Parliament house for the Cabinet of Singapore (that is where the cabinet sits anyways), but for the latter two, I cannot find any free images that can be used.--Lionratz (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Image mouseover text should not have full stops unless full sentences.
  • Yip Pin Xiu Selected biography has red links.
  • Several of the Selected biographies cut off in an odd place.
  • In DYKs, Speakers' Corner image has incorrect mouseover text. Singapore Power Building lacks mouseover text. Limicolaria flammea mouseover text needs a capital.
  • Related portals could do with the two rows being better balanced.
  • I don't really get what you mean. Can you elaborate?--Lionratz (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • At the default width, the first row has eight items, the second has four. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • How to go about doing that?--Lionratz (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hope this is of assistance in improving the portal further. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long time it took for me to reply; I was swamped by my real life commitments. Thanks Cirt for the reminder. Added some replies above.--Lionratz (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Portal:European military history [edit]

I am nominating this portal because I believe it meets the featured portal criteria. The portal includes:

  • 75 selected articles, all FA quality, randomly generated.
  • 75 selected biographies, all FA quality, randomly generated.
  • 45 selected battles, all FA quality, randomly generated.
  • 30 selected pictures, all FP quality, randomly generated.
  • 20 DYK questions.
  • Sections for Categories, WikiProjects, and Topics.

Any comments and suggestions are appreciated.--xanchester (t) 06:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Could you put links to the complete set of selected articles, biographies, battles, DYKs, as you have for pictures? This would make it easier to review the content. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, the portal is really good. I'll suggest a minor point, there should be links to many more portals, including Portal:War, Portal:Military history of France, and so on. Also, (really minor), "more featured pictures" should be on one line, even when zoomed in a little. If it's possible, try to fix it. Otherwise, the portal still deserves featured status. -- ypnypn (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestion. I replaced the generic browsebar with Template:Military browsebar, which links to all the military history portals. Also, by one line, do you mean that the More Selected Pictures link should be below the Read More link?--xanchester (t) 07:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It seems it should be possible to fit "More featured pictures" and "Read more" all on one line. Maybe it's just my browser. -- ypnypn (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments. Nice clean look. The customised header is nice. The content for articles and biographies is varied and usually relevant, and I like the inclusion of the Selected Battle.
  • There are only five sets of DYKs; there must be thousands more to be mined from the archives. Suggest adding an image to each set (doesn't matter if it didn't appear with an image on the main page as long as the license is appropriate).
  • Can an image (or better a rotating set) be added into the introduction? Perhaps a set of maps over the timeframe?
  • Whether or not it goes into the intro, a map would be a bonus.
  • I'm not sure if we have enough really good maps. I'll have a look. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I found 4, and put them on rotate (better 4 than 1, after all). I'll try to get it up to 10. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the empire maps and similar (2,8-13); are there any other similar? I think the specific battle ones are less useful in context of the intro, though they would be valuable in the context of a Selected map box. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I did find a bunch; albeit on a somewhat similar theme (scroll through Francia). I'll see what I can do about more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • On this day or in this week would be a very interesting addition, given the wide timespan covered.
  • Interesting idea; I'll see if it's practical (it is, as you say, a wide timespan, so I have to check the day articles and see if I can extract enough). Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet; I'll deal with it after DYK. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is going to happen: There's some major issues. First of all, if I tried to do it for specific days, I hit issues with there being at least two major calendars in use for almost all of the recent period of this portal - Gregorian and Julian - and it would suffer badly from recentism, as the more recent the event, the more likely we'd have an exact date. This might be alright, but if I couldn't find anything for a specific date, the portal breaks every time that comes up. I considered On this week and on this month as substitutes, but am not sure the latter would update enough, and to do on this week properly, I'd have to be doing arbitrary week beginnings, since (for example) which day is a Sunday will vary every year (and I have no idea how to handle leap years, or the fact that 52*7 = 364, leaving one or two extra days outside On this Week.) I think this would be better done as a list article than part of a portal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Topics by country feels to overlap the categories (tho' I'm aware it is linking summary articles). Could the topics be cut in a non-national fashion for the topics box, given that the category tree gives access to the national summaries?
I honestly am not sure what you mean by "cut in a non-national fashion". Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There are several ways of describing the content under the mantle of the portal, eg century, type of conflict, type of subject (eg biography, battle, weapon, war-related propaganda &c&c), rather than just repeating the links to the military history of each country, which is already readily available via the categories. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I'll see if I can get someone in who knows about topics to do a repruning; I honestly never use them, so someone who does can manage this better. Will put a message on WP:MILHIST now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The columns persistently don't balance (right shorter).
  • I can't see any other portals that have succeeded in this balance, so am going to presume it impossible. If you have an example, I'll nick their code. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there's a code way of doing it -- it just comes down to making sure as many boxes as possible are of similar size for all the sub-selections and then moving boxes around (trying them in each column or over double columns) until the balance is as close as possible for a range of selections. Looking at it now, it doesn't seem terribly unbalanced, so perhaps it's not too much of a problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggest placing archive links at left of box to avoid unnecessary white space.
  • Interesting. That's a widely-used portal template doing that; I may need to make a custom variant. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Dutch 1913 battleship proposal lacks an image.
  • Fixed. There weren't any good, free-licensed images, so I used a generic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Basiliscus biography has a more link in addition to the read more.
  • Can the date be added to the credits for Selected Picture?
  • That would be a rather non-standard usage, and might be mistaken for birth and death dates at first for the images that took multiple years. It also has the potential to be ambiguous - for example, for a photo of a statue (not in the current list, but plausible), do we give the date of the statue, or the relatively useless date of the photograph - when we may well be crediting the photographer for the image. Britain has very strong Freedom of Panorama rights, so that situation isn't horribly unlikely. But I may be overthinking. What do you think? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's usually done as the date of the photograph or artwork in question; I suppose for a photograph of a statue one might need both, but that doesn't seem an insuperable problem, especially as you don't currently have any examples. It's fine, IMO, to put it in the text if that's appropriate, as I notice has been done for some of the paintings. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Archive of Selected Pictures has redlinks in each item for More Selected Pictures.
  • Not anymore. YesY Done. By the way, this was a bug in a basic portal template. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Related Wikiprojects is rather white-spacy; can a graphic be added?
  • Related Portals are quite sparse; is this box even needed given that the header links a much wider range of military history portals?
  • I agree, and have commented it out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Espresso Addict (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone still working on this? I had another look and didn't see any changes since my comments, over a month ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Screw it, I have a Featured portal, so I at least know what I'm doing. Let me have a look. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Specific comments interleaved above. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I'm being a little slow with DYK. I'm doing this between other things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Could we get an indication from those individuals who commented but didn't show whether they're inclined to support or oppose? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I do agree it could use more DYKs, and I'm working on getting them. Other than that, I support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll certainly support if the bulk of my comments are addressed. At the moment, I think changes are still in progress on substantive areas such as DYKs, some form of events calendar, and topics. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I need to consult someone for advice on your Topics suggestion. It's a part of Wikipedia I never use myself. Definitely need to finish DYK, events calendar may be impractical, as I detailed above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm keen, personally, on calendar-related portal sections, as they cut the articles in a different way from other access methods and can, I think, be appealing to readers; however, if that's impractical in this case I won't oppose on the absence of that alone. The topics issue is, imo, key to portals functioning as a proper portal of access to the subject area. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: Any updates on this portal's progress? Has WT:MILHIST been notified of this featured portal candidacy discussion? — Cirt (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my life got really busy, but it should get done this week. And MILHIST has been informed, but they aren't always very good at speedy reaction times. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, sounds good, no worries, keep us posted, — Cirt (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Should get the work done this week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Portals:  Featured (Criteria, Candidates) | List | Directory | WikiProject | Guidelines | Instructions | Categorizing | Peer review | Categories
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates&oldid=553080653"