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 in 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 167 featured portals, of a total of 1135 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. These instructions do not work; They presume no redirect will be left behind - only a possibility for admins. Please update with correct instructions.
  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.


Nominations[edit]

Portal:Paleozoic[edit]

Self-nomination. Large variety of content about a much-overlooked span of prehistory. I think it's useful, and, if I can toot my own horn, I think it looks good, too. Abyssal (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know what the criteria are, though I suspect that it has to be perfect. So far I see a lot of missing spaces between words.
  • In the first box there is a strange unexplained reference "(ICS, 2004)". Either use normal numbers in square brackets or skip it or explain it.
  • How about in the selected picture give a bit more of explanation of what it is rather than the museum it is in.
  • The fossil sites are very US centric.
  • The box headed Geochronology has a lot more than geochronology in it.
  • Related content is not evenly spaced.
  • Portal:Paleozoic/DYK starts off good, then has a lot of empty rows ending in a redlink.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Graeme. The Featured Portal Criteria are here. I started from the bottom of your list of suggestions and worked my way up. I fixed the DYK page, evened the columns in the invisible related content tables, correctly named the Topics box, and added more fossil sites from a wider variety of locations. Abyssal (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Things have got better and the last 4 are sorted out. I still see text like "theNeoproterozoic", though I fixed some of these word runs-ons myself. So the first three issues are still around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Those run-on words ("theNeoproterozoic" and "known as theCambrian Explosion") don't show up either in the edit window or the preview window; nor do they show in the standalone page of that text. I tried a couple of null edits, purged the portal page, and they were still there. Something to do with transcluding, maybe? Or putting the text into the box? - Gorthian (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abyssal: I think the Paleozoic piece of the timeline would make for a nifty graphic, and you could get rid of the second half of the second paragraph; that's particularly difficult to read through, at least for me. And I think the timeline would be a better graphic than the world "snapshot" of the continents, which is hard or figure out at that size. The other main problem for me is all the white space on the right, underneath the first two rows of boxes. Should something be there? - Gorthian (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Yes, it certainly is attractive enough for a featured portal. However, Portal:Paleozoic/Selected picture needs closer attention. The images all have a one-size-fits-all line saying "Photo credit:" - even if it is only a photograph of some other kind of artwork or an image in a book; and many of the images are attributed to the user who downloaded the image rather than the actual source of the image. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Featured content[edit]

This was previously nominated in 2006, see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Featured content/Archive 1

This is one of the most-visited pages on Wikipedia, and the third link in the left-hand column of every single Wikipedia page. As such, we need to get this one right.

And I think that, after some recent work, it is largely right, but going through a featured portal process will help polish off any rough edges.

So, let's review the criteria:

  • Useful? I'd say yes, and so, presumably, do its ten to twenty thousand visitors a day. Indeed, this is more functional than most portals, as it's integrated into Wikipedia itself (left hand column, third link).
  • Attractive? I think it is, if there's anything that can be improved, I gladly will.
  • Ergonomic? I think it's very easy to use, and very user friendly.
  • Well-maintained? All featured content processes feed into Template:Announcements/New featured content, one of its major sections, and this has been being handled perfectly for years. It also uses content from The Signpost, which has likewise been running regularly for years to provide detailed description of the recent featured content, and that's been running for years as well.

So, let's make any additional changes that will make this amongst the best of Wikipedia's portals, not merely one of the three most visible.

As an aside: forgive me if the format of this nomination is a bit funny: The instructions simply do not work as written, as explained at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_portal_candidates#Instructions_do_not_work - Template:FPOC uses an #ifexist to... well, fail to load the initial template, as the page it tries to preload is a relink, and... well, let's save that discussion for WT:FPOC.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: the old version of the portal gave a selection of existing featured content - articles, lists, portals, topics, pictures. The trouble was that nobody maintained it and it ended up looking awful, as I said a long time ago before boldly doing something about it. Now the portal looks good with the Signpost commentary, but it's basically just "Portal:Most recently featured content": bare lists at the bottom of the most recent FAs, FLs, FPs, etc, and at the top a brief introduction to the material that was adjudged as bronze-star-worthy in the previous week. So unless the portal provides direct access to a much wider range of featured content, as it used to, I don't think it's featurable in its own right. Even then, I wonder whether it's too self-referential and ought to be in Wikipedia space rather than Portal space. That seemed to be one decision that came out of the last nomination, although it was later reversed. But anyway...

Obviously, this would be much harder work to set up and maintain than simply transcluding the relevant page from the Signpost and the charts at template:Announcements/New featured content. A wide range of blurbs for articles and lists would be needed (not simply transcluding blurbs from the TFA and TFL archives, since these will go out of date but shouldn't be reworked for this portal's purposes as they are archive pages in their own right); and similarly for pictures. But that's what a portal of featured content should be - not mainly a snapshot of last week's promotions through the eyes of the Signpost. BencherliteTalk 15:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What if we just used the more recent TFA, TFL, and POTD on the portal? If we had it use, say, the most recent two months' worth, they shouldn't be out of date. For POTD, we could probably use the last year. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know. It effectively then just duplicates the "archive" links on the main page. For TFAs, at least, the mix would be very unrepresentative of our FAs overall - we have only one FA yet to run on the main page in the following topic areas: awards, decorations and vexillology; chemistry; engineering and technology; geology; food; language and linguistics; mathematics; and philosophy and psychology. Any automatic selection of the last 30 or 60 days of TFAs would have lots of articles about warfare, music, literature, TV/films and other such topics, but to all intents and purposes nothing about science (apart from articles about animals/plants and an occasional constellation). I don't think that's very balanced. Also, even a selection based on two months of TFLs would only give you about ~17 blurbs, which isn't a wide range from the FL selection. But let's see what others think... if and when anybody else stumbles across this forgotten corner of Wikipedia featured content reviewing! BencherliteTalk 20:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I would, however, presume that articles in those categories are underrepresented in the total list of FAs as well? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You can see the size of the various subject categories by looking at WP:FA. A portal showcasing WP's featured content should give a good variety of material from across all the FA categories, not be dependent on whatever happens to have got through TFA in the last month or two. June 2014, for example, will include two D-Day related TFAs for date relevancy, but I don't think that a portal showcasing featured content should follow suit automatically. Nor should such a portal necessarily showcase content in proportion to the numbers of articles in each FA category: we have, I think, 15 articles about the 1948 Australian cricket tour of England, and only 17 articles each in the topics of computing and food/drink, but I wouldn't want a selection of portal blurbs to have as many 1948 cricket entries as computing or food/drink. BencherliteTalk 23:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
But the TFA process is specifically designed to have variety, if too similar of an article appeared recently, that's a strike agaisnt it appearing too soon. Given you're in charge of it, if you put 15 articles about the 19488 cricket tour up in two months, I'm blaming you. 00:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me twice, I think, which is probably my fault for editing too late at night! (1) I do my best at TFA to produce variety, but I can only work with the articles that have yet to appear on the main page. A portal showcasing featured content should draw from all the FA topics, regardless of whether the article appeared on the main page last week or X years ago or indeed has yet to appear. It won't do that if it just mechanically reproduces my most recent selections - such a portal would virtually never have articles from chemistry, engineering, medicine, education, food, computing, mathematics, language (etc etc), which wouldn't be good enough. (2) My point about 15 cricket articles from the 1948 tour was addressing what I thought you were getting at when you said that the articles in the categories I mentioned were presumably also underrepresented in the total list of FAs. Yes, that's true - we have fewer computing/chemistry/engineering etc FAs generally compared to music/warfare/TV and film/hurricane FAs. What I thought you might be getting at therefore was that, if some FA categories are just simply underrepresented regardless of the question of main page appearance, then it would be easier to go just by recent main appearance because the end result (in terms of the selection presented to the reader) would be little different. If that is what you meant, I disagree, because the underrepresentation of certain categories shouldn't matter to a portal selecting a wide range of content – the selection shouldn't be as simple as saying "12% of our FAs are on warfare, so 12% of the portal should be about warfare, but only 0.4% of our FAs are on computing, so only 0.4% of the portal should be about computing". (These are actual figures, by the way.) I just don't think there's a shortcut to what I'd want from this portal to say it merited its own bronze star, namely a full range of content. I just don't think that a portal highlighting featured content can just present the most recent promotions via charts and the Signpost, or simply (additionally or alternatively) run off the back of, and effectively duplicate, the most recent TFA/TFL archives. It needs choices to be made about what articles to select from across the whole pool of FAs (and the same goes for FLs) rather than rely on accidents of scheduling from a much smaller pool. BencherliteTalk 00:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
[Unindent] If I may, a compromise: Some articles are going to change too rapidly for them to easily be used in a portal meant to last a long time. Some articles are far more stable. So how about a hybrid: Articles are (50/50 chance) selected from a pool of pre-selected articles OR recent TFAs? This has the advantage of keeping content fresh, while still including a variety. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
That might work, but I'd prefer to see it in operation before coming to a concluded view. BencherliteTalk 21:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Children's literature[edit]

Co-nomination. (This is a co-nomination with Wadewitz.) We worked on the portal together as a joint quality improvement collaboration effort. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oz, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redwall, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Lemony Snicket task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inheritance Cycle, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fablehaven, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discworld, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artemis Fowl, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, User talk:Cirt, User talk:Wadewitz, User talk:Sven Manguard, Portal talk:Children's literature.

  • Support, as co-nominator. I did the formatting and setup, and Wadewitz helped out greatly with filling out the portal with appropriate selections -- not to mention contributing lots of great quality content. I wish she could see it today. — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, dedicated to User:Wadewitz. Lotje (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Review by Sven Manguard

I appreciate that this is dedicated to a deceased Wikipedian, but I am still going to do a proper review:

  • Selected biographies:
    • Why are there only 12? Is that all the FA/GA class ones we have?
    • Some of them are significantly longer than others. I'm not saying that they all have to be the same size down to the line, but we shouldn't have a few that are half the size of all the others.
  • Selected articles:
    • See point two in selected biographies, above.
  • Selected pictures:
    • If you're going to have selected pictures on the large side column, you should be able to free up additional size for horizontally aligned images without having to worry about it going out of the box. Please make the horizontally aligned images larger.
    • Image 21 has nothing to do with children's literature, nor does it link to anything related to children's literature. Image 17 has been put up for deletion on Commons. Please replace 17 and either replace or scrap 21.
    • See the selected pictures section of Portal:Literature, there may be some additional Featured Pictures class images there you can use. Alternatively, File:The Velveteen Rabbit pg 1.jpg is nice looking even at small sizes.
  • Delink all of the dates (month and year) in Portal:Children's literature/Selected anniversaries please.
  • Selected quote:
    • I would remove the images from the Selected quote section, as they cause messy formatting issues. Look at the Three Blind Mice and The Tyger entries, for example.
    • Why is the author bolded, rather than the work? In Portal:Literature, I used a different formatting that left neither bold, which I feel may be ideal, and also linked to the Wikisource of the work, rather than all to their literature page.

This will be passable eventually, but still needs work. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, Sven Manguard, I shall get on addressing above. — Cirt (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Sven Manguard, to my pleasant surprise it looks like a lot of the above has already been helpfully addressed by Lotje before I could even get to it myself! :) Perhaps you could have another look? — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Portal:New York City[edit]

The city so nice they named it twice. I'm nominating this portal for FPO status.

The articles, biographies, lists, anniversaries, and did you knows are varied in their scope, from pre-Revolutionary facts to biographies of present-day celebrities, and with many items in between. As of this moment, there are...

  • 33 selected articles (All FA or GA)
  • 34 selected biographies (Most are FA or GA, some are B-class but of high importance to NYC. Some of them are Version 1.0 articles and others are deemed vital to Wikipedia. I removed a C-class one that wasn't. I can swap out the B-class if desired, but I'd like to defend them first)
  • 20 sets of DYK hooks, each with an image (All hooks are taken from DYKs that ran on the main page. Most of those images also ran with the hook, but I chose a few images that weren't used for varieties sake).
  • 18 selected images, most of which (but not 100%) are FPs
  • 9 selected lists (8 of them have an image, all are FL status. There are more that could be added, but they are all relating to NYC sport teams, and 3 of the 9 already included are also, so I didn't want to overwhelm the selected lists with one topic.)
  • 5 selected anniversaries per month (6 for February, because I couldn't decide on a final cut), with an image for each set
  • All other required FPO features

As I await comments, I will now notify related WikiProjects. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thank you for this nomination and quality improvement effort. Please note here on this subpage talk pages and WikiProject discussion pages where you have left notices about this ongoing discussion. — Cirt (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I notified WP:NYC here, WP:USA here, WP:NY here, WP:CITIES here, and left a notice on the talk page of Portal:Chicago here. No responses to any of those. I'll post on those threads again, and at WT:Chicago, as well as some other specific city projects. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Review by Sven Manguard

Sigh... I ought to just change the nomination procedure to say "when you file an FPOC, go tell Sven". It's a shame that it took me this long to notice that this was here. Anyways, overall this is in really great shape, and I'm impressed. Here are my nitpicky changes:

  • Selected article 20 (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) could use a different image. The one that is there now blends right into the text.
    • Good point. Image changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The portal needs to have a consistent bottom-matter format. Selected picture has "Archives • Read more..." on the left, while selected article and selected bio have those two split, on on the left and one on the right.
    • Changed "Selected picture" format for uniformity – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Please add Wikidata and Wikivoyage to the Associated Wikimedia section.
  • There is something wonky going on with the spacing between the bottom matter and the bottom of the box in most of the Selected biography section. All of them except for 16 through 24 have unexplained empty space down there. It should be possible to fix that.
    • I think it was due to excess whitespace. Is it corrected now? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Any chance you could find two more featured pictures to put in? Commons is likely to have FPs that never got promoted over here. As far as I am concerned, if it's an FP on either project, it's fine for portals.
    • Two more added. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know when you've addressed these points Muboshgu. Also, since you're in the CUP, you might want to list this here. I'd appreciate you reviewing my FPOC as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I've been busy with things in real life and I'm patient with this. This is my first time here, and I gathered that there are fewer reviewers than at GA or other featured statuses. I'll work on this tomorrow, and lend my eyes on other nominations. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay Sven Manguard, I believe I have fixed those issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Muboshgu - Sorry about this, but while you were fixing those, I found one more thing that needs fixing; there are no bold links on selected lists 5-9 (but there are on 1-4). Other than that, I am fully prepared to support this. Unless my nomination clears up and we both get promoted at once, it looks like you'll be scoring the first FPO points for this year's cup. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I've added bold links, though not all in the first paragraph. I'm not sure the exact location of the bold link is regulated by any rule or guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No, that's fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As far as I am concerned, this is ready. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Review by Espresso Addict

Appearance generally clean & neat; I like the red border. The intro blurb is perhaps a little long and felt a bit like a tourist brochure to me. Good number and variety of articles/biographies. Pictures of reasonable quality, though a little sparse for such a heavily photographed city; is it worth broadening to a few more non-featured pictures? As long as the photograph looks strong at the chosen size I'm not sure how much it matters whether or not it is featured, though Sven might disagree. DYKs also a little sparse, perhaps -- was this all there were? Appreciate the variety in Selected lists; was pleasantly surprised to find it wasn't all sport.

  • The image in Selected picture pokes out of the box for me at all window sizes.
  • There is quite a bit of variation in the length of the Selected article & Selected list blurbs.
  • Campbell's Soup Cans in Selected articles and many of the biographies don't explain the connection with NYC.
  • Generally the variety of articles looks ok, but four synagogues seems a little over-represented, given lack of representation of other religions.
  • Inconsistencies in box headers. Did you know & Associated Wikimedia are italicised; selected lists is plural where other headers are singular; browse articles by borough has colon; Topics has capital where others are lower case.
  • Full stop missing in a few Selected anniversaries.

Otherwise looking good. Please ping me when you've addressed my comments (I've given up using watchlist). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Have you been addressing these comments by Espresso Addict? — Cirt (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I wasn't aware that these comments were made. Thanks for pinging me. I'll work on them in the next day or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting to respond...

I don't know what to do about your comment about the selected picture. It doesn't "poke out of the box" on my home or work monitors. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Muboshgu This is what the portal looks like on a 1280x800 screen. That's about the minimum size I worry about for portals, as only 7% of screens are smaller than that. 15% of screens are at 1280 width, however. While the current layout looks fine at 1366 width, it should also look fine at 1280. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is showing up for me (probably my computer, Buzzfeed pages and other websites don't load right on this computer for some reason). I presume the notion here is that the images should be made a little smaller. Can you tell from that what the proper pixelation should be? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that four synagogues is too much. As an explanation (not an excuse), I didn't add any of the four. I will either add churches or delete synagogues. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
"Selected list" is now singular, italics removed from DYK and Associated Wikimedia, colon removed from borough box, topics decapitalized. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I found two missing full stops in the anniversaries, one in November and one in December. I also hadn't bolded the November entries. These are fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)