Wikipedia:Featured portal review

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

Reviewing featured portals

This page is for the review and improvement of featured portals that may no longer meet the featured portal criteria. Featured portals are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. Having said that, three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in portal content or design.

All users are welcome to contribute in the process.

Featured portal review (FPR)

  • The aim is to improve portals to the extent that they can retain their featured status rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured portal criteria that are at issue, and should propose remedies where possible. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve portals in various ways. Portals may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of being useful, attractive, ergonomic and well-maintained, may also be addressed.
  • Participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by constructive and substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return toward the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • One of the featured portal directors, Cirt and OhanaUnited, determines whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and closes the listing accordingly.

There is no set time limit for the review: if changes are ongoing and improvements are happening within a reasonable length of time, and it seems useful to continue the process, the review is likely to be kept open.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Featured portal tools:

Nominating a portal for Featured portal review (FPR)

  1. Place {{FPR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated portal. Write "FPR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
    Note: if a portal has already been through the FPR process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Portal:Solar System → Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Portal:Solar System/archive1
  2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated portal]]=== at the top of the subpage.
  4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the portal, specifying the featured portal criteria that are at issue. Click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated portals, {{Wikipedia:Featured portal review/name of nominated portal}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated portal. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FPRMessage|Portalname}} to relevant talk pages (insert the portal name). Relevant talk pages include the main contributors to the portal (identifiable through the portal stats script), the editor who originally nominated the portal for Featured Portal status (identifiable through the Featured Portal Candidate link), any editors listed in relation to the portal at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FPR indicating notifications completed.

Contributing to the discussions

  • The nominator should list groups and editors notified, for example, :''Notified <main contributors, FP nominator, relevant WikiProjects>.''
    • You can consider using {{subst:FPRMessage}} notify the groups and editors.
  • The nominator should cite the specific featured portal criteria concerns that prompted the nomination for removal.
    • Useful (1a), attractive (1b), ergonomic (1c), well-maintained (1d); compliance MOS and project guidelines (2); images (3); not self-referential (4); links to other Wikimedia projects (5)
      • Use a format such as: :''Suggested FPo criteria concerns are <applicable criteria>.''
  • Discussions focus on how to improve the portal so that it meets the stated featured portal criteria at issue.
  • If you approve of a portal's current featured status, write '''Keep''' followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a portal's current featured status, write '''Remove''' 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 address 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.
  • Do not split review pages into sections using sub-headings.

Featured portal reviews[edit]

Portal:Basque (DELISTING)[edit]

This is a Featured Portal delisting review. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not the portal meets the Featured Portal criteria. If the determination is made that it does not meet those criteria by the end of the delisting review period (one month), it will have it's status as a Featured Portal revoked. Improvements can be made during this procedure, and indeed are encouraged, however because many improvements are promised but never delivered, a commitment to improve the portal in the future is not a valid rationale for keeping the portal at Featured status.

Rationale: Requesting summary delisting per requirement 1(d), which states "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted.". This portal requires manual maintenance and was last updated in 2007. Additionally, the quality of content is low, there are serious formatting issues, and all of the key sections are underpopulated (only seven articles, seven biographies, and a dozen images). Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Husond, could you comment here? If you start work on changing the portal to a more dynamic format, such as for example Portal:Arts or Portal:Society, I'd be more than comfortable giving you some time to make progress on it. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've fixed the small font problem, so reviewers can see how the portal is (I think) intended to be viewed. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Update: Let's wait one more week and revisit to see if there's any progress here, and unfortunately, if not, probably not going to stay at this level of quality. — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Husond or Espresso Addict, any chance you were going to address above? — Cirt (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Why is this not delisted yet after over six months of "review" without any improvement? The portal has been last updated in 2007. Featuring a portal that displays "news" from 2007 is really embarrassing. --ELEKHHT 08:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)