Wikipedia:Portal peer review

Wikipedia's portal peer review process exposes portals to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality portals that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured portal candidate. This is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and portals that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. For feedback on portals that are less developed, use the portal's talk page first. At present, there are 158 featured portals, of a total of 1101 portals on Wikipedia.	The path to a featured portal Start a new portal Develop the portal Check against the featured portal criteria Get creative feedback ← Featured portal candidates Featured portals
Nomination procedure Anyone can request a portal peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts. To add a nomination: Place {{subst:PPR}} at the top of the portal's talk page, creating a portal peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page. Paste {{subst:PPRnom|portal name= |text= }} at the top, with the name of the portal in the "portal name" parameter, and then note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the portal you think need reviewing in the "text" parameter. Signature is automatically appended. Save the new page. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:Portal peer review/PORTAL NAME/archive1}} at the top of the list of nominees. Add the portal to the current requests list. You can add this list to your talk page using {{Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Requests‎}} You also can use {{FPcandidates}} to include featured portal candidates. Optional steps: Start a new section on the portal's talk page using ==Portal peer review== Paste {{Wikipedia:Portal peer review/PORTAL NAME}} into that section. Add {{todo}} at the top of the portal's talk page, then save the page. Edit and paste the following into the to do list. Summarize recommendations and replies as they occur: [[Image:Evolution-tasks.png|left]] '''<big>Recommendations to improve page to featured portal status</big>''' List includes recommendations with replies/status. <br clear="both"> Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles, portals, and/or send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field, including the list of portal peer review volunteers. How to respond to a request Review one of the portals listed below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., portal length, the introduction, poor grammar/spelling, missing topics—post a comment in the portal's section on this page. Feel free to correct the portal yourself. Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the portal's progress. How to remove a request You may remove to the current archive any inactive listings or listings older than one month; inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments); portals that have become featured portal candidates. After removing the listing, contributors should: replace the {{portalpeerreview}} tag on the portal's talk page with {{Oldportalpeerreview|archive=1}} (replacing "=1" with the archive number of the peer review if it is not the first); update Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Requests/List How to resubmit a request If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for portal peer review at a later time: Place {{subst:PPR}} at the top of the portal's talk page as described above Place {{Wikipedia:Portal peer review/PORTAL NAME/archiveN}} (where N is the review number) at the top of the list of nominees below. Archive: Current – February 2012 Purge server cache

Requests

Portal:Argentina

I would like to nominate this portal to featured some day, but before that, I would like to know if there is some important issue that might need fixing. Cambalachero (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and review all open PPRs, having a whole comment-less peer review page...bothers me. Overall: nice work, a few nitpicks and a couple of things that need expansion. ResMar 16:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• The link to the topic outline is probably better placed within the introduction.
• For the news section, to avoid maintenance overhead (and crosslink to our other projects), I think you should use the Argentina Wikinews content. It looks outdated, however, so I'm not sure whether this is a good idea, or how it's implemented if it is (something to do with bots).
• Portal:Argentina/Selected picture - so many good pictures! I dunno, I think most people prefer these be randomized as opposed to ran monthly - less maintenance overhead. Your choice, however.
• Picture of the month needs an actual frame, thumbs are ugly.
• Some of the anniversaries seem sparse (only one event, as opposed to five on another day). Are there no other stories to add?
• Did you know should be consolidated into six-part hook lists, not left alone as they are. Try going to Wikipedia:Recent additions, editing the page, and keyword searching "Argent"; I remember for Portal:Volcanoes I searched "Volc."
• Topics should be framed in some way, it breaks the style to have it simply "out there". Also, I think Topics would be better placed below Other portals.
• What about Featured work?

Thanks for the advises, I will work with them in the following days Cambalachero (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Judaism

Hello, any comments about improving this Portal are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 04:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and review all open PPRs, having a whole comment-less peer review page...bothers me. Overall: good effort, a few things to work on before sending off to FPOC. ResMar 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• "See different featured content" - mixed feelings about saying this instead of simply "Purge the page", as is used in most other portals. The placement is certainly interesting.

Y Done Reworded Magister Scienta^talk 15:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thumbs are ugly, you should create frames for Featured article/Featured picture.

Y Done No longer thumb. Magister Scienta^talk 15:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Add some sort of frame to FP, you don't want it just hanging out. You still haven't removed thumbs from FAs, although these can be "left out". ResMar 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Did you know? is not an actual Did you know section. You need an actual Did you know section. I recommend word-searching Wikipedia:Recent additions for key phrases; "Judi", "Jewi", "Semitic", "Israel" perhaps.
• On my screen the content on the right side goes waaay below that on the left side. Move things around to balance it.

Sorry, this occasionally happens depending on the length of the Parshah (i.e. the biblical excerpt displayed on the right which changes every week). I don't think anything can really be done about that. Magister Scienta^talk 15:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should double-row it, to avoid that. ResMar 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please clarify what you mean. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 03:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Place it at the bottom, above the categories and such but below the featured content; there you can have it stretch both columns, and avoid the size issue. ResMar 02:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for the suggestion, hopefully it looks like what you were talking about. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• You're missing the footers for the featured content; you should have "Archives/nominations" or something similar on the left (linking to the subpage listing selections), "Read more" on the right (linking to the article).

Portal:Denmark

I've assited in making numerous improvements to this portal over the past few months including the addition of a new section/component titled "Featured place". I've updated the "featured picture" and "featured article" selections to remove any red links and blank entries, and made general aesthetic improvements to the article. The only concern I have that I think could be looked into is the layout the page; should "topics" be of higher priority than categories?

The portal currently contains selected article and selected biography entries, all of top importance and (as far as I am aware) high quality ratings (C and above). The selected picture box updates monthly, automatically.

I invite any feedback; questions and suggestions. I hope you consider this portal for a revaluation and upgrade. Thank you.

Peter (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Going through PPR, overall: good effort, a few comments. ResMar 17:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Flying flags are meh; inherent low quality with GIFs.
• Of the week? Are you really going to maintain a weekly list forever?
• Coordinates shouldn't be included in FP blurbs.
• Did you know? needs expansion. Specifically you should have enough material for several 6-hook-long lists. Try wordsearching Wikipedia:Recent additions for "Denmark", "Danish", "Dane".
• Purge server cache - why the awkwardly placed text when there is another, bigger, better placed one a few sections above?
• Try to avoid recycling colors in portal design - you use black twice, for the borders of the outer border and for the border of the inner elements.

Portal:Moon

I've have placed for portal peer review since I've created myself. There 10 selected articles, 8 selected pictures and 6 DYKs which may be ready to featured soon. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments. ResMar 17:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• How much of the Wikinews Space portal is actually related to the moon?
• Considering the benchmark for Featured content is 20, 10 seems far too low for Featured articles.
• Ditto for Selected pictures. For instance, there's no complete map of the moon (far or near side) anywhere in the section.
• Same for DYK, but this might be difficult with so narrow a subject. Have you searched Wikipedia:Recent additions thoroughly? A wordsearch for "moon" and "lunar" would be helpful.
• Moon-footer sucks, the image is too small on large screens (and too low resolution as well). I recommend you simply remove it.
• What about Featured content?