Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/December 2009
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The portal was not promoted by Cirt 08:08, 5 December 2009 [1].
"In the news" (even featured Portal:Dinosaurs have no this feature) and "Did you know?" is continuously updated, random "Selected picture" and "selected article". Everything seems OK. --Snek01 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really ready for featured candidacy. Only one biography and only four general articles. GAs and FAs aren't necessary, but it's standard at featured portals to run at least ten solid B-class articles that don't have any templates. Image selection is a bit short also. Try a look through Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Others and the Wikimedia Commons featured picture galleries to round out the material. Best wishes. Durova366 06:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also question the inclusion of the Biography at all for a portal dealing with other species. Having said that, I'm not sure what it could be replaced with, but maybe two separate sections for the gastropods themselves. This could be accomplished by either one section on a gastropod species/genus article and another on either a broader classification or some other article, like maybe their circulatory system, might be a better choice. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be enough potential for other biographies, at Category:Malacologists. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also question the inclusion of the Biography at all for a portal dealing with other species. Having said that, I'm not sure what it could be replaced with, but maybe two separate sections for the gastropods themselves. This could be accomplished by either one section on a gastropod species/genus article and another on either a broader classification or some other article, like maybe their circulatory system, might be a better choice. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notes. Everything seems OK for me. I have compared it for example with Portal:Dinosaurs.
- 31 (months) / 27 (articles) = 1,1
- 2 (months) / 4 (articles) = 2
- One biography is better than no biography. Biography is a bonus for you.
- 36 DYKs vs. 21 DYKs.
- If you will evaluate time length of the portal, and number of everything on it, then you will not find a better portal. Portal is not for a reader that will read everything on it and then will never go back. Portal is to provide new informations.
- I will not make things according to your advices. All of them will be naturally done in the future spontaneously in the same way as was done in the past. --Snek01 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Snek01 (talk · contribs) - the above helpful comments give some good recommendations. I suggest you take some of them into account. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.