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.
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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.