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]


The definition of a featured portal, cut and pasted from the Portal:Featured portals page is "... portals that are regarded as being particularly useful, attractive, and well-maintained.". The Fish portal is useful and attractive, but unfortunately is not well-maintained; no significant maintenance has been performed on the portal since 2008. I posted a message on the portal's talk page on March 25 and did receive one response, but the page does not meet featured portal standards simply because it lacks somebody to volunteer to step up and maintain it. Until then, the portal will continue to be useful and attractive, just not a featured portal. Neil916 (Talk) 06:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Neil916: Have you contacted any WikiProjects? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: Yes. [1]. Neil916 (Talk) 17:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)