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 173 featured portals, of a total of 1470 portals on Wikipedia.
The path to a featured portal
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:
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
How to remove a request
After removing the listing, contributors should:
How to resubmit a request
This portal was created some years ago but not much was done with it, so I decided to try to add some content. Not sure is this is what the Years portals are supposed to look like, but I tried to fill out some of the portal and make it look complete. Any suggestions or criticisms would be welcome. Thanks in advance. H.dryad (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I have created this portal over the last week and would like to see if I can get some feedback on how to polish it some. Any comments would be very much appreciated.
- It's a nice tidy portal but I don't believe you have enough content highlighted for featured status. Usually at least 15 to 20 items per section is required. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict: Thanks for your reply. I have two problems with that idea; the first is that the Featured Portal criteria don't mention that you need a lot of content highlighted, and the criteria therefore also doesn't present any numbers. It however simply states that a portal "may be designed to have a higher turnover of content" (emphasis added). The other problem with that idea is the scope of a topic, where Briarcliff Manor only has about 20 directly relevant articles. With biographies, that number expands considerably of course, so I could potentially do what you mention to the Article, Biography, and Picture boxes. However if you want more DYKs I would have to fabricate some from scratch. There should be an exception for smaller portals; I really wouldn't like to have to do all of that work if it's not fully necessary. What do you think? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm nominating this portal for a review because I want to nominate it for featured portal in the near future. This portal was created by Moxy for the Latin music project when the project was created and I have done some revamping since then. I used the definition of "Latin music" based on the Latin Grammy Awards (see its categories) and Billboard magazine meaning that the portal mainly includes Spanish- and Portuguese-language recordings. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Erick (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Erick (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments by AJona1992
- I would suggest that if we are using Billboard's (and the Latin Grammy's) definition of Latin music; shouldn't we include not only the Top Latin Albums and the Hot Latin Tracks charts but all Latin-field music charts from Billboard to include all Latin music subgenres?
- My major gripe with that is that would take too much space. Besides, the Hot Latin Songs is factored by all the other Latin subcharts anyway (same goes for the Top Latin Albums).
- As far as I know, it's the articles that appear on the portal page that matter (by using the max counter). I don't think the subpages are factored.
- A lot of the selected articles are inconsistent with dashes (example The Sun Comes Out World Tour vs. Metamorfosis World Tour)
- I purposely decided not to those articles appear on the portal page because I haven't see any other tour articles listed on any featured music-related portal.
- Shouldn't all articles featured on the portal be similar to the way TFA runs theirs? (one paragraph blurp)
- I agree, but some of them exceed 200 words which is not allowed per the criteria.
- Some of the DYK articles redirect to disambiguated articles.
- I'll have those fixed in a jiffy.
- Some of the articles featured on the portal are not up to date.
- Same as above.
- Currently there are two Shakira articles featured, any way of having a more diverse chronological order?
- I really wish we had more featured content, but we only have four FAs (it's a shame that the article for Selena got demoted). I guess I could replace Shakira's discography with Selena's awards for the time being. ~~
- Thanks for taking your time to review the portal AJona1992. Erick (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)