Wikipedia:Portal peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

  1. Start a new portal
  2. Develop the portal
  3. Check against the featured portal criteria
  4. Get creative feedback
  5. Featured portal candidates
  6. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page.
  3. 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.
  4. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:Portal peer review/PORTAL NAME/archive1}} at the top of the list of nominees.
  1. Optional steps:
    1. Start a new section on the portal's talk page using ==Portal peer review==
    2. Paste {{Wikipedia:Portal peer review/PORTAL NAME}} into that section.
    3. Add {{todo}} at the top of the portal's talk page, then save the page.
    4. 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:

  1. 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)

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:

  1. Place {{subst:PPR}} at the top of the portal's talk page as described above
  2. Place {{Wikipedia:Portal peer review/PORTAL NAME/archiveN}} (where N is the review number) at the top of the list of nominees below.

Purge server cache

Requests[edit]

Portal:Amiga[edit]

I just made this portal over the last few days and am eager to know of any improvements that could be made. All suggestions are welcome! H.dryad (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Portal:1980s[edit]

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)

Portal:Wetlands[edit]

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.

H.dryad (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

I believe this meets FP criteria, however I would like another set of eyes before nominating it. Thank you. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 20:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

  • 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)

Portal:Paleontology[edit]

Considering nominating this for featured Abyssal (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Latin music[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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.
Any way we can shorten them to be straight to the point and point interested readers to their perspective article? Right now it looks cramped; unless we can widen the template boxes for better flow? jona(talk) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. ~~
It doesn't have to be Selena Face-wink.svg, just would be nice to have other Latin articles for readers. Well the newly promoted Luis Miguel article could take that place. jona(talk) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

As part of the Latin music project I decided to voice several comments. Best, jona(talk) 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to review the portal AJona1992. Erick (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem buddy, let me know if you would like help on any of the concerns I raised and I'll jump in =) jona(talk) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)