Jump to content

Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Archive/February 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal:Buddhism

[edit]

Statistics: Five rotating images in the Intro, 10 Selected articles, all WP:FA or WP:GA, 12 Selected biographies, all B-class or higher, 20 Selected pictures, 20 sets of 3 DYK hooks, all with free-use images, 20 Selected quotes, all with free-use images, Updated news with Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs), and a Rotating In this month section. The redlink in Things you can do will soon hopefully be blue thanks to a new feature from WolterBot (talk · contribs), and there is a link to articles with notability concerns thanks to WP:WPNN.

Looking for any feedback/comments prior to WP:FPORTC. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WP:RELIGION, WP:BUDDHA, WP:TIBET. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Layout and Randomization is great. News not new at all. but I'd like to help you updating news and my fellow wikipedians at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka might also interest in this portal, if you notify it there too. Best of luck! --Chanaka L (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
News is dependent on people writing new articles over at Wikinews. But the function of having something relating to events is balanced as well by In this month. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal:Opera

[edit]

I would like to nominate Portal:Opera as a featured portal. The portal falls within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera editors, a group writing and editing Wikipedia opera related articles - Jay (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewers or panels of Featured Portal, you may not see any comments or suggestions about Portal:Opera because as I mentioned above, this is a collaboration work within members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. All our discussions and suggestions were done there. When we agreed to have a Portal some time ago, we had lengthy discussion including consensus from members about many things. As for the selection of the articles, pictures, audios etc, we have monthly discussion for example month February ~ March 2009 discussion. We updated our portal every 2 months except for "Did You Know" and "Opera News" sections. Those 2 sections were updated whenever we have new info to be updated - Jay (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In my view, this portal is ready to go to Featured portal nominations.
1. (a) It covers a topic that is broad, interesting and a major arts genre. Collective work by the WikiProject Opera members insures that the articles displayed on it are good quality, albeit not always FAs. (b) It is attractive with no obvious formatting issues or excessive red links. The only minor issue might be the length of the current featured singer article intro. Its 350 words long and they shouldn't be over much over 200 words. (c) The presentation of content is logical and effective. (d) It is well maintained, with new featured content, news, and DYKs updated at least every two months.
2. It adheres to the standards in the Manual of Style and the relevant Opera Project guidelines.
3. It has appropriate and interesting public domain images and sound files with concise captions and no non-free content.
3. It is not self-referential
4. It has links to related projects and portals.

I suggest we close this peer review so the discussion at Featured portal candidates can proceed. Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC) (Opera Project member)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal:Sri Lanka

[edit]

Within a short period of time I could be able improve this portal from portals needs attention to a portal as good as its peer portals like Portal:India, Portal:Pakistan, Portal:Bangladesh. I hope that it could be nominated for a featured portal.regards --chanakal (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too familiar with the Featured Portal Criteria, still here are my 2cents:
  • The layout looks fine to me, nice and clear. It would be nice to have a map indicating the location of Sri Lanka
 Done inserted a location map.thanks for bring it to consideration.
  • Possibly, the colour layout could be changed to match the colours of the Sri Lankan flag, but this might actually be POV and antagonize Tamil citizens, so it needs careful consideration
Here I emulated the colouring of Portal:Australia. they have used heraldic Green & Gold colours. By using colours of Sri Lankan Cricket team I think I've done a fair job to all the ethnic groups, which I think best example of our unity.


Jasy jatere (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very nice idea
  • The introductory text mentions history as being a British colony, but Sri Lanka's history is much older, and the older parts are more relevant than teh 150 years under the British
 Done enlarged the introduction. mind you that this text is taken from the main article of Sri Lanka and it should be a concise text too.
  • Some info about religion would be nice, and about the Buddhists idea that the Buddha gave them Sri Lanka as a homeland to take care of. This is again a very difficult topic and demands a lot of sensitivity, but I think it is one of the major features of Sri Lanka, which distinguishes it from neighboring India.
Reply relevant to above point.
  • It might be a coincidence, but the three featured items are all Sinhalese/Buddhist. It would be nice to throw in the occasional Hindu, Christian, Moor or Malay (I acknowledge that the botanical gardens are neutral in this regard, but they are still in Kandy, the Sinhalese heartland).
I ensure you that I have thought long before you mentioning it. That's why I saved archival selected article on Trincomalee here. please scan my edit history and you can find that I've never edited disputed items sensitive to most Sri Lankans other than if it's a style edit.
OK, just wanted to point that out as an issue
  • The selected items could maybe undergo proofreading before being published on the portal page. While I am not in the WP:LOCE, feel free to contact me if you want to rotate the items, and I'll have a look over them and adapt the English to international standards.
Thank you you are welcome to help me with grammar. --chanakal (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the columns being of approximately equal length. The current situation appears to be due to a mistake in layout rather than deliberate design. The ITN box contains an extra </div> which terminates the column. If you remove it, DYK and categories become part of the second column.-gadfium 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Donebalanced the columns. it seems that length of the columns gave the trouble.
It looks much better now. However, the fix you made worked because you moved the "Sri Lanka News" pane to the end of the first column, but you have not removed the extraneous </div> from near the end of Portal:Sri Lanka/Sri Lanka news. This "div" means that the Sri Lanka News pane (which I incorrectly called the ITN box above) terminates whichever column it is in, but the control of layout should be in the main portal page rather than in one of its subpages.-gadfium 04:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done found the troublesome </div> tag and removed. i didn't find it earlier. Thank you

Portal:Heraldry

[edit]

Portal has randomized picture (20), article (27) and DYK entries (~75, 5 at a time). Looking for feedback toward featured portal status. Gimmetrow 22:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Technology and applied sciences

[edit]

This portal is of high standard and quality, and links directly from the main page. What would it take to get it to FA?

Flewis(talk) 07:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it needs to meet the Featured portal criteria. Some quick observations: it's too big, too few SAs and SPs, SB link needs fixing, the redirects on the whole portal need to be removed, what's with the DYK archive?, AW links need fixing. A list of the portal's pages in the talk page would be nice. feydey (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Bande Dessinée

[edit]

I have worked much for the improvement of my portal, but some concerns may remain:

  • Is the image at the top of the page useful and aesthetic, or should I remove or replace it ?
  • Problem with the selected biography: I contented myself with writing a short sentence as an introduction for each personality. Then I wrote the beginning of the biography, then put a link "more..." to the complete article. Is it approriate ?
  • Selected images are not of the same size. Is it really a problem ? It should be noted that free images for comics are very rare.
  • Is the presentation of the news correct ? I did not specified the exact date of each event, only the month, because I do not know it.
  • If you have any other recommendations about other aspects of the portal, do not hesitate ! Thanks.

Pah777 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jh12 Comments
Thanks, and good luck. --Jh12 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Transport

[edit]

I have been working on this portal for a while now, and I would like some feedback; I am hoping that it will soon be good enough for a featured nomination. Arsenikk (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jh12 comments

Portal:Hudson Valley

[edit]

I just created this this morning and I designed it using the random selected article/picture/biography/other. It uses largely B-Class or higher articles. I'd like to know what it needs. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jh12 Comments
  • A Topics section: Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines#Required
  • You may want to use a layout system for all your randomized components: see Portal:Feminism/Selected article with the associated article layout
  • An expanded caption on Selected picture might be nice. (Portal:Sustainable development)
  • Any available free images with rollover captions for Selected attraction and Selected biography; add rollover captions for Selected article and Selected picture (Portal:Japan)
  • A More or Read more link for that specific article on Selected article, Selected attraction, Selected picture, and Selected biography; two styles among current featured portal candidates are at Portal:Feminism (uses a footer via its layout) and Portal:Peru (without a footer, manually added)
  • A randomized Did you know... section with 10 DYK sets, along with a picture/caption and a link to Wikipedia:Recent additions (Portal:Criminal justice)
  • Increase Selected attraction and Selected biography to 10 each
  • A Things you can do section
  • A Selected anniversaries or In the news section
Hope that helps; a lot of this is simply stuff I've seen from the portals going through WP:FPOC. Good luck, --Jh12 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Ancient Near East

[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on a new portal for the Ancient Near East. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome!

Categorystuff (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe should we create specific portals about mesopotamia, phenicia, ancient Anatolia, etc… Therefore the Ancient Near East portal wouldn't be saturated by too large an amount of articles. Alexander Doria (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was so much interaction between all the groups in this area, that I think even if there were different portals for each geographic area, there would still be a need to have a central point to put it all together. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't want to dismantle the Ancient Near east portal. We should keep it as an introduction to the other portals. Besides even if there were a lot of interaction in this area, the hitites, the sumeriian, the phénicians and the Elamites were such different people, that they could claim for a portal each. Alexander Doria (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, but I'll probably leave the other portals to other editors. One of the problems is that this area attracts so much Fringe and Nationalism that there are very few articles that can be used in the "selected articles" section. The editors who make nonsense of so many of these articles are very agressive, so that it is nearly impossible to make the articles presentable without getting burned by a cabal of extremists and/or entrenched wiki-lawyers. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy comments
  • The portal is currently really wide on my screen, as in I have a left-right scrollbar at the bottom. My resolution is 1024x768, which is pretty standard.
 Done formatted the portal on a smaller screen
  • I'm not a fan of shortcut portal links (though others are... your call).
 Done
  • The map image on the Ancient Near East article would be good for the intro of the portal.
 Done I was thinking of using an icon for the intro, but the map makes good sense too.
  • Can the topic box be made smaller.... it's massive and takes up so much of the portal. Ideally you'll have most of the main content (once you've scrolled down past the intro) on the one page... see Portal:Music of Australia for a random featured example.
The ANE covers a *lot* of different groups and people all interacting with each other, and the chart is a way to show all the key topics in context with each other, in one central place. I really don't want to reduce the size of the chart just for the sake of its size, because I think it's a useful tool for the ground it covers.
 Done put topic box on a separate tab
  • Yeah, work on these things, expand (as in, get more) selected content... looking good for me!

giggy (:O) 09:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, IansAwesomePizza (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by John Carter
  • Agreed that the width is a bit much, as I have the option of scrolling to the side as well, which I generally don't have, and it could be a bit offputting to some viewers. If there would be any way to reduce the width, it would probably help a lot.
 Done
  • Currently, the portal only seems to use one selected article. I think it would be at least possible to split that into two articles. The standard break-down is between biographical and other kinds of articles, but other options could be used as well.
There really aren't enough substantial biographies in the ANE for a biography section. Even for people who've done something notable, little else is known about them (e.g. En-hedu-ana the earliest known author, Mursili I the conquerer of Babylon)
  • The size of the timeline is also a question. It is very long. I'm not myself entirely sure how to reduce the size, but if it would be possible it would probably help.
I think the timeline chart has to be sizable to accommodate all the (otherwise confusing) interacting groups. I suppose I could reduce the text size, but I'm not sure how small I can make it and still be readable on most screens.
 Done put topic box on a separate tab
Thanks, IansAwesomePizza (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Star Wars

[edit]

Hello, I believe that this Portal could be worthy of the featured portal rank but there are still a few things that may need changing. In 2006, this portal was put up for featured portal but was rejected because it was too new. Two years later, I believe it has a chance ...

  • For instance, a lot of the portal pages do not have the portal link. This includes even the main pages such as Star Wars: Episode I and Star Wars: Expanded Universe. It would be very helpful if people could fix these pages by adding the following template below infoboxes and the like: {{portal|Star Wars|Star Wars Logo.svg}} It should end up looking like this on the pages. (See below)



If for any reason it does not, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
 Done I have placed the portal link on every FA- and GA-rated Star Wars article listed on WikiProject Star Wars (except Ian McDiarmid) and also on as many other Star Wars articles as I could find along the way. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The layout of the current portal page is good but at the moment does not contain any pictures. I am not very good at formatting (I'll admit) so if anyone else could help on that, that would be great.
  • Also, if anyone else could regularly update this site (more than it already is perhaps) that should also lead to a better portal page!
  • If there is anything else that you can think of that you think will improve the page please do not hesitate to either ask or just do it yourself!

Thanks, hopefully this should get moving on pretty well, pretty quickly, SkE (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Catholicism

[edit]

I want to nominate this portal at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates but came here to know if I should make any improvements . Bewareofdog 05:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a POV issue. I think at present this portal is about Roman Catholicism and should either rename to exclude Old Catholic churches etc or should include them. Although the Roman Catholic church defines Catholicism to mean those in communion with the pope this is not the exclusive use of the term in other parts of the church. This has been discussed at length in other places on WP. --BozMo talk 06:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See for example all the "Affirming Catholicism" websites (try google) for Anglicans who use the term "Catholicism" self-referentially. --BozMo talk 06:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:British Army

[edit]

Hi. I'm after possible improvements and ideas before I nominate this portal for featured status. Jhfireboy Talk 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hossen27

Very sound portal

Not much wrong here.

I made a few mostly minor changes to the layout and removed some redlinks.

just a few more things.

  • make all the images in the selected articles the same size (around 200px), just for consistency. Done to 350px
  • try to make the selected articles similar lengths, keeps the portal looking more uniform even though it automatically refreshes the content.
  • Its not a necessity (in my opinion) but adding the source of the selected photo is always a nice touch. see Portal:Military of Australia/Selected picture for examples.  Done

Go ahead and put it up for feature review if you think its ready. They will find the other little things that need a change that I missed in my 10 minute check.

Well done Hossen27 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

A very nice portal, as Hossen27 says. There are a few things that may need some fiddling, though:

  • The background color seems a bit dark for me; it's difficult to read the blue links on it, at least on my screen. You might consider using a lighter shade of khaki instead. Done
  • Selected pictures do, generally speaking, need sources.  Done
  • The "Things you can do" box shouldn't contain anything that's already been done.  Done
  • I'd avoid using thumbnail markup inside the boxes, for consistency; the captions can be positioned under the image via a table instead.  Done
  • The main portal navbar ("Culture · Geography ...") appears twice; I'd suggest removing the one at the top, to avoid needing the horizontal line there.  Done
  • A list of major topics would be good (and is likely to be requested during the featured portal review).

Keep up the good work! Kirill 02:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cam

Well, as mentioned by Kirill & Hossen27, really good portal. However, there are a few minor things that I think could use some improvement.

  • Kirill, you're not alone. it's difficult to see the blue links on my screen too (despite the fact that I have brightness turned to absolute max). Might I suggest a lighter colour.  Done
  • The "Related portals" seems a bit out of place. I'd argue that it is taking the place of something more important, such as Featured Article or Featured Event or something along those lines  Done (incidentally, I notice you don't have a "featured event", perhaps you should add that).
  • I think the whole page could benefit from a re-arranging of the boxes. Generally, Featured Article is the first one on the portal in most cases, rather than the featured picture.  Done

Other than that, however, I think this thing's pretty much ready for Featured Portal nomination. Excellent work. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriakos

Good work so far. The portal is looking good, I just a few comments:

  • As mentiond above I would standardize the size of the images, I personally think that 150 px is a good size.  Done to 350px.
  • As stated by Kirill, a major topics section would be great as looking through several of the MILHIST Featured Portals they all have one.
  • You might like to get rid of the thumb on the images.  Done
  • I would be good if you added images for every article when possible. In the selected units, Royal Horse Artillery and Scots Guards don't have images, when their symbols could possibly be used.

Otherwise, the portal looks very good. Kyriakos (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Octavia Agrippa

Very good portal. Only one problem and that is with the colouring. It is not very easy to read the first section. Can i suggest that you use something other than blue on green as the background. Great content though. Gaia Octavia Agrippa T | C 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

BusterD

Some good work here. Building a new portal is a lonely task. Much of what I'll suggest is intended to invite the casual reader to participate. I personally think that there's way too much background color showing (Selected picture, for example), but that's an artistic choice, and not by any means a deal killer. There are several issues that will come up during any promotion process and must be resolved in some way, if my recent experience at P:ACW is indicative. I'll also suggest you look at Portal:Norway (a newly featured portal maintained by User:Cirt, a frequent FP commenter) for examples of what is expected in that process.

  • Current style is that instructions appear on each content page. See how I've adapted this for Portal:American Revolutionary War/Selected event (in Kirill's new portal effort).
  • A page layout is also a good idea (same examples), in order to make it very easy for a new portal contributor to make finished, correctly styled entries all by themselves.
  • A redundant link to each subsection entry (look at the page code for Portal:American Revolutionary War/Selected event to see what I mean) is another handy handle a new editor can use to see exactly where to click.
  • Your "Things to do" subsection references things to do on the portal itself, and strangely, that's not the task the section normally performs in a featured portal. Look at similarly intended (but very different from each other) subsections in Portal:Comedy and Portal:American Civil War. I'd use a {{todo}} template on subpages to tell the new editor what tasks need doing. On the main page subsection, I believe the accepted style should be pointing the editor toward helping content-area articles. If there was a British Army task force, you could simply transclude their to do list. Since you have a Britsh military history task force, you can pull from that. Keep the red-links to high-priority requests.
  • IMHO, you're going to need way more selected sub-articles and pictures. Six of each is a very small number. Size of each entry should be roughly similar; right now when one cycles the selection, page composition varies widely, when it should be fairly stable. Read current FP process to see what metrics are currently being applied to such issues. It's a good idea to start reading FP process anyway. Done - now have ten sub-articles and pictures.
  • Maybe it's my browsers or platform, but the "Show new selections" link is partially hidden behind the two top subsection boxes.  Done - I have tried three browsers that do not show this mistake.
  • Intro box needs a footer: (More about the British Army)

I suspect there's more to do, but since you need many more sub-articles and pictures, remind me to look again after you've built those quantities up a bit. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks better. I'm not sure what the ideal number of entries will be, but keep adding a few a week, and then you're ready. Expect some sharp critique at featured portal (you'll be busy for a week or two); the accepted practice is to self-nominate your own work, so you can choose your moment. Congratulations on important work done well. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alexf

Very nicely done. My only complaint, one already noted by other editors, is the dark green background at the top provides low contrast and makes it hard to read. -- Alexf42 11:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Portal:Ohio

[edit]

I started this portal in late February and since then User:Spencer and I have really made something out of this, in my opinion. Just looking for general opinions of what could be made better? Thanks! §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, from me too. User:Stepshep has done a great job and we've really added a lot of content. We just want to be nudged in the right direction if needed. SpencerT♦C 00:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks not bad at all! However, with Firefox 2 on OS X the boxes line up...oddly. They have irregular vertical space between them, some nearly touch, others are quite far apart. This is probably because the main page seems to have a set of divs for each box, where you really only need three divs for the entire page: left column, right column, and the bottom full width. See Portal:Peer review (which, admittedly, has a few nested divs but is easy to make out). Msanford  T  03:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sony PlayStation

[edit]

Playstationdude (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the "Did you know..." ...that the PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite, at 189 grams, is 29 grams lighter than the Nintendo DS Lite? reads a little like an ad, but if it's, say, the lighest portable console, that would be noteworthy. Msanford (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Finished

2. I would strongly suggest increasing the number of Selected articles (currently 8), pictures (currently 5) and, possibly most importantly for you, games (currently 5). If your idea is to get people to write more articles, then make that a big, bold item in the "Things you can do" section, usually in the format "Requested articles: game 1 game 2 game 3" as red links so people will click them and write an article. Make as many as you can think of! Msanford (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Finished, but can always grow.

3. You may consider phasing in more standardized reference tags for your news items with a {{reflist}} at the bottom in a separate box. But that's just my personal preference because I'm a citation maniac. Msanford (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't know portals take refs. I've been taking them out when I use articles for the portal.
Everything should be referenced, always, everywhere. That's my take at least, others may have a different idea :) Msanford  T  16:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The ref links don't take you anywhere on the portal. I say leave them out. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, the portal is visually pleasing: you've used a great colour scheme which is directly realted to the content, and I like the related boxes at the bottom. Msanford (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. The Main Topics columns are too thin on 1024x768, and break completely on 800x600. This could be alleviated by either changing to a horizontal layout, or switching from 5 to 4 columns. PretzelsTalk! 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. I added alt text to the header graphic, and copyedited the introduction. PretzelsTalk! 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Saskatchewan

[edit]

Content is randomized, and I would greatly appreciate feedback on the portal. Thanks for your time! Happy editing,SriMesh | talk 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All the portals mentioned below to use as models/examples are currently Featured Portals:

  1.  DoneConsider randomized images in the Intro, model Portal:Iceland. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)SriMesh | talk 00:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  DoneNo need for the references in selections at Portal:Saskatchewan/Selected article. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)SriMesh | talk 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  DoneYou are using 2 different footer models, the "Selected picture" says "suggest", and the "Selected article" says "Archive/Nominations". Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  DoneThe "Did you know" section could be standardized (as mentioned above, so could lots of sections) and a good model to go with for that is the Featured Portal Portal:New South Wales - which has sets of three hooks per subpage, with a free-use image used for every set. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)SriMesh | talk 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  DoneCategories could have a nice little icon/image somewhere in that section, see Portal:Sustainable development. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)SriMesh | talk 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  DoneCould add a Featured content section, the Featured Portal Portal:North West England is a good example of this. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)SriMesh | talk 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  DoneHave a Question? Ask here! and Help - I want to add to the SK portal are both a bit too self-referential. Consider moving these to some sort of header on the portal talk page or WikiProject page instead, for those looking for help/ways to contribute - because Things you can do is usually the section for that in Featured Portals. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)SriMesh | talk 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  DoneSelected biography is currently using both footer systems, "...Archive/Nominations", and "Suggest • More Biographies...". Pick one and go with it for all footers in the portal. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)SriMesh | talk 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  DoneSelected Quotes section could be reformatted, a good model is Portal:Religion. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. Cirt (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will get on the improvements over the next two daysSriMesh | talk 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Started changes, will have to skip a day and get back again. Thank you very much!SriMesh | talk 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
completed all the tasks for the portal aforementioned. Thank you very much for your time. Would it be ready for submission for Feature Portal?SriMesh | talk 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the intro makes the horizontal bar appear - you may want to resize/remove it. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Done Re-sized image. I have a wide screen monitor, does the bar appear nowSriMesh | talk 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just right. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN that one guy who buried stuff 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still seeing the bar across the screen on the portal. You should make the portal look friendly for all sizes of monitors. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed these concerns. Does a portal need 10 articles at feature or good article status in each section to be eligible for feature status? Is Portal Saskatchewan ready for review for feature? SriMesh | talk 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 things. 1) The image on the main portal page is horrible. It looks grainy. 2) You need at least 15, if not 20, of each section. Anything under that is a no-go. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review/Archive/February_2009&oldid=1146198175"