Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Criminal justice/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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:Criminal justice[edit]

Anyone have some comments pre-WP:FPORTC? Stats: (30) Selected articles, all of WP:GA or WP:FA quality, all w/ accompanying free-use images, (18) Selected biographies, all of WP:GA or WP:FA quality, (20) Selected pictures, (21) Selected quotes, all w/ accompanying free-use images, (60) Did you know entries in sets of 3, each set w/ accompanying free-use image. All above sections are randomized. News section updated regularly with User:Wikinews Importer Bot. Cirt (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Cirt (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lovely portal. Brilliant amount of content. If you put it up for featured status I would support it. However there are flaws.
  1. The columns don't line up at the bottom. Not a big issue but thought I'd bring it up.
  2. The intro could be expanded a little more.
  3. Brilliant list at the bottom of topics.
Hopefully you can build on these. I will give more if I have time. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Response
  1. Actually, the columns do line up at the bottom on average, it's just that at random purges you'll get one column a tad longer or shorter, nuthin's perfect. Plus it adds some dynamism.  :) Cirt (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. The intro/blurb text is from the WP:LEAD for the main article, Criminal justice. If/when the quality of that article improves further and its lead gets expanded, the portal intro could be expanded as well, but generally I'd rather not to independent article-work while in the midst of doing portal work as well. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Thanks, that was actually something that was already there before I began work on this portal - I just alpha-sorted some stuff and touched it up a little bit. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
RichardF comments
  • Obviously, an FFP (future featured portal). ;-)
  • I made some minor changes for the fun of it. The Selected picture frame is my best shot at causing a storm of controversy.
  • The criteria for Selected quotes and DYKs seem a bit harsh and arbitrary. One quote per person ignores the notability of quotes from good quoters. Restricting DYKs to front page items isn't much different than restricting articles to featured articles. These criteria are objective (identifyable) but not particularly fair (open to important and useful variations from restrictive sources).

RichardF (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Response
  1. Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Selected picture frame looks nice, thanks. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. The criteria, I think, help to ensure the longer term dynamism and variety of the portal. And where else would we pull DYKs, except from the main page? Making sure that the DYKs come through the T:DYK/WP:DYK process adds an extra step of "vetting", and helps to make sure facts are sourced. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    Let me add that I've found usually it's fine or even encourage to add/make up DYKs in a portal (provided they are sourced facts) if there is a dirth of entries on a particular subject when looking back through WP:Recent additions. But if there is a good deal of relevant entries from the DYK archives, why not stick to those, at least primarily, because for reasons outlined above, it makes sense. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    My quotes comment stands. Also, what I don't see is a mechanism for DYK exceptions when they occur. I just think the process is too restrictive. RichardF (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, well if someone else comes along at some point and really wants to add something contrary to that, then I'd welcome more discussion at that point. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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.