Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Archive/December 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This archive contains the peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured portal candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main peer review page with your signature (~~~~).

Portal:Film[edit]

I did a major overhaul of this portal recently, using models from other Featured Portals. Of note, there is also a Featured Film Portal in the French language Wikipedia, and I used their header image. I also used {{Random portal component}} to make the portal more dynamic and make it easier to update and keep dynamic in the future. Some quick stats: -- (59) Selected articles, all of WP:FA quality, (22) Selected biographies, all of WP:FA quality, (10) Selected pictures, all free-use from Wikimedia Commons, (20) Selected quotes from film directors, (20) "Did you know" entries, all WP:DYK hooks used have previously appeared at T:DYK on the Main Page. All of the above sections use {{Random portal component}}, and pretty much the only section that will have to be updated on a regular basis is the "Featured content" section, as more articles attain WP:FA status.

Any suggestions on how to improve this Portal further, or comments if you think it is currently ready for WP:FPORTC, would be most appreciated. Thanks for taking a look. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Review by Sd31415 (talk · contribs)

Good job. Some suggestions:

  • Film → The Film Portal
  • Film news → Recent news, Current events, or the like.
  • In the news box, More... isn't necessary.
  • In the Featured content box, From WikiProject Film's Featured articles: isn't necessary, in my opinion.
  • Main Topics → Main topics
  • In the Categories box, the formatting should be uniform (current examples: · Film, History of film, , · Films Film genres, · Cinema - ).
  • I made a small formatting change to the Wikimedia box. Happy editing — [sd] 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to review
  • Featured content box -  Done - Removed. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Film → The Film Portal -- I think not on this one, better not to be self-promoting of the portal, but rather informative of the subject matter itself. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Film news → Recent news, Current events, or the like. --  Done - Changed to simpler, "News". Cirt (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • In the news box, More... isn't necessary. --  Done - Removed. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Main Topics → Main topics -  Done. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • In the Categories box, the formatting should be uniform --  Done. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks for the quite quick response! I think the portal is ready for FPORTC. Regards, [sd] 22:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the early support. I think I'll wait a little bit more, to either get some feedback from others, and/or allow for WP:FPORTC to clear a bit. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'd disagree with the change to the featured content thing, mainly because of what portals are supposed to be. They're meant for both editors and regular users, but also specifically for people who aren't necessarily familiar with Wikipedia itself. The section header by itself doesn't tell a layman anything on why the seemingly random grouping of articles is included there. - Bobet 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RichardF comments

This obviously is an excellent portal, so I'm just going to focus on what I believe can be improved to make it even better.
Portal:Film design/review checklist.

  • Intro (good/important): This is "The Film Portal" not the Film article. The title should be changed. The intro doesn't seem to cover the scope of the article intro. It could be strengthened.
  • Articles (top 10): Very few images, boring. If every article is featured, then the header can be "Featured articles."
  • Bios (top 10): Header can be "Featured biographies."
  • Pics (top 10): I'm guessing more credits could be linked.
  • News (Y/N): There isn't any, just links to places where you might find some. This should include actual news items and be updated by a person on a regular basis.
  • Events (Y/N): Not there, probably could include some interesting tidbits.
  • Contribute (project to-dos): Very limited apparent offerings considering the scope of the project. Since even Template:WikiProject Films tasks doesn't cover all of the possibilities, I would add some of the ways people can get involved that are listed on Template:WP Film Sidebar, particularly Task forces and Departments. Otherwise, just tell people to go look at the project, another weaker off-portal reference.
  • Cats (core): Looks good.
  • Topics (main): If Categories has subheadings, then Topics should too.
  • Lists (Y/N): This should be one of the Topics subheadings.
  • DYK (Y/N): Where's the pics?! ;-)
  • Quotes (Y/N): I'm sure there are folks of note besides directors who have something interesting to say about films. If ever there were a portal to include images with selected quotes, this is it.
  • Portals (related): That looks like a good group, although others could be added just as well from The arts group of portals, e.g., Arts, Books, Dance, Poetry, Theatre and Musical Theatre.
  • Projects (main/related): Nice image. ;-)
  • Featured content: If the only links listed are to articles, then call it "Feature articles," but I find it hard to believe no other types of film-related pages are featured.
  • Media (Y/N): Okay, if all the links work. :-)
  • Archive/Noms/Rotation (manual/auto scheduled/random): Seamless randomization setup.
  • Header & Footer (standard/+): Okay. Some people love topical browsebars, some hate them. This might be an interesting one to consider to be part of some artsy browsebar, like Template:religion browsebar and Template:Sports portal browsebar.
  • Boxes & Background (palettes): Boring.
  • What's not there (required/optional): The lack of an Events box seems to be a missed opportunity.
  • Overall: There's no doubt it's going to be featured, but the whole impression of the portal comes off as rather bland to me. That's unfortunate for a topic that's all about creativity. The portal also has substantive off-page references at News and Things you can do. Why have a one-stop-shop if it keeps prematurely sending you away?

RichardF (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above comment

Wow, lots of comments from RichardF (talk · contribs), wasn't expecting so many more but it's good to hash this stuff out before WP:FPORTC. I'll do my best to address this stuff, and note it here, below. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for being such a good sport by responding to all my comments. :-) RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done -- Addressed one point, changed heading to "The Film Portal". Cirt (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Articles -- I think I saw somewhere in the past that Raul654 (talk · contribs) had an issue with calling it "Featured article" and "Featured biography", even if they were featured quality, I'm not sure. I'm sorry that you feel it's boring if some don't have pictures - but I can only use free-use images if the articles have them, and it'd be a ton more work to try to go search for free-use images for each of those articles. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Raul has his opinion, I have mine. No laws broken there. ;-) RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, and as the instructions are changed and it is only featured content in both boxes anyways, we're all good here. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Bios - Again, not sure on the policy of referring to stuff as "featured" sections, but I guess if you think so I'll go ahead and change it, others can always change it later. That means I'll also have to make the changes in the instructions for adding new content that it will have to be WP:FA quality for those two sections. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done -- Changed Articles and Bios headings from "Selected" to "Featured", as it only contains WP:FA content in all of both, changed instructions on Archives/Nominations pages. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • If only featured content is allowed here, then it's good that the instructions reflect that. RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Pics - Added a link to the only other credit where one could be provided. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • News -- Please take a moment to look at the Film portal at Wikinews. They clearly do a much better job than we ever could with updating the Film-related news stuff, and there would be a lot of updating involved. Why copy and paste stuff from that most excellent portal, when a simple link over there provides a wealth more info of the exact same kind and benefit? Cirt (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • This "problem" could have a "simple" solution, but I'm not familiar enough with the "DynamicPageList" function to know how to send it across sister projects. In effect, it should be transcludable, or whatever you call it!? ;-) Just figure out how to apply the following code here (with count=5 or so) → <DynamicPageList> category=Film count=15 category=published notcategory=disputed </DynamicPageList> ← RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea how to do this "DynamicPageList" function, and I wouldn't begin to know who to ask about it either. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Events - What do you mean by "Events" ? I don't understand, how would this section be different than news? You mean historical events? Cirt (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • It's also called "On this day" e.g., Biography, Religion; "Selected anniversaries" e.g., War; "Calendar" at Holidays. I'm sure a monthly format would work too, but I can't find an example off the top of my head...? RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I love this idea of a monthly auto-rotating "Anniversaries" section, though I've never done something like this before. However, I don't think it's a sticking point before sending to WP:FPORTC - more like something to work on longer term. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Contribute (project to-dos): - I went ahead and added a link to the sidebar template with the taskforces, so that's  Done. I see no problem with a few off-portal references, especially to places with a wealth more info and good links. The Things you can do section has six links there, each of which are useful ways an editor can contribute, and/or find many more ways to contribute. Again, I'd rather not copy and paste a list into there from one of the other Film todo boxes, which would then have to be constantly updated along with the actual box - instead, there is a directory of "todos" of sorts, which I think is just as useful. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Who ever said "copy"? That's what transclusions are for. Whenever that doesn't "work," it's a design issue between the project and the portal. ;-) RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe so, but I think we have a sufficient amount of stuff for the average user "to do", that is already listed in the box, and the links provided give lots more options than simply transcluding one or more of the "to do" lists themselves, which would make it way too big. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Cats (core): -  Done, thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Topics (main): If Categories has subheadings, then Topics should too. -- Really? Because at other portals I have seen this arranged alphabetically. It'd be a bit of work to do that, and there's less entries in topics than in categories. I suppose alternatively we could also remove the headings in Categories, and have that be alphabetical as well? Cirt (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • See Education, Science, Religion and Sustainable development for some examples of sorting Topics and Categories by comparable headings. What's here for Topics just looks like a blob of links to me. ;-) RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I did break up that section into "terms" and "lists" as mentioned below, but I'll take a look at the examples you gave. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Lists - Okay, I went and broke up the "Topics" into "terms" and "lists". Cirt (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • DYK -- To my knowledge there weren't pictures in those original DYK hooks when they appeared on the Main Page, I'll work on getting pics for the Quotes section though. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Quotes (Y/N): I'm sure there are folks of note besides directors who have something interesting to say about films. If ever there were a portal to include images with selected quotes, this is it. -- (1) - Yes, I will work on getting more quotes from other people besides directors, but I wanted to start by covering lots of notable directors, which I just think is neat to get their take on filmmaking. (2) - Yes, I agree with you that getting some pics for the Quotes section would be nice, but what if there are no free-use pics available for some people? Is it okay to get pics for some quotes, and not others? I will try to find them, add them, and format them appropriately and get back to you on this. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC). Update: -- Changed the layout for all of the Quotes (Portal:Sustainable development model) - some don't have pictures, but it looks much better. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • The more pics the better. Get 'em where you can. Also, they don't always have to be of the person. Maybe sometimes its a pic related to the quote. RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll try to find more pics, but I think we have a good amount as is, and they're all free-use. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Portals (related): --  Done -- Added all the portals that were suggested above, and alphabetized the whole lot of them. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • More representative, but some of the pics are cropped. The dimensions on some have to be adjusted a bit. RichardF (talk)
      •  Done -- Fixed these issues, changed dimensions and changed the "poetry" image to an svg. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Projects (main/related): --  Done, Thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Featured content: If the only links listed are to articles, then call it "Feature articles," but I find it hard to believe no other types of film-related pages are featured. -- There are a few featured lists, I will adjust that section next. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC).  Done - Added FLs. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Header & Footer (standard/+): -- I'm not a big fan of the type of Header thingy you mentioned. If there is a big clamoring for it from other editors, I'll address that then. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • If we were to use an artsy browsebar, I'd much prefer the format of Template:religion browsebar over that of Template:Sports portal browsebar. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • I'm not surprised. :-) RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's put it this way - that would be something that would affect multiple other portals, so if someone else wants to create it and use it, I'd have no objections, but I don't think this is a crucial sticking point at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Boxes & Background (palettes): -- The boxes/background/palettes current format is meant to highlight the material inside the boxes, and not the boxes themselves. Also, I think the grey/silver coloring is nice, to me it evokes a sense of cinema somehow. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Colors alway cause controversies! :-) RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall

Too bad you think it comes across as bland overall, if you check there are actually a whole bunch of pictures and images used throughout - practically every time the portal is refreshed there are a couple pictures or at least one other picture displayed aside from the actual picture section. As for an Events section - I'll need some more input on specifically what you mean by that one before addressing it further. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All those fair use pic restrictions on portals diminish their quality, IMHO. I'll bet a monthly "Anniversaries" section would be plausible. RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're talkin' - I like the idea of a monthly "Anniversaries" section, though I don't think it's something that needs be done before the portal goes to WP:FPORTC - just a very good idea going forward to work on longer term. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Like I said from the start, none of my comments were about getting this portal ready for a featured portal nomination. It was there before you posted any of this. My review was about making the portal better. RichardF (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll give all the comments on this Peer Review page another read-through, and then go to WP:FPORTC. But of course, This Peer Review will be retained as a reference for more stuff we can do in the future to keep on improving/adding to the portal to make it even better. Thanks for all your help! Cirt (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Portal:Amusement parks[edit]

I'm just looking for some feedback as to how this portal could be improved... it's linked to by plenty of articles, so any help in increasing its readability would be great! Seaserpent85 12:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am commenting because I don't have time right now to do an in depth review of the standards for portals and I don't want this to get lost in my watchlist. I was wondering if we want to have the content change on any type of schedule. I use the portal all the time to get to our projects, and I like the pictures that you have chosen, but I am not sure about the protocol for portals. Also, it would be fun to have sound! I wonder if someone here at Wiki or on the commons has the sound of the roller coaster or screams or something. Anyway, hope you get some more informed feedback! --Tinned Elk (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article and photo should have at least six or so alternating sections. Also, I think the portal might be improved if it included an additional section in which individual amusement parks were specifically featured. That's about all I can think of off the top of my head though. John Carter 19:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the six or so alternating sections. Do you mean on the Portal page, or the article referenced on the portal page? Can you give more info or link to an example? Thanks.--Tinned Elk (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Try using {{Random portal component}} to make the portal a bit more dynamic. Take a look at Portal:Sustainable development for an idea. Also, missing a Main Topics section, could also use In the news, Related portals sections as well. Cirt (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the portal to include 3 more random components - DYK, selected article and selected amusement park. Any other ideas to further improve it? Ideally I'd like to nominate it for featured portal in the near future. Many thanks, Seaserpent85 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • You should have at least (10) selections for Selected article, Selected Amusement Park, and Selected picture.
  • Could still use an In the news section.
  • Only the first letter of the first word of the headings of each section need be capitalized.
  • You are missing a Related portals section.

Cirt (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Portal:The Simpsons[edit]

I recently added randomized functions and more blurbs to the Selected article and Selected episode sections. The Selected article section randomizes through (16) articles, and the Selected episode section randomly picks one of (24). All articles in those sections are either WP:GA or WP:FA quality. I also added a Selected picture section, all free-use images, with some being directly Simpsons-related images/products, and others being images of individuals/guest-stars/producers, etc. Other newly created sections include Did you know, Character quote, Main topics, Selected quotes, and Featured content. All told, the randomized sections are: "Selected article", "Selected episode", "Selected picture", "Did you know", "Character quote", and "Selected quotes".

I am looking to bring Portal:The Simpsons to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates, and I'm looking for feedback/comments/suggestions before doing so.

Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It was great! It's very hard to look for free-use images that describe copyrighted materials. I noticed Kwik-E-Mart was mentioned in both Selected Article and Selected Picture. We generally don't repeat the same thing in different sections, so you may consider switching one for something else. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but they are different pictures, and both look neat. I think with the amount of randomization going on here, it is unlikely that they will both be displayed at the same time. Thanks for the positive feedback, it's nice to hear. Cirt (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
 Done -- I changed around a few of the Kwik-E-Mart images, for greater variety. Cirt (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Portal looks good. Only problem I see is lack of images of characters, which basically can't be addressed when all images are copyrighted. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Unless some sort of vector-image would be okay, but I think even that would be pushing it as far as copyright goes. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Mmm, portals... Looks great! I made some minor formatting changes in the boxes. Revert anything you don't like. :-) RichardF (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your changes all look fine, thank you! I think after this good positive feedback, we can wait a bit more and then take this to WP:FPORTC. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Portal:Catholicism[edit]

I'm looking for some feedback, how to improve this portal. I have been checking other portals for ideas, but it would be good to hear some comments.--Thw1309 (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Rugby union[edit]

I believe this article meets to featured portal criteria, but would like some feedback. It is kept up to date, is attractive and covers the subject well. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. - Shudde talk 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks pretty tidy. Just fix the links in "Associated Wikimedia". feydey 17:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As feydey pointed out, the portal looks good. A few suggestions —
  • The Rugby union Portal → The Rugby Union Portal
  • I don't think If you are looking for information regarding rugby league please go to the Rugby League Portal. is needed is that portal is linked to the Related portals box.
  • Archive → More articles...
  • |thumb should be removed from the biographies so the pictures don't appear as thumbnails.
  • Recent News → Recent news
  • In the news box, Month Day : → Month Day:
  • In the Featured Content box, Articles: → Articles (the colon is not needed); same with Lists:.
  • I would suggest Articles requiring expansion → Things to do and then also merge the Collaboration of the fortnight box with it.
  • Since the portal has randomized elements, Purge server cache should be removed from the bottom and Show new selections should be added in the middle (as an example, see the World War I portal).
Happy editing, [sd] 05:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Scientology[edit]

  • Checking to see if there is anything else that can be done to improve the quality of this relatively new portal further, before taking it to WP:FPORTC. The portal has 10 selected articles, 10 selected biographies, 10 selected pictures, 15 selected hooks from articles that have appeared at Did you know?, and 20 quotations from individuals with preexisting articles on Wikipedia. Each of the entries in the selected article, biography, picture, Did you know? and quote sections are randomly chosen and the portal can be purged to show new selections. The article was modeled primarily after elements from featured portals Portal:Sustainable development and Portal:Psychology. I have to acknowledge Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs) for creating the portal initially, and RichardF (talk · contribs) for his expertise and advice about portals.

Cirt 06:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardF (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) ← Goofy robot! RichardF 15:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! :-) Here are a few touch-up suggestions I haven't already mentioned somewhere.

Portal:Scientology design/review checklist.

  • Intro (good/important): Add "More about Scientology..." link at bottom.
  • Articles (top 10): Nice job balancing them out for length.
  • Bios (top 10): Looks good. Isn't there a free-use pic of Hubbard anywhere?
  • Pics (top 10): Okay. Consider linking credits where possible.
  • News: More like "Olds" but still useful. Reformat dates more like Portal:Sustainable development but with years included.
  • Events (Y/N): Not used.
  • Contribute (project to-dos): A bit clunky. It would look better in a single format with larger font for readability, e.g., like above portal.
  • Cats (core): A little image would be nice.
  • Topics (main): Not having its own section is unusual. The intro style worked very well for the Psychology portal because of all the "Bla bla bla psychology" articles out there. It was a way to more fairly do the "More about Psychology..." link. Think about whether more topics could be added to a separate "Main topics" section.
  • Lists (Y/N): Not used.
  • DYK (Y/N): Looks good. Any little pics? :-)
  • Portals (related): Some folks might debate what's included. We'll see.
  • Projects (main/related): Any project from "Related portals?" There's a disconnect here.
  • Media (Y/N): I assume the links work, didn't bother checking.
  • Archive/Noms/Rotation (manual/auto scheduled/random): Good use of randomization.
  • Header & Footer (standard/+): Okay.
  • Boxes & Background (palettes): Yuck!!! >;-o) For some strange reason, the purple & gray has grown on me a bit. Someone probably will nominate this for deletion because of the colors. ;-) You can see some other palette examples at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals with a wider range of samples at User:RichardF/Palettes.
  • What's not there (required/optional): "Main topics" section.
  • Overall: Very well developed and presented. Touch it up and send it to WP:FPORTC! :-)

RichardF 13:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • Re: RichardF (talk · contribs) -- Thanks for the above suggestions, I will try to address a few of them, and respond to them here, below. I'm assuming that some of these points above are not deal-breakers, but just more additions/useful things to consider adding to the portal? Cirt 13:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Correct, none of my comments are deal-breakers for me. We're about to find out what others think. :-) RichardF
Addressing specific points from above
  •  Done - Added to the Intro section, "More about Scientology..." link at bottom. Cirt 13:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Done - Free use pic of Hubbard? See Talk:L. Ron Hubbard, I read somewhere in there or in the talk page archives about a discussion about this. The Church of Scientology legal team is quite protective of images of Hubbard getting out, so a "free use" picture is even less likely. There was some debate over use of this image that I read about (Image:L. Ron Hubbard Life & Death.jpg, or cropped, Image:L. Ron Hubbard - crop.jpg), but it was deemed inappropriate in a biographical article, more like an artistic piece/statement. Cirt 14:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  1.  Done -- Linked credits to appropriate pages, for all selected picture subpages. Cirt 14:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2.  Done -- Reformatted News section, per above suggestion. Cirt 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  3.  Done - Contribute (project to-dos) - Reformatted, modeling after Portal:Sustainable development. Cirt 14:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  4.  Done - Cats (core) - Added image. Cirt 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5.  Done - Added a Main Topics section, modeled after Portal:Sustainable development. Cirt 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  6. DYK - I'd rather avoid using pics here, for spacing uniformity in the portal. Did enough work on the spacing/formatting of the various sections already :). Also, probably not too many free-use pics available, as some hooks describe companies w/ logos, people w/out free use pics, and books w/ only fair use pics. Cirt 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  7. Portals (related) - Yes, some people will probably not agree with certain things chosen here, but I tried to pick some areas that most would agree at the least are relevant to the topic. Cirt 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Projects (main/related) - Not sure this would be a good idea, to open this up to what is and is not a "related" WikiProject. I think it's best to focus attention here on the main WikiProject itself, because one of the main goals of the portal is to focus attention/work on articles in need of improvement/collaboration within the portal's main topic itself. Cirt 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Boxes & Background (palettes) - I actually do like the current color scheme, but if you can suggest something else specifically, I'd love to see/discuss it. I am also not quite sure yet how to change/switch the various color schemes. Cirt 14:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Color preferences are so subjective I just wanted to point it out. If Scientology had some sort of color scheme somewhere, that would be interesting to try out. RichardF 15:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, color preferences can be subjective. I don't think there is much of a color scheme yet established for this on the project. I like it the way it is, but I will discuss this more/address it if others comment on it at some point. Cirt 15:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ready for Featured Portal Candidate ?

I have addressed I think the bulk of the suggestions from above. Think this portal is ready for WP:FPORTC ? Cirt 14:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You might want to wait a few days to see if anyone else comments. If not, go for it! RichardF 15:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll wait a coupla days on this. Thanks for all of your help! Cirt 15:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Richard did a good job reviewing the portal. Just a few comments —
  • Categories and Main topics should be italicized for consistency with headers.
  • In the categories box, there is too much spacing after Scientology.
  • I don't think Scientology in Wikinews is needed since it is linked to at the bottom of the box.
  • I think you could change Current events on Wikinews → More from Wikinews... or even More... for consistency.
  • In the news box, Month Date, Year - → Month Date, Year:
  • Quotes → Selected quotes
  • Wikimedia → Associated Wikimedia (see the Religion portal)
  • I think in the biography and did you know boxes you had More... instead of Read more... so it wouldn't "collide" with ...Archive/Nominations. In that case, I would suggest also changing Read more... to More... in the articles and pictures boxes — just for uniformity.
  • I would suggest creating and linking to an archive for news.
Good job — [sd] 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Thanks for these additional suggestions, Sd31415 (talk · contribs), I will begin to address them and note them here, below.

  1.  Done -- Italicized the headings for the Categories, and Main Topics sections. Cirt 12:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2.  Done -- Reduced image size to decrease spacing after Scientology, in the Categories section. Cirt 12:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  3.  Done -- Removed header Scientology in Wikinews. Cirt 12:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  4.  Done -- Changed Current events on Wikinews → More... Cirt 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5.  Done -- In the news box, Month Date, Year - → Month Date, Year: Implemented this change. Cirt 12:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  6.  Done -- Quotes → Selected quotes Implemented this change. Cirt 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  7.  Done -- Wikimedia → Associated Wikimedia Implemented this change. Cirt 12:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  8.  Done -- Changed Read more... to More... in the articles and pictures boxes. Cirt 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  9.  Done -- Created an archive for news, right on the news page using <noinclude></noinclude>. (Current format and number of seven entries retained, for portal spacing uniformity.) Cirt 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: -- Addressed all of the above points from Sd31415 (talk · contribs). Cirt 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment - Looks good to me. I don't think there is anything like an official Scientology colour scheme. I more or less chose the existing color scheme as a copy of that of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, thinking that they had some reason for choosing it there. And I was the one on the Talk:L. Ron Hubbard page asking about free images of Ron. It seems that the Church of Scientology has been very diligent in buying up any and all photos they can find of the subject, presumably to prevent anyone ever altering one for purposes the church wouldn't like. I'd left messages with Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction (one of their members provided the data above), Wikipedia:WikiProject Nebraska (where he was born), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Montana, where he spent his teens. No one's indicated that they know of any free use images of Hubbard yet. John Carter 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the edification on your prior efforts, good to know. As far as the Hubbard image, unless we want to go with Image:L. Ron Hubbard Life & Death.jpg, or cropped, Image:L. Ron Hubbard - crop.jpg, I'd say it's not altogether that big a deal not to have an image for that one. The reader can easily find images of Hubbard elsewhere online, if they are so inclined/interested after reading information on the project. Cirt 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for the timely response to my suggestions! I think the portal is ready for a featured portal nomination. Happy editing, [sd] 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, glad to hear you think it's ready for WP:FPORTC. I think I'll wait a little bit longer as RichardF (talk · contribs) had recommended, and then start the nom. Unless y'all from above think it's ready for a nom now. Cirt 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • It's been featured-worthy all along. It's just a matter of giving folks a little time for touch-up comments here, rather than having to see them on the nomination page. It's just a duck-in-a-row thing whenever you're ready to pull the trigger. ;-) RichardF 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh no, I understood you from the beginning. I'll wait a little bit longer. Cirt 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
          • Given it a good few days on WP:PPREV, gotten some good suggestions, implemented a bunch of changes as a result, and also got some good quality feedback. I'm going to go ahead and archive this peer review. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Portal:North West England[edit]

I've been updating the portal for about 5 months now, but no-one else seems to want to edit it. I would like to get it upto FP standard, but I don't think it will occur without this. Any comments would be appreciated. Rudget Contributions 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spebi

It looks okay, needs more work though. I'll make a few comments:

  • The top welcome notice doesn't really need to be there, consider removing it.
  • The introduction box is crowded, try filling it with text from the North West England article rather than a heap of images. You might consider putting its emblem (the rose, perhaps? excuse my naivety), a flag and the England map into a table (see Portal:Australia/Intro for an example).
  • Photo credits aren't usually given for the accompanying image in the Selected article part, and "====Didsbury====" code right above the article text shouldn't be there. When you start to select more articles for Selected article, you'll need to move them into a subpage, (e.g. Portal:North West England/Selected article/1).
  • In other portals, the "Categories" box is intended for actual categories; replace that box subpage with <categorytree>North West England</categorytree> to generate a tree of all North West England-categories.
  • With the "Did you know" section, the accompanying image is generally related to one of the "Did you know"s in the box, rather than a random image.
  • The "WikiProjects" box, there is "WikiProject UK geography", and "Chesire project" and "Great Manchester project"; format them all as "WikiProject <name>" or "<name> project". This goes for some of the other sections in the portal (e.g. "North West England lists").
  • Does "Dialect" really deserve its own box? Only one dialect is spoken in that area (according to the existing box) so I fail to see how it fits in. Try moving the dialect to a DYK, or something similar.
  • You have quite a featured pictures... why not select one for Selected picture (if you haven't already) if you run out of ideas.

Hope this has helped. Not having someone to work with can sometimes be a disadvantage, because there isn't someone there to check out the sanity of your edits ;) Try looking at some of the other England-related portals, or for that matter, any other featured portal for ideas to what you can do to the portal if you're stuck. ~ Sebi [talk] 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review/Archive/December_2007&oldid=1146198099"