Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Archive/February 2008

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 (~~~~).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response
  1. Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Selected picture frame looks nice, thanks. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[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:Textile Arts[edit]

A well-designed but neglected portal that's been around for a year. Hadn't been updated in a while so I've taken a stab at it. The textile arts project is returning from near-extinction so the first priority here is to provide a venue to highlight member contributions, second priority lure in new participants. Also wondering what it would take to raise this portal to featured level. Feedback and suggestions would be welcome! DurovaCharge! 04:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  1. In general, it would make it easier as far as reducing need for work on updating in the future, if you utilized the {{Random portal component}} tool. Portal:Sustainable development (Featured Portal) is a good example of this. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The introduction could be expanded a tad, I'd use only one image at a time in the upper right corner of the intro, the Featured Portal Portal:Iceland is a good example of this. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Could add a Featured content section, the Featured Portal Portal:North West England is a good example of this. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The "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) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Associated Wikimedia should have its own subpage instead of using that template, and the links actually specialized to existing content on other projects - see Featured Portal, Portal:Religion, for a good example. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should hopefully help to get you started on some really good ways to improve this portal. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Review by Seaserpent85

  • As this is quite a "young" portal, a convenient way to introduce readers to the subject is by including randomised content. If you're not familiar with this, visit Portal:Iceland as an example, see how the selected content changes each time you visit. If you want a hand with setting this up, then just let me know on my talk page and I'd be happy to help.
  • The introduction section should include a link to the main subject at hand. Most portals bolden the first use of the subject and then provide a "Read more..." link at the end of the introduction.
  • Whilst not necessarily a requisite for portals, images look better without the thumnail square around them. Instead use a caption (which pops up when you hover over the image), which provides the reader with the same information and makes your portal look a lot sleeker! The selected picture also needs to include credit to the photographer - something simple like at Portal:Tennis is fine.
  • As you are actively seeking new participants, why not highlight the to-do and WikiProjects sections with some suitable images. At present the two sections are lost amongst the rest of the portal. See Portal:Amusement parks for some ideas of icons which draw readers to different sections.
  • Obviously expansion is the next step forward for the portal, if you're aiming for featured status then the "magical number" for each section seems to be at least 10 - ie. 10 selected articles, 10 selected pictures etc. This ties in with the need for randomised content which can then be added to as and when desired.

Those are the main points I can think of for the moment, the main thing is really just to get expanding and increase readability. Let me know if you're unsure of anything or if you need any help with the portal. Many thanks, Seaserpent85 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback. One of the challenges here is how underdeveloped the project is: cochineal is the only featured textile arts article. We have one GA in history of silk and a GAC in Palestinian costumes. I'm hoping to raise Navajo rug to GAC soon. Half of the top-importance articles are stub-class or start-class. How do you select content for presentation when the pickings are rather slim? The one area where we're well stocked is DYK (see this list). I'll roll up my sleeves and work on some other suggestions. Lots of ideas here. Cheers! DurovaCharge! 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no set rule that says selected content has to be featured, or even good - if an article is readable and you think it would interest potential participants then I would say add it. You may well find, as I have, that include a B-class article as a selected article actually encourages others to bring it up to GA status. I look forward to seeing how the portal progresses! Seaserpent85 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't go less than "B" class in the selected content of a portal. You run the risk of using content from articles that are unsourced, or worse yet, WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2008 (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:Oregon[edit]

Looking for some pre-WP:FPORTC feedback on the portal. The Intro section rotates between (5) different images related to Oregon (flag, map, etc.) (30) Selected articles, and (21) Selected biographies - all are of "B" class, or higher. All blurbs in both sections save the last one in the Selected biography section contain free-use images relevant to each article's subject. The portal also has (24) Selected pictures, (90) Did you know entries, showing three at a time, all of which have an accompanying free-use image, a news section updated by User:Wikinews Importer Bot, (18) Selected panorama pictures, and (37) Selected quotes. Save for the news section, all the above-mentioned sections are randomized using {{Random portal component}}. Your comments/thoughts on anything else to improve this portal before going to WP:FPORTC would be greatly appreciated. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Something, perhaps "Associated Wikimedia" is pushing the horizontal scroll bar - it's too wide. RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selected quotes" could have a link to Wikiquotes, even if it's just [[q:Special:Search/Oregon|More...]] RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Related portals" is out of date. RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clickable Wikinews icon could be added. RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, just picky stuff here and there. RichardF (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Intro images should be viewable just like any other "archive," e.g., like the Portal:Indiana/Intro arrangement. RichardF (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done, looks better, thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noticed that the A list of images... line shows up on the sub-page but not the main portal page - is that by design? — Zaui (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is by design, yes. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other state portal sections to consider:
    • Attractions: Portal:Florida, Portal:New Mexico, Portal:South Carolina, Portal:Virginia (with galleries). RichardF (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • State template: Portal:Florida, Portal:Georgia (U.S. state), Portal:Kentucky, Portal:Nebraska, Portal:North Carolina, Portal:Oklahoma, Portal:South Carolina, Portal:Wisconsin. RichardF (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha ha, Portal:Virginia's most recent "News" is from November 2006! Those guys sure are active over there at updating that portal... Cirt (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who said anything about "news"? That sounds to me like you're volunteering to send them a little wikinewslove! ;-) RichardF (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Attractions are listed in the topics area; most of the stuff listed on the state template is already accessible in the portal - either in topics or the category tree. — Zaui (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, the portal as is, really is quite comprehensive. It will hopefully foster more contributions to the Oregon-related articles, and drive a bit of interest to multiple different arenas within the topic. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The question really is if you want to "highlight" attractions, just like "Selected cities" or "State symbols." Otherwise, portals could just as well be redirects to categories. :-) RichardF (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I already brought up the idea of a "Selected cities" section at Portal talk:Oregon. Didn't seem to be too many people interested in it, at least not with the present quality-state of certain cities articles in Oregon. They wanted to wait a bit on that one. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's quite a few 'attractions' in the selected article list - Oregon Coast Range, Columbia River, Mount Hood, Crater Lake National Park , Rose Garden, Northern Oregon Coast Range - and looking at the List of articles left to add to Selected article we could easily populate a 'selected attraction' section. I don't think there's enough cites with B-class or better articles yet. — Zaui (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) Hrm, sounds interesting, I'll take a look at similar sections in other portals. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about {{coor title d|44|N|120.5|W|region:US-OR_type:state}}? RichardF (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done, love that coord idea, very nice. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the 'selected attraction' section, it sounds OK. My concerns are that 1) it sounds a little touristy, and 2) a little ambiguous. With the selected article and biography, you know what goes there. When I hear attraction I think Disneyland or the Space Needle. Though maybe a geographical feature as many of the "attractions" Zaui listed would qualify. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know, I'm thinking about this further and tend to agree a bit with Aboutmovies (talk · contribs). I mean, the portal currently has (7) randomly purging sections with images. I'm not saying that one could ever have too many, just that we have enough. And we also have several sections in the Portal:Oregon that the above-mentioned portals all do not - such as quotes, panorama, etc. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • New thought. Wait for more quality articles, then when enough cities are ready for that component and a second one whether that be "attractions" or something else (one per column for balance)? Aboutmovies (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I concur. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I wound up doing to focus attractions a little more was add a few infoboxes at Portal:Indiana/Indiana topics. That way, the focus is clear, no new section is needed, and the interpretation of what attracts one to an "attraction" is left up to the reader. :-) RichardF (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  • Can you attempt to fix the "Associated Wikimedia" thing? I'm not seeing this problem on my screen. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selected quotes" - Added the "More..." link. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the "Related portals" out of dates? I don't think I understand what you mean by that. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an incomplete list of state portals. What's your basis for inclusion and exclusion? RichardF (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, those were the portals there when I began to work on this portal. What's your basis for inclusion at Portal:Indiana/Related portals, maybe we can use that rationale? Cirt (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd just include Portals that follow Portal guidelines. For example, Portal:Vermont and Portal:North Carolina should probably be excluded. — Zaui (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What guidelines do they violate? Then should they also be removed from Portal:Contents/Portals? RichardF (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neither portal has a topic section (unless you count Template:North Carolina) - one of the four content sections listed as "required". — Zaui (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, but it's not against guidelines to simply list them in the Related Portals section. In fact, if some editor navigates through to another portal that needs lots of work, and works on it and improves it - because they came through a link from a different "Related Portals" section, then that is part of the spirit of Wikipedia and of portals in particular - fostering improvement of content along similar topics. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the clickable Wikinews icon, as suggested above. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update

RichardF (talk · contribs) kindly updated and expanded Portal:Oregon/Related portals. Thank you so much! Cirt (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review/Archive/February_2008&oldid=1146198114"