Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Archive/July 2010

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:Tanzania[edit]

I've been working on this portal for a little while and now would like some comments / criticism on how it's looking. I would like to try and get it to Featured Portal status at some point, so any advice welcome. In particular, I'm a little worried about Featured Portal criterion 1a: "It showcases only high-quality content that is preferably already featured." Sadly, there are not many FA or even GA Tanzania articles at the moment, so I'm wondering if that will stop this portal getting featured. Beloved Freak 16:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fine and good. And I support it to be a featured portal. But please add a picture in the selected article 8. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I've added an image there.--Beloved Freak 11:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's looking fine, the colours chosen good, and your panoramas are absolutely beautiful! I can't comment on whether a portal can be featured without many Featured or Good articles (I have the same problem with the portal I maintain) but there's no harm in trying! In browsing around, I noticed a few very minor glitches you might like to look at...

The "edit" links fall below the title bars, which looks a little untidy to my eye, but might be a deliberate choice.
Hippopotamus is linked from Selected Articles rather than Wildlife.
The Selected Article "1998 U.S. Embassy bombings" link leads to a different article.
The anniversaries section is very light in certain months, February & May for example, which might cause the portal columns to be unbalanced in those months.
The Featured Biographies need the hyphens in the date ranges fixing.

That was all -- best of luck, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments. Every thing you mentioned was either something I'd forgotten, or not noticed. I've implemented most of your suggestions, and will now see if I can find some more selected anniversaries for the months you mentioned. Thanks again for taking the time. --Beloved Freak 20:00, 22 April 2010 (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:Star[edit]

I thought it has reached a very good standard and therefore should be nominated for featured portal status. Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 16:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK section does not look accurate.
- It uses the word "weight", but weight is a function of the gravitational field a mass is situated. Even were this "mass", the mass does not disappear when hydrogen is fused into helium, only a fraction of the mass of hydrogen converted is actually turned into energy, most of it is conserved in the helium created.
- You cannot go on foot to Proxima Centauri, there is nothing to foot along. Further, it makes no statement as what speed this is supposed to be. Voyager is not headed towards Proxima either, so it will never reach that star.
- "biggest" is an ambiguous term, it could mean the most massive, the largest volume, the largest girth (not the same thing, since girth is a function of rotation, gravitation, and pressure)
- 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, First fact - Read the first fact of this source. It says weight.

Second fact - The thing is if, both for Voyager and on foot.

Third fact - I have done the biggest as largest known stars. If you still have problems here click this link and read the title and the list.

--Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first DYK is clearly wrong then, whatever the source says, it is factually incorrect

On "foot", well, if I shuffled along with a walker, or if I ran like the wind, I'd have a different speed, and thus the time needed to traverse the distance would be different.

There is no "if" on the DYK, it is not formulated in such a way as to show that

I have addded if. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That list you point out clearly mentions the parameters for what it means by biggest, the DYK does not. The list on Wikipedia clearly specifies it is concerned with the girth of the star (radius)

Eh, it does, surely. Lets also keep it simple, its for ordinary people. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.66.192.73 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2010 (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:Cumbria[edit]

Completely reworked this over the last week, and think it's looking pretty cool now. I have kept and reworked some of what was there before, but removed most of it. I hope to take this to FPOC soon, so any and all comments are welcome and appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the images in the selected articles need to be shrunk. At the moment, the one for Norman Birkett is pixelated and the one for Andrew Johnston is just poor quality (making it smaller will hide that). I like that there's a selected mountain and selected lake section, it makes the portal stand out from the usual type. Does the portal have to feature only decent articles? Because it seems bizarre that Carlisle isn't one of them. I realise it's nice to showcase the areas best articles, but some of the FAs and Gas just don't really have a Cumbrian "feel". It depends what you want the portal to do. Is it supposed to show off the best articles, or provide an engaging introduction to Cumbria? I'd prefer the latter, although it means showcasing poorer quality articles. That's partly because the Lancs and Cumbria project is still finding its feet. There are some fantastic buildings in Cumbria, such as Brough Castle and Brougham Castle (some of the best in the north west) which will be far more interesting than a species of sheep. I see you've tried to make do with what are limited resources, but it's a decent start.. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll see what I can do about the images- I agree with you there. The selected articles have been chosen based on the quality of the article, as is done on the main page- I'd love to see some more recognised articles on Cumbria topics. I'd say the balance is about right- the "overview of Cumbria" feel is given in the introduction and the topics section, as well as the categories. We then have the selected article, recognised content and selected picture sections showing off higher quality content. The selected mountain and selected lake sections are also very Cumbrian, I would say. (Additionally, I really do think Herdwicks are of high importance with regards to Cumbria, but, as I say, that's not why it was chosen. I do feel a list of historical sites, perhaps along with some of the museums, could well have a place in the topics section- any ideas?) J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, most of the portal has a definitely Cumbrian feel to it, but the selected article bit feels a bit out of place. A list of historic sites would be tricky. Taking the example of castles, off the top of my head I think there are about 50 in Cumbria, and that's discounting the tower houses which are characteristic of the area and very common. I don't know figures for Scheduled Monuments, but I'd be surprised if Cumbria wasn't on a similar level with Cheshire which has about 200 I think (there are so many there are three lists on Wikipedia). As for Grade I listed buildings (the most important listed buildings), you're probably looking at the same order of figure. Cheshire and Greater Manchester have decent lists as a result of having an active project, but Cumbria very much lags behind here, so again there's the problem of show casing content that isn't of the best standard. What it really comes down to is we need better articles on Cumbria. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Three of the good articles were written by me, but, naturally, I only know my end of Cumbria well, and the Lake District fairly well. As such, I know nothing of Carlisle and the north. I'd argue that the majority have a Cumbria feel (the sheep and the mountain are obviously very Cumbria, the ship and Askam are very Furness (which is my neck of Cumbria...) and the two events were things that happened in Cumbria; I admit the biographies are less Cumbrian) but I would like to work on more Cumbrian articles soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I love the idea of including selected mountain & selected lake (just wish Cheshire had a few mountains to select!). I agree with Nev1 that until the Cumbrian project gets going, it would be better to select interesting B class articles than to stick just to Good & Featured content. I wondered why Lake District wasn't included, though I see it's deteriorated since I last read it. If you want some Cumbrian biographies, what about A.W. Wainwright, Arthur Ransome & Wordsworth or others of the Lake Poets? I'd suggest starting a DYK section with facts that have been featured on the main page -- and if you're short of those, you can always cheat & write some yourself! You could start a quotations section -- there must be lots of famous poetry, if nothing else. You could also rename the current selected images section as selected panorama, and start a separate selected images box -- there must be lots of beautiful images. Now I'm feeling guilty that my sole Cumbrian article is a stub... Hope this is of use, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2010 (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.