Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Archive/March 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 (~~~~).

Space exploration[edit]

I would like to get input on any useful expansion to the various sections in this portal, as well as comments on whether to use a single page or the proposed "tabbed" page approach. This portal does not have many contributors, so good ideas are very welcome! Awolf002 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have went through and found an few issues.

  • The lead needs to be longer and should sum up the entire portal.
  • The picture of the week needs image credits below the picture.
  • In article of the month the subject of the article should be a bold link to the articles page not just bold.
  • Biography of the week has the same problem as the article and needs a bold link.
  • Since you don't have rotating content you seem to have a permanent hole on the bottom left hand side I would recommend moving something from the right over.
  • Most of the links to your Associated Wikimedia don't go anywhere the either need to be corrected or removed.
  • You don't seem to have a topics section, that is definitely something I recommend you add.
  • The categories section needs some expansion.

These are just some initial thoughts I'll read through and let you know of anything else.— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these great recommendations! I will work on these, today. Awolf002 12:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's a few more:

  • Definite intro expansion.
  • The footers in rotated content boxes should be the same. Example, "Read More" in article box, not in any other.
  • I would recommend having less news stories(4-5), with a short summary instead of just a link. Although what you have now should work, just personal preference.
  • Did you know should be shortened to the last 4-5, and add an archive.
  • Categories should be expanded.
  • No topics box at all.
  • Use <div style="text-align:center; margin:-7px; padding-bottom:12px;">{{purge|'''Show new selections'''}} above rotated content.

As for tabbed pages, I would recommend only if you can fill such pages. Actually I think you could. Do like things you can do, and wikiprojects on one. Maybe can have News and did you know on another. I think theres enough for tabs, but you don't have em, if you do the main page right. Joe I 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo! I was on a bit of a break in the last weeks. Now is the time to put all these great suggestion into the TODO list and work on them. You all are a great help! Awolf002 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC[edit]

This is a recently created portal. I would love to hear any suggestions any users might have for this portal. ĤĶ51→Łalk 16:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going for a new portal, comments:

  • The image on the top of the portal is disturbing and isn't very useful, remove it or add a smaller image to the introduction.
Removed. ĤĶ51→Łalk
  • The size of the introduction should generally be expanded per WP:LEAD and other portals.
Expanded. ĤĶ51→Łalk
  • News section:
    • Lacks proper dates, or at least the days of the events.
Fixed. ĤĶ51→Łalk
    • References should either be the name of the reporting website itself (first-hand) or "Read more..."
Done. ĤĶ51→Łalk
    • First entry of the section lacks a reference.
    • It's preferable that the portal's subject will not appear in the section titles to avoid repetition, please rename the section to "News".
Done. ĤĶ51→Łalk
  • "Article of the month", "AC/DC news", "Selected picture", "Quotes", "Selected biography", and "Did you know..." sections lack both archive and nomination systems. Also, randomized display > display per date. Take a look at our featured portals.
  • DYK section:
    • All entries should start with "...that".
Done. ĤĶ51→Łalk
    • The main article in each entry should be bolded.
Done. ĤĶ51→Łalk
    • The image doesn't have much of a purpose, get rid of it and place a freely-licensed image relating to one of the entries instead. Same for the "Selected biography", "Quotes", and "News" sections.
Done. ĤĶ51→Łalk
The image on the DYK section is still irrelevant. It has to be the main subject itself (e.g. an entry about a building would have the build has a picture with a (pictured) next to the article link). Also, image thumbnails should not be included in portals. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed all of the irrelevant images, and removed the thumbnails from the ones that were kept. I can't find free images that suit the DYK and other sections however. ĤĶ51→Łalk
  • Categories shouldn't have "Category:" before them.
Changed. ĤĶ51→Łalk
  • "Topics" > "Main topics"/"Major topics".
  • "Associated Wikimedia" section has unnecessary space between the entries name and explanation. Some of the entries don't exist. (Fixed. ĤĶ51→Łalk) Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, I'm getting to work on your points. A few things though: For the reference for the first entry in the News section: It's the anniversary of a death, so there's not really a source I can give other than his gravestone, which can be seen here: Image:Bon Scott.jpg. And could you explain what you mean by the second from last bullet point? Thanks. ĤĶ51→Łalk 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anniversaries aren't news, so I suppose it can be split to a new section. As for the suggestion, an article is a topic himself and you at least need to explain that you're refering to the "main" or "major" ones by renaming the section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the "Bon Scott 27th anniversary" mention from the news section, and I've also replaced what was listed in the "Topics" section with more general topics and renamed it "Main topics". I'll get to work on the archive and nomination system later, but any further comments so far? ĤĶ51→Łalk 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've ripped off created quite a basic article nomination/archival system. You may take a look here for a more advanced example. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and would a more advanced system be needed for the Portal to reach Featured status? ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's a big plus. Also note that many other sections still require these systems. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but archive and nomination systems have now been created for all relevant sections. Is there anything further which might inhibit the portal reaching featured status? ĤĶ51→Łalk 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a need in more selected content (at least 10 for each section, preferably). You have created the portal, meaning you're able to add content without using the nominations system. Also note my answer above regarding the news section. Suggestions:
  • Remove the "Associated Wikimedia" section as one link isn't enough to uphold it.
  • Expand "Things you can do", there are plenty of album articles to cleanup.
  • "Wikipedians who listen to AC/DC" isn't an encyclopedic category. Michaelas10 (Talk) 08:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Library and information science[edit]

I discovered this portal related to my profession and couldn't help but want to take it to the next level. It's been given the once-over with randomizers and all that good stuff. It's come a long way in a short time. My central concern is the dearth of truly high quality content in the subject area. I think there's enough to work with though and I will continue to hunt down worthy additions. Your comments on the current state of this portal and what might be done to make it feature-worthy are appreciated. Cheers. Planetneutral talk 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting this last night, I've had to do some tweaking and rearranging due to IE6 display issues. Thanks to Smee for pointing them out. Planetneutral talk 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice, seems to be up to the standards of the visual arts portal.
  • "Things you can do" image should appear at right, otherwise it disturbs the text.
  • Done.
  • "Show new selected content..." - Shorten it to "Show new selections"?
  • I can go along with that. Done.
  • Remove all the sole year linking from here per WP:DATE.
  • Worked so hard to keep it out of DYK. Done
  • Moved to "Things you can do" section. Again, thank you for your helpful suggestions. Planetneutral talk 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you learn fast. I only have a couple small things:

  • Topics - Information science part seems alittle slim, the cat is quit large, can you find a few more major topics?
  • Done.
  • Projects and Portals - There are a few projects listed but not the corresponding portal and vice versa, and Portal:Writing deserves a mention.
  • There are some situations where there is no corresponding portal/project, but I will normalize as I can. I can't say I agree about Portal:Writing though, which has been in an "under construction" state for about a year now and doesn't look like it has much hope of moving forward. Unless I get ambitious of course...
  • Added 1 additional WikiProject. Would add Portal:Poetry, but it hasn't been maintained in quite awhile and my discussion at the talk page and at the WikiProject has not inspired any action. Sad, since it's a featured portal.
  • Two different problems here. First, those wikibooks results are all libraries in the computer programming sense, not the bibliographic sense. The real issue though is how to make links to those search results in such a way that a) they work and b) they are not external links. I didn't have any luck with the interwiki syntax that I tried. I'll keep working on this, as I tend to agree with you on trying to get people to content when it's available; but I also respect the notion of consistency, so I don't want to go the external link route, if I can avoid it.
  • Figured this out. Done.

Other than that, you're on top of it! Joe I 05:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this, you might wanna find a way to work it in, probly best under lists. Joe I 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC

Alternative music[edit]

I am (and the Alternative music wikiproject are) open to suggestions about improving this portal to featured status. All comments welcome. CloudNine 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does have some work to do; one of the first tings I noticed is that there is no "photo credit" for the selected picture. Please add one. Another thing; the portal says "Selected picture of the month (February), and same thing with the article. Please take out the February because it is kind of redundant and not needed. ~ Arjun 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)u[reply]
  • Comments addressed - I have implemented your suggested changes. CloudNine 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This portal is quite new and requires some expansion. Comments:

  • No fair use images on portals, this is an extremely important issue to be fixed perior the FPOC.
  • Remove the good article/featured article indicators from the "Alternative music topics" section; they're not included in the section's original purpose and are extremely self-referencing. Also expand that section and rename it to "Main topics"/"Major topics" to avoid repetition.
  • "Alternative music news" section:
    • Image at the "Alternative music news" isn't related to a certain entry.
    • References should either be the name of the reporting website itself (first-hand) or "Read more..."
    • It's pointless to break the section by months. Any reader can make this separation himself.
    • Format the dates properly per WP:DATE.
    • "News Archive" > "News archive..."
    • "Alternative music news" > "News", for the same reason described above.
      • The subpage should be moved in addition to the rename. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create layout pages (e.g. this) for the "Article of the month", "Picture of the month", and "Alternative music news" sections.
  • Randomized display (e.g. here) > display per date. You can simply create subpages (1, 2, 3, 4...) for each article/picture, and list them in an archive page. This isn't a requirement for FPO status, but it's a huge benefit.
  • "WikiProjects" section should be expanded with more general WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Music.
  • Format the "Things you can do" section properly (e.g. here) using the WikiProject list. A better alternative to this would be creating a "Things you can do" subpage in the project and transclude in the portal, this way it'll be visible to more editors. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for your thorough review. CloudNine 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occult[edit]

We wanted to know what the good people of Wikipedia thought about the portal occult and how we could possibly improve it to featured status. Manyminds17 18:32, February 4, 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I like the coloring alot :)

  • Selected article should have a bold/linked title. All rotated content boxes(bio, magik, musik, article).
    • I have hyperlinked the various articles.
  • Archive for all rotating content needed.
    • I need help with adding a archive. So i need browse wiki help to look that up.
  • Selected picture doesn't need a caption because of the short summary, but does need a credit.
    • I added credits to the picture of yggdrasil.
  • Would like to see pics in article and bio spaces if available.
    • i added a new biography together with a picture; and i am going to add a new music group.
  • "Articles" box on right side should be renamed topics, since that's what it is, and add the lists from "topics" box to it.
    • I have no idea how to change the name of a article and i have to look that up first.
  • Categories need expanding. Add cats under Category:Occult
    • I removed the section category and merged it with occult topics

It looks like your on the right track tho.  :) Joe I 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; you have been a great help. --Manyminds17 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts[edit]

Greetings. I (with some help from another dedicated editor) have put a good deal of time into improving this portal. I would appreciate any and all thoughts, no matter how critical. I'm very interested in making this portal feature-worthy, so please don't hold back. Thanks so much for your time and your insights. Planetneutral 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very promising. Despite having chosen the last colour scheme, the new one has won me over! For the selected quotes section, would you consider incorporating some from Portal:Art/Quote archive? Each of the quotes is about the visual arts rather than the arts, so it makes more sense for them to be P:VA than P:A. Plus we can get rid of that awful, trite quote that has been on the P:A main page for months. I will post a message on Portal talk:Arts shortly. [talk to the] HAM 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd noticed that about the quotations at P:A, but didn't want to steal or replicate content, if I could avoid it. I'd be happy to use those quotations though, so if there's no objection to it, I'll pop in tonight and cherry-pick. I'd like to be able to identify sources, wherever possible. Still need to figure out the source of the Joan Miró quote. If anyone knows, chime in. Cheers, Planetneutral 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason they are all visual art quotes is because Portal:Art formerly was focused on visual art, but later visual art split off. I think a lot of them came from wikisource. I'll have to find that page again. --sparkitTALK 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! it was wikiquote - art quotes--sparkitTALK 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there certainly are a few unusual things going on here, not unusual for artists.  :)

  • selected image - Tho not a requirement, I agree that the image credit should go directly under the image, then the description.
    • Done.
  • selected article - The read more link seems to take up alot of space, should try to find another way.(Same for the bios)
    • See what you think of my solution.
  • Did you know - should follow Template:Did you know and use {{*mp}}.
    • Had never seen that before. Will work on tonight. Done.
  • intro - Seems like you could get great use out of rotating intro images(if you want to replace the eye, which is indeed very symbolic), such as Portal:Electronics and Portal:Philosophy of science.
    • Great idea. The one reason I would hesitate to do this is that we wanted to establish some continuity between the portal and the WikiProject, so we are using the same image in both places and on the associated project banner.
    • Have decided against this for the moment, for the reason provided here.
  • content - Me personally will look for a few more articles or quotes in each rotated section. I generally go with 10 FA, or GA quality articles/pics/quotes for each section.
    • Agreed. That's a work in progress. I'll be cherry-picking some quotes from Portal:Arts as specified above.
    • Bumped these numbers up, but don't want to rush it and sacrifice quality for the sake of numbers.
  • color - It defiantly took me by surprise, and quite interesting. Have you tried one shade lighter, tho?
    • Have to get my color expert in on that one. We'll take a look.
    • Thanks to quick work by our color expert, a lighter color is now in place. I have to say I prefer the stronger contrast of the darker background. What do you think?
      • Yeah, I think I like the darker as well, good try. Joe I 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reverted to darker color.
  • Caps - Non caps in the title boxes was going to be my first point, but it is growing on me as well, and I see no reason why it shouldn't stay like that. But why is the DYK capitalized, seems to me like it's not a name such as the Wikiprojects and Wikimedia?
    • More or less because I was troubled by starting what was ultimately a complete sentence ("Did you know that xyz?") with a lowercase letter. It can easily be changed if you think consistency is the greater priority.
    • This has been reverted, per Michaelas10 below.

Other than that, I think you've got yourself a winner. :) Joe I 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments! Planetneutral 12:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty good. Comments:
  • Requires WP:MSH fixes (e.g. "introduction" > "Introduction", "selected article" > "Selected article").
I was pretty sure we'd lose the fight to be different on this one. Of course, they started that way and so it's trivial to reverse that.
Let's let it stand for now. These are actually labels not headers. --sparkitTALK 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be an acceptance that portal headers are just like article headers, thus the guideline applies. Lets remain constant. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with some reluctance.
  • Sentence capitals ("show new selected content...> "Show new selected content...").
Done.
  • "Selected quotation" > "Selected quote".
Again, this is how it was, but I recoil at the poor English demonstrated. Nevertheless, I understand the whole consistency angle on this. Done, again with some reluctance.
  • "Did you know..." section:
  • Add bullets (*) per the main page.
Will do, as per Joe's comments above. Done.
  • Remove sole years linking per WP:DATE.
Strange that they wouldn't adhere to that on the main DYK page, which is where these come from.
I don't mean to be uncivil on this one (and quite frankly, I have no dogs in this fight), but the evidence refutes your assertion. Check for yourself: Wikipedia:Recent_additions. Scroll down a bit and you'll find at least five examples of isolated year linking. Again, I don't really care and I'm happy to change it, but the instance that you pointed out is copied straight from that page. Seems strange to change something that has passed muster on the Main page. Also, WP:DATE doesn't seem quite as clear cut about that as you've implied here. Doesn't seem to be consensus on that point.
  • (Reclaiming space) Funny that we'd use the same guideline to make two different assertions. What you are presenting as hard and fast here is presented there as 'Another possibility...' And that's still not what's happening in the DYKs from the Main page that I pointed you to. Like I said earlier, the example on the P:VA is just copied from there. But I do aim to please here, so I've gone ahead and linked that year to 1991 in art, as per your suggestion.
  • Create a nomination procedure.
Haven't they already been through a sufficient process if they were featured on the Main Page?
  • Please see my comments here. A nomination procedure could be helpful as always, and soften the article-creation time limit. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Layout preferences: "Read more..." > "...Read more". Have all the "more" links one external space below the actual section's context.
I understand the second part, but guess I could go either way on the placement of the ellipses. We can try it. Ellipses done. Space created.
  • Remove all the arts (not visuals arts) associated Wikimedias, these would fit better under the arts portal.
    • I pointed to the art pages because there are no visual arts pages at those projects. It would look pretty lame to have only two projects in that section and yet, if I remove the box altogether, someone will fault it for not having the associated projects. What would you do?
  • I think they stay as is. Personally I hate having a barren wikimedia section, and art and visual art are barely different. Joe I 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reclaiming space) I think the conundrum here is that you are really both right. The question is what best serves the reader. If we want a reader to find the visual arts content on Wikiquote, then they need to go to the Art page. Unless I go and start a visual arts page there, then there's not much I can do about that. Do I want to prevent people from getting to that available visual arts content in the name of uniform application of policy/standards? Not really, but as Michael points out, the wider interpretation opens the door to further ambiguity. So I'm mixed on this. Two links does seem pretty paltry though. Planetneutral 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed it to the two links. I guess it looks OK.
  • Done.
Thank you so much for your comments! Planetneutral 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As a biased color expert and layout tweaker (I've been working with planetneutral), I'm liking the design.

Question: is it customary to have the instructions above the content on archive pages? If we put a link to the instructions at the top, and the instructions themselves at the bottom, I think we'd have better looking and more interesting archive pages. --sparkitTALK 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that it's not customary to have much by way of instructions at all. I think what you suggest is fine. Go for it! Planetneutral 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
will do! Standby... --sparkitTALK 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for the idea :) Joe I 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Food[edit]

Please provide your valuable comments for creating this Portal. Ramkumar Krish 13:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right now, I don't think a review would be feasible since the portal is on MFD. Happy editing, S.D. 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this portal does't need to be reviewed it needs to be created. Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 16:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted by Michaelas10 due to its deletion. — S.D. 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comics[edit]

Essentially, I'd like to see what's necessary for this to become a featured portal. So any suggestions/advice along those lines would be welcome : ) - jc37 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice progress so far, but requires some work:
    • Major:
      • Nomination links for the featured article, selected picture, and DYK section.
      • Archival links for those including the news section.
    • Moderate:
      • Please include images of the comic strips at the "Featured article" section.
      • The selected picture section doesn't have a credit.
      • Make the introduction display as a section with a "The Comics Portal" on its top.
    • Minor:
      • Link 2006 on all full dates at the news section. Also, "September 15" - 2006?
      • Avoid repetition of the portal's name (e.g. "Comics-related Lists" > "Lists").
      • "Wikiprojects" > "WikiProjects".
      • "Showcase articles" > "Main topics", and format that section properly with subsections and bullets. Remove bolding of featured articles.
      • "Comics Wikiprojects on Wikipedia's sister projects" > "Associated Wikimedia".
      • Unnecessary/duplicate links and texts: "edit bullet points", description of targets at the WikiProjects section, "Please feel free to add or subtract from the list."
      • "Show new featured content..."> "Show new selections", make it bold instead of italic.
      • Simplify: If you are interested in helping to develop our comics-related articles, please click here. Other tasks you can help Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics with are; > Here are some open tasks:.
      • Include years at the first and last events, and link the full dates properly.
      • "Did you know":
        • Rename to "Did you know..."
        • Bullets (optional).
        • No space between the three periods and text.
        • Selected article should appear in bold.
        • Include image of something relevant to one of the DYK's rather than a question mark.
      • "Contribute" > "Things you can do". Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some impressions. Rfrisbietalk 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The boxes don't display very well for me (I use IE).
    • The Selected picture border breaks up part way down.
    • Many box borders are wider than their headers.
    • The edit link is below the header (by design, I believe). Not a big fan of this.
  • I would remove the year in the "Comic News" items.
  • The "Showcase articles" layout is hard to follow.
  • If possible, get rid of some of the "white space" in columns.
  • Get rid of the different background color in sisterprojects box.

Queries[edit]

  • Where you say "Nomination links for the featured article, selected picture, and DYK section." can you explain what you mean. The featured articles are selected randomly from all current comics featured articles.
  • Regarding the inclusion of images of the comic strips at the "Featured article" section, it was my understanding of WP:FUC that we can't use copyrighted images in the Portal space.
  • Also can you explain what you mean by "Archival links for those including the news section."
  • Finally, why do you feel we need to remove bolding of featured articles in the Showcase articles section? Hiding Talk 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, make places where users can nominate articles, pictures, and DYK's to appear randomly or at a time. Please see featured portals as an example of the system. I suggest switching from "Featured article" section to "Selected article" since there are currently less than 10.
    • Archive anything that either appeared before or appears randomaly, like you currently do with articles.
    • Since it would be made a topics section, bolding featured articles would be useless. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd personally rather leave it as featured articles. Yes there are currently less than ten, but hopefully that will improve sooner rather than later. I would rather show what is unarguably the creme of the creme.
      • No, I still don't follow you regarding the archiving. The news is all archived. Nothing else changes as yet. There's no point archiving images, it's all there in the history of that page.
      • Hmm, I hadn't assumed it was going to be a topics section. Can you clarify how these would help the portal become featured? I haven't been as involved in Portals as I once was, so maybe the scope has changed, but when the first few were chosen it was simply that everything was tickety boo. What you are proposing seems to me to be very minor issues. Hiding Talk 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how it will pass an FPC without a proper archival system. Looking in the history of the section makes sense but might be difficult to some viewers.
        • A topics section listing top priority articles is required for each portal, see Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • They're still active. I tagged those as historical back in September. Those are only meant to be advice, not actual rules. And I don't really see the difference between topics and articles. I'm sorry but I'm really starting to feel confined by all this bureaucracy. Hiding Talk 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whether they are an advice or not, it would certainly be helpful to list the major topics of the subject for readers. There is a lot of difference between topics and articles, as the latter are usually more minor and non-general. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry, but this simply feels like a semantical discussion. Articles have topics, therefore they are synonymous. I really cannot see the distinction you seem to be able to. Hiding Talk 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hiding somewhat in this: Several of the comments above seem to be opinion of personal preference, rather than consensus. Though I would be happy to see links showing differently : ) - jc37 12:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rfrisbietalk 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Intro: The intro narrative is atypical of portal intros. They usually parallel the main article intro. This seems weaker than the article intro. The font size is larger than the other section, it's distracting. No simple edit link to it.
  • Featured article: I assume they're all featured. The one I checked was. The expectation is to include an image with each.
  • Selected articles: This is typically called "Topics" or "Main topics." No obvious sort order to me. Books image seemed unrelated to comics. Centering was distracting.
  • News: Five-month-old news isn't. Displaying year in every date is unnecessary.
  • Events: Lots of external links. Wikilinks would be preferable, at least as main links.
  • Cats: Okay, intro unusual. I don't get the icon.
  • DYK: Heading usually "Did you know..." Main link for each item should be bolded.
  • Contribute: Called "Things you can do". Don't say "click here". Inconsistent formatting. Plainlinks preferred. Unusual icon selection. Invitation at bottom unnecessary.
  • Portals: Wikipe-tan cropped too tight. {{portals}} belongs at bottom of page.
  • Projects: Italics unnecessary.
  • Media: Mixed backgrounds.
  • Archive/Noms/Rotation: All updatable content should include links to archives and a nomination process. I only saw a featured articles archive. It is highly recommended to implement an automated rotation system for all "Selected" content. The {{Random portal component}} template would be cleaner than using the current randomization code embedded on the main page.
  • Header & Footer: Footer out of place. Redundant purge link at bottom of page.
  • Boxes & Background: Box border display improperly. Edit links display below the headers. Some box bodies are wider than their headers. Little or no padding between columns.
  • What's not there: (Optional) Anniversaries/On this day. A section like this might be interesting if enough content is available for a monthly rotation.
  • Overall: This portal has so many design distractions I have very little interest in sticking around to browse the content. It needs a major face-lift just to bring it up to acceptable. If you're interested in working on an overhaul, let me know and I'll help pitch in where I can.
    • Yes, and your help would be entirely welcome : ) - jc37 11:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, great! One way we could proceed would be to work a "to do list" at the portal's talk page. I put one in. Rfrisbietalk 15:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fram's woking on the in this day at the moment, so you can strike that one if you like. I believe we aren't allowed to use fair use images in portal space, so that's another concern my end, you indicated we should include images with the Featured article's. And they are all featured articles. I still don't get this point about archiving. What is it we are supposed to archived? Hiding Talk 20:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right about not using fair use images in portals. Basically, an "archive" is a subpage that includes items that have been/can be displayed in the applicable section. A "nomination" is a subpage where new items can be suggested. In practice, these can be the same page. They should be linked at the bottom of the applicable section. See the Religion Portal for lots of examples. Rfrisbietalk 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • For the "this day" section, I'm down to 26 days without any event, all the others have between 1 and 8 events (about 1,000 in total). I'll continue working on it off and on the next few weeks. As for images, this is a general problem on this portal, since almost all interesting pictures are fair use and thus cannot be used. The major exceptions are portraits of authors, and a handful of comics that are no longer copyrighted... Fram 15:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get what archives are for, but I can't see how they're useful on this portal since nothing gets nominated. Is there some bias in the Featured Portal process which insists on portals having items nominated? Can't people just change stuff as they want and let the page history be the archive? I'm not clear what this emphasis on archives is about or why they are necessary. I'v ebeen out of the portal loop a while, granted, but I don't remember them being done back when the Featured standards were set up. Starting to regret not putting it through back then. I followed the model of Portal:Cricket, which I see is still a featured portal. Can't see any archive links there. Hiding Talk 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dentistry[edit]

I am surprised (even though I should not be) that there is a peer review for portals! Well, the content of dentistry has grown since I have been here, and I have created my first (and probably only) portal. I am sure there are much more informed people out there than me who know what portals should do and look like, so I would welcome any suggestions/questions. - Dozenist talk 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Dozenist. Overall, it looks good! Here are some comments for possible revisions. Rfrisbietalk 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Portals don't need TOCs, remove the contents footer in the intro.
    • Most portals have "...Archive/Nominations" style footers on the left and "Read more..." style footers on the right, in the same line. You might consider reformatting these.
    • If a section has an archive, it probably should have a nominations option.
    • "Photo credit" usually goes directly below the photo. The section also usually has a "Read more..." link. Some portal use more text, like for Featured pictures.
    • The superscripted comment in "Things you can do" just looks like a display error to me, even though it is displaying as coded.
    • Putting the headers under the images might look a little cleaner on the topics section.
    • "Dentistry" / "Dental" in box and within section headings or entries is redundant. They're usually not included but assumed.
    • "Biology" categories look out of place. They might be related, but that's what "Related portals" are for, making it even more odd when the Biology portal is not included.
    • For features portal status, the working rule of thumb (at least from me and a few others ;) is to have at least 10 items for each "Selected..." section. It's also strongly advised such content is automatically rotated, either on a schedule, e.g., monthly or weekly, like at Portal:Philosophy; or randomly displayed, like at Portal:Chemistry.
    • Would a "Selected biography" make sense for this portal?

Comments

  • Would recommend rotating content for article and picture preferably 10 each.
  • The subject of the selected article should be a bold link to the main article not just bold.
  • Since the picture description is centered under the picture so should the image credit.
  • The subcategories in the topics section don't seem to be in any particular order. Not knowing much about teeth I could very well be wrong so, is there an order that I'm not seeing?
  • Some of the links to the associated wikimedia go to nonexistent pages the need to be correctly linked or removed.
  • The second row of the topics section should be centered. On a standard monitor I'm sure it looks fine but on a wide screen it aligns left and leaves a big hole on the right side.
  • Granted this is just me being overly anal but the categories should be justified instead of centered that way the appear the same for standard monitors and wide screen.
  • In the WikiProjects section the superscript ":our main project!" looks off. It should be written in small text or standard, and should be "main project".

Other than that ascetically it looks really good. --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far, but on the removal of the assiciated wikimedia the logos now align left they should either be centered or justifed. This is quite common when someone switches from the template to their own version. In fact it happens so often that I have a workpage devoted to it with the exact code that needs to be pasted here User:Wilsbadkarma/workpage2 simply paste everything into the section and remove the logos you don't want to keep. --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the both of you. Your suggestions were most helpful. I think I followed all of your suggestions, except for two. I tried to move the picture above the headings in the topics section, but then I mixed up the format. If either of you have an idea how to do it, you can try and see if you like it. Then, of course, I have not had time to address the lack of selected articles and pictures. That will have to come with time. :-P - Dozenist talk 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vertically aligned two of the boxes – Topics & Wikimedia. How do you want to rotate selections once you have them? Rfrisbietalk 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that rotating the pictures randomly is a good idea, and so I want to pursue that option. But figuring out how to do that may be a bit daunting. I will look at other portals, but if you have any suggestions, I would be more than happy to hear them. - Dozenist talk 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have the hang of it. When I set up a section, I create the "archive/nomination" page (e.g., Portal:Science/Featured article) in a sandbox first, add the "layout template" to each page, create a few subpages, add the randomizer to the portal page, and then copy the sandbox page over to the now archive/nominations page. After that, I just add more items and update the "max" counter as they come along. Rfrisbietalk 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Actually, I just realized Wilsbadkarma's last comment. I'll look into that as well. Thanks again. - Dozenist talk 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I fix the Associated Wikimedia section at last? - Dozenist talk 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the links, the Commons link seems to be the only one worth keeping. The others are too broad or too sparse. With only one link, the box probably isn't work keeping. You might try getting away with adding it to the Topics box since you have an empty column, but count on someone complaining about it. Just say, "So?" :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did good, I had to make one little edit. But its my fault so no worries, the <DIV> was closed on the inside of the table and ended up making the "what are portals" run into the section when viewed on the main page. Again my fault --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I was able to figure out how to do random pictures and articles. Let me know if something does not work, or if there is something I can do to improve it. - Dozenist talk 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, the only thing I would recommend is rewording "Show another selected article and picture!" to something like "Show new selections" or "Show new content" and I would say not to use the exclamation point. — WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 05:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. In relation to my note above, don't forget to update the "archive" page, possibly like this. Rfrisbietalk 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you again. The purge button has been reworded. And I will look at the last link you have posted later. I am way to tired after all that editing today. - Dozenist talk 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the idea of a selected biography, that may eventually be a good section to have but would not happen until probably way into the future. I barely edit biographies, and the quality of those kind of articles leaves much to be desired. - Dozenist talk 11:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The major concerns have already been corrected, so I believe it's nearly of featured quality right now. Just a few minor concerns:

  • Reduce the size of the lead by at least one paragraph, see the science portal and the mathematics portal for widely accepted sizes. I suggest getting rid of the last paragraph.
  • "More about Dentistry..." - Dentistry shouldn't be capitalized.
  • "Show new content." > "Show new selections" - Preferable for existing sections. Also remove the "Purge server cache" link at the bottom of the page as duplicate.
  • No need in explaining the main project in the "WikiProjects" section, rather obvious.
  • Add a freely-licensed image to the "Did you know..." section and put the entry with the image at the top.
  • I don't like to see the empty space at the topics section, put "Tooth development" on the right and "Tooth anatomy" in the middle. I also feel the section lacks something - Oral hygiene? Rename: "Topics" > "Main topics". Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some box headers are italic, others are regular. Personally, italics are hard for me to read, so I prefer regular headers. Rfrisbietalk 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced the paragraph size, removed purge server link, renamed words to "Show new selections.", removed "main project" label, added image to DYK, removed all italics from box headers. I will work on the Topics section tomorrow. Also, I was under the impression that there should be around 10 selections that cycle on a Portal before people would consider it for featured status. If that is the case, then this portal will not be featured for a LONG while. I am always working on increasing the quality of dental articles, but I am just not that fast. Otherwise, if you think despite not having as many featured articles to show on the portal would be acceptable, please let me know to nominate the portal for featured status before I write 8 more featured articles. :-P - Dozenist talk 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard-and-fast rule on the number of items required for a section of selected items. However, ten items is a ballpark number used by some reviewers, including myself, to indicate a portal has a sufficient depth of content. See Requirements and Rotated sections: Number of items requirement for two discussions. I expect three articles, five pictures, and no biographies would be very problematic in getting consensus support for featured portal status. Rfrisbietalk 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks. That is good to know. Unless the number of quality articles produced increases dramatically, I would not expect this portal to pursue featured status for about a couple more years, in truth since it does take me a while to write dental articles (at least if we are talking about featured status). But when we get there, I will be ready to nominate it. In the meantime, I at least feel that this portal looks awesome, thanks from everyone's input on here. - Dozenist talk 13:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there's no real harm in giving it a go. My impression is the process has a hefty dose of subjectivity to it, so you're likely not to get "disqualified" simply because you don't have ten this or thats. I rarely weigh in on a nomination review for a portal I've worked on in some way, so you would get a wider hearing than what I've said. At the very least, you would come away with a good working list of things to do to get ready for your next nomination. Just reference this peer review in your nomination and let 'er rip! :-) Rfrisbietalk 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a different format to the topic section based on the mathematics portal section. If this looks worse or if I inadvertently wrote something incorrectly, please feel free to fix it or just tell me what I should do. - Dozenist talk 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! I think that's one of the best topics designs out there! :-) Rfrisbietalk 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work Dozenist, I say its ready for FPOC. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur as well it looks great you should put it up for FPC asap. — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fish[edit]

Please add any tips here on how this page can be improved to Featured portal status. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good work with this portal, Melanochromis! As Rfrisbie says, it already looks up to featured standard. I'm sure it will go through if you nominate it. riana_dzasta 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, riana_dzasta. It took me hours and hours to figure out how to make the portal work like Rfrisbie's cats and dogs portal. I'm talking to Rfrisbie now and I hope I could learn some more tricks. At the moment, the fish portal still needs more works. Then we'll see if it will or will not get the featured. --Melanochromis 08:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said before - really, really excellent work! I can't think of anything to object to, at all. Question, though - are such new portals usually promoted to featured status? If so, I'm sure it will go through :) riana_dzasta 13:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really nice! Some suggestions:
  • I don't like the positioning of the sections. Please split it to subpages like done on Portal:Science, this can be used as a ToC as well.
  • I've striked this suggestion for now, I really like the new positioning. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace the image of a drawn fish at the beginning with an image of a real fish, I suggest a goldfish.
  • Remove the "web resources" section, this belongs in the WikiProject. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only things I can see:
  • The "Web Resources" section could be deleted.
  • Change to a fish photo on the top right. My suggestion would be Image:Goldfish2.cropped.jpg. Otherwise, this looks wonderful. :Great work! Badbilltucker 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. I like the layout and the chioce of color, its very apeasing to the eye. Some sugestions I have for improvement:
  • Add three periods before the text for the comments in the "Did you Know?" section; its done that way on the main page and I think :its should be done that way here too.
  • Expand the Featured material; having only one article/FP does not look to good from a Featured Portal Candidate standpoint.
  • As per the others, the "Web Resources" part ought to be moved to the project page. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind the logo as opposed to an actual fish. Probably saves worrying which of thousands of fish to use. However, see if you can do something about the way that 'Associated Wikimedia' and 'Related Portals' overlap each other at lower resolutions... the 800x600 users get cranky when things don't work right for them. --CBD 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow...I don't know what to say, It looks simply excellent. — Seadog 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My tips:
  • A real picture of a fish, instead of a logo.
  • Fish news--Add a news website link, so people can have access to the actual news source
  • Instead of using 4-5 small images at DYK, consider consolidating it to two large images
  • Add {{purgepage}} link at bottom. Did that myself.
  • Add view, talk, edit, history link for Things you can do template. Did it myself.
  • Besides those few small things, everything looks good. =) Nishkid64 22:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great portal! However, this has been mentioned before, the introduction needs a real picture of a fish. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the best new portals I've seen - I usually use Portal:London as the basis for a good start but it doesn't have a thing on this one. It has my full support for an WP:FPORT nomination. DJR (T) 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the idea is to have a logo for the portal and maybe project (at least use the portal logo on other pages) but i still think that a photo of what a fish is would be a better thing to have in the intro section. I made a quick test design for a logo at Image:Fish portal logo.png. I am not too sure about this myself at the moment though. Chris_huhtalk 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of another version of Image:Darwin fish.svg. Rfrisbietalk 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As many reviewers requested, I replaced the logo on the portal with an image of a real fish. Image:Tuna.jpg is used. This picture goes perfectly with the color theme of the portal and it does represent what a typical fish look like. --Melanochromis 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes of the fish portal according to the reviewers[edit]

  • Replace the logo with an image of real fish
  • Remove the "Web resources" section.
    • Done.
  • Use standard "Did you know" format.
    • Done.
  • Expand number of "Selected" content items.
    • Contents are selected at the beginning of each month via the nominations/voting systems (see example here). At the moment, there are already many nominated articles waiting to be selected.
  • Fix layout for 800X600 displays.
    • Done.
  • Add news item link(s).
    • In progress. Update (May 03, 2007): This section is entirely removed due to lack of significant fish-related news stories in the mainstream media as well as to give space to DYK and other more popular section.

--Melanochromis 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Updated: --Melanochromis 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more improvements[edit]

  • I think Fish is singular. If yes, then please make appropriate changes in Introduction section and the article itself.
  • Noted. The 'Introduction' was a part of the fish article, changes should be made there first. This portal will follow the article, for the purpose of consistency.
  • Reduce image size for the present article.
  • Which article? The introduction or other sections?
  • Where is the Selected fish for January?
  • Limit image size to "300px" in Selected pictures. Present image size could be reduced to 200/220 px.
  • This is probably a matter of aesthetic preferences. In my opinion, the showcase picture should not be small. I think 300px is quite ok for most pictures.
  • Use refernces in the News.
  • I agree. In progress.
  • DYK seems very big section. They are long sentences. Could they be shortened? I would say to use single image at a time in the section.
  • Noted. Will be determined.
  • Merging Fish lists in the Topics section could be a better idea.
  • Is that really necessary? Even featured portals didn't merge the lists and the topics.
  • I have to disagree. Fish are not mammals.

Replied by --Melanochromis 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't read to see if these issues have been brought up...
  • News articles should have a source or better, link to.
  • Fish lists, the "List of" should be implied being within a "list of" box.
  • Same with Wikiprojects box.
  • Same with the title of the topics box. Should simply be "Selected topics" since we are on the fish portal.
  • Other than that, looks good, colors are nice. Joe I 06:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. Thanks for the comments.

  • News sources. I agree. In progress.
  • Lists, wikiprojects, topics. I agree and have fixed it. Now they all follow the same format
  • On the lists and projects, I actually meant inside the boxes. Instead of "List of fish common names", simply "Common names", or "Fish common names". Joe I 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, --Melanochromis 20:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update (3 May 2007)[edit]

  • News section removed entirely as there aren't many significant news stories related to fish in the mainstream media as well as to give space to DYK and other sections.
  • the new wikiproject Fishing has been added --Melanochromis 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Greece[edit]

I created this portal recently with the intention of bringing it up to FA level. Before I even nominate it, I want some outside opinions. Kyriakos 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Sd31415 (talk • contribs)

  1. Too much spacing after "The Military of Greece Portal" line.
    Done.
  2. In "Selected Biographies" box, I suggest getting rid of a few of the red links.
    Done.
  3. In "Selected Article" & "Selected Biographies" boxes, in my opinion, the "Read more..." should not be two lines after the end of the paragraphs, but right next to the last sentence, like this: (Read more...)
    Done.
  4. More selected biographioes, articles, & pictures are needed.
    I'll do this later and add an extra quote.
  5. In "Selected Quotes" quotes, I suggest distinguishing some way between two quotes.
    Done.
  6. Two much spacing after "What are Portals? | List of portals | Featured Portals" line.
    Done

I like the colors of the portal. Keep up the good work! Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 12:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the portal, I really aprreciate it. I'll work on it and I'll fix all the queries that you have. Thanks once again. Kyriakos 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Happy editing! S.D. ¿п? § 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Michaelas10 (talk • contribs)

Needs a lot of work:

  • Nomination pages for selected articles, selected biographies, selected pictures, and possibly quotes.
  • Quotes section needs to be redone: remove the titles from it, one or two quote at a time, format quotes properly using italic text and the person who said at its end, and include freely-licensed pictures of the people.
  • Remove the "The Military of Greece Portal" at the top of the page and put it instead of "Introduction" with a reduced size.
  • Don't enlarge the size of the selected pictures above their originals.
  • Remove the "Articles" section, unnecessary.
  • Seeing the massive amount of sub-categories, I suggest converting the categories section to a category tree such as in the electronics portal.
  • Remove all the image captions and thumbnails, these don't belong in portals.
  • "Featured articles" > "Featured content". I prefer not to limit to content of the section to avoid extra section for pictures, lists and such.
  • Can you explain the removal of links on two selected articles? I don't see any use in that.
  • The "Things you can do" section needs a different formatting, see the accepted format.
  • "Related content" > "Related portals", and expand it with other portals including the Greece portal.
  • Create "Did you know..." and "Associated Wikimedia" sections. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that many of these suggestions are matters of personal preference, not requirements for featured portal status. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, although it's preferable to сreate a more constant and professional style on portals. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions from Kirill Lokshin
  • Remove the thumb markup on the images; they should just be given with a raw small size.
  • The "Things you can do" box may be better off as a single column, instead of stretching across both.
  • The quotes should be formatted correctly, and may be better off being rotated one at a time; see, for example, here.
  • Add the other related portals, as well as any relevant sister project links, to the "Related content" box; see, for example, here.
  • The selected picture needs an explicit image credit; see, for example, here.

Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy[edit]

Put suggestions for the portal to achieve featured portal status here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid this needs a lot of work before become it becomes a featured portal. Here are my suggestions:
    • Intro should be shortened in at least one paragraph, I suggest removing the details on philosophy approaches.
    • Image at the intro should be bigger, and I prefer showing an image of a famous philosopher or such.
    • Related portals at the intro?
    • As seen in Internet Explorer, there are hardly any spaces between the sections.
      • This is a design feature of the tables used, not an artifact of any particular browser. Rfrisbietalk 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Philosophy should not be capitalised at the titles.
    • No question marks on the three first DYK's.
    • No image on DYK section.
    • The image of Isaac Newton should not be inside a frame, same in the "Things you can do" section.
    • "Things you can do" section is not formatted properly, and lists only a few articles.
    • "Western philosophical schools of thought"/"Eastern philosophical schools of thought" - Very boring sections. Why do we need to go in such details anyway?
    • Remove explanation on lists from the "Lists of philosophical topics" section, and remove the category link from there.
    • Remove "Reference links", this is not a WikiProject. A similar section was already removed from Portal:Fish.
  • I have a lot more, but I'm going to leave it for the other reviewers. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Fairly nice laylout.I thought there might be to many boxes at first, but I do like the way things are separated.
  • The related portals in the intro is a neat idea, tho I would like to see some pics with them for illustration purposes.
  • The archives sections should link to the displayed content, not the actual article.
  • And I would like to see a few more pics on the whole page where able, maybe in the selected article box and DYK box.
Other than those, looking good.Joe I 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a portal expert but why is there no FP or selected picture. Also on Internet explorer there is hardly any whitespaces and it looks like it's all connected. Other than that (and what has already been said) This is a fine portal. — SeadogTalk 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The portal has a very nice color choice. Most of my comments have already been brought up. However, the reference links do not look good with bullets and centered text. They should be displayed differently. This portal needs work but has potential (to be featured)!

s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Selected article and Selected philosopher could benefit from using a layout page to format the content, rather than substituting as is suggested at Portal:Philosophy/Selected article. See an example at Philosophy of science - Layout. Rfrisbietalk 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transcluding the selected pages, in addition to linking them, makes it easier for a reader to browse the archive page. See the above example. Rfrisbietalk 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a nominations process for any selected content. Rfrisbietalk 13:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free software[edit]

I would like to apply for featured portal status in the near or mid term future. Portal:Free_software has been around and regularly updated for over two years. It failed a featured portal nomination eight months ago, but I think all issues raised have been addressed. Gronky 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ok:

  • Alittle intro expansion would be ok, not sure about what, but it seems alittle short.Joe I 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I do some thinking on it. Gronky 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Featured articles should not be at the top of the page. It's alittle self-referential, which is in the criteria.
Ah, ok. I previously understood "self-referential" in terms of the portal, not wikipedia in general. Will demote. Gronky 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected article box needs an archive.Joe I 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Portal:Free software/selected_article_archive. Gronky 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should have more than one rotated content box. That shows a good size feild of articles to draw upon.Joe I 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of another. There are not enough good biographies. News is one idea, but free software news is generally ephemeral, so it would be mostly out of date. Gronky 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terminology should be more than just "free software", which should be explained in intro.Joe I 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intro mentiones open-source software, FLOSS, FOSS, and Libre software. I think that's prominent enough. Gronky 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the contributing part at the bottom, you may want to consider adding a tab for such a thing.Joe I 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'm trying to implement this now - having some problems with the syntax, but I'll sort them out in time. Gronky 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Gronky 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this needs to be redone:

  • No archives, no nomination systems for most of the sections. Even if some do exist, they at least need to be properly linked.
The only archiveable thing is the selected article box, and that's archived: Portal:Free software/selected_article_archive. The nomination system is quite basic - it's on the Talk page, I'll make a better system. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improper external link formats, image thumbnails, and section headers for a portal.
I don't see which of any of these things are improper. Can you give me more info on this? Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External link references are against Manual of Style, especially since references shouldn't be on portals by default. As for image thumbnails and section headers, they simple don't look go with the background. Section headers may be formatted into bolded text. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The external references are gone, the section headers are in bold instead of bold italics, and the image thumbnails are gone (actually all the images are gone, NicM has suggested a source of images we can use). Gronky 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Is it the mention of "GNU/Linux"? I'll change this to "systems based on Linux and GNU". Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Top 5 most well-known" has a point of view as being a selection of what you believe to be most well-known operating systems. As similar to the "Legal and legislative" and "Free software licenses" sections, operating systems simple need to be linked through a topics section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've removed the numbering from the lists and made the text clear that these are just 5 examples. And I've merged the "Legislative" and "Licences" boxes into a new "topics" box - which is quite good. Gronky 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Categories" tab doesn't work.
My mistake. This is a work in progress. I'm adding the tabs now at the suggestion of the peer review from User:Searchme. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Gronky 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contribute" is exactly the same as "Things you can do", and both sections aren't properly formatted.
I've renamed "things you can do" to "todo". I'm working on the formatting, it's also an issue caused by the transition to tabbed format which is giving me unforeseen problems. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are still the same. Please merge both of the "Contribute" section inside the "Things you can do" section. As for proper formatting, please see this as an example. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept the "requested articles / needy stubs" box and the "todo" box seperate, but I've renamed them to "general" and "specific". The "general" box is for lists of articles that need help, and the "specific" box is for articles where there is a suggestion plan for improving them, but they need someone with the right knowledge to work on the suggestion.
  • Introduction is way too short.
Hmm. I tried to keep it as short as possible because (a) the portal is not an article, and (b) This can be a controversial topic, so it's better to say as little as possible and go straight to introducing the wikipedia content.Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although portals do need an introduction with a proper length. Again, please see our featured portals for comparison. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on this. Gronky 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A portal isn't an article, please remove the "Legal and legislative" and "Free software licenses" sections.
Free software has legal and legislative issues, and licences are a core issue, so it would be incorrect to leave out those topics. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that portals aren't build that way, such sections should generally be merged into a "Topics" section by linking their articles. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, they're in the new "topics" box. Gronky 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Associated Wikimedias don't exists.
I'll go and try to make relevent pages on those projects. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gronky 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipedia featured articles" should be renamed to "Featured content", otherwise is completely redundant to the "Selected article" section.
Ok, I'll do your suggestion, although your reasoning makes me wonder if there's a misunderstand. "Selected article" is not related to Wikipedia's "Featured article" process. Selected is just an arbitrary article from Wikipedia on a free software topic. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selected articles should be of the highest quality, and that's usually means featured articles.
Unfortunately, there are only five free software articles that have featured status, so I've chosen topical or interesting articles as well as high quality ones. Gronky 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use images and logos aren't acceptable for portals.
You mean the logo at the top of the GNU, Tux, and BSD, and the photo of a free software badge? Well, I think the rules are wrong, but if the rules say they have to go, I'll remove them. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacks some of the most important portal sections, including selected picture, related portals, topics, and WikiProject sections.
Selected picture is impossible because fair use is not allowed, so logos and screenshots are not allowed. The only allowed thing would be a photo of a free software user/developer/advocate, so that means there'd not be enough pictures, and choosing people politicises the portal ("Stallman Vs. Linus" etc.), which I really want to avoid. Related portals are there. I'll add a topics section, and there are no active wikiprojects. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the Related portals box wasn't actually there. It must have gotten eaten in the flurry of edits. Fixed. Gronky 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are some related WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Computing and WikiProject Software. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to take a look at our featured portals for comparison or at least try to fix some of the issues described at the previous featured portal nomination. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had done both of those things, but I'll redo them. Thanks for the review, and I'd appreciate some more info where requested above. Gronky 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those explanations, I think the portal has really improved. Gronky 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review/Archive/March_2007&oldid=1146198140"