A featured portal is a portal which is regarded by the community as being particularly good. This page is where featured portal candidates are considered by the community.
Before nominating an article here, it is highly recommended you receive feedback from the community by listing it at portal peer review.
Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. A portal should not be a featured portal candidate and at the same time be listed at portal peer review. Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed. Do not split a nomination page into subsections, which will cause problems in its archiving (if necessary, use bolded headings). Please respond positively to constructive criticism.
For a nomination to be promoted to featured portal status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived.
Before nominating a portal for featured portal status on this page, compare it against the featured portal criteria and ensure that it meets all criteria before nominating.
It is strongly recommended that you use the portal peer review process before nominating the portal. Peer reviews help to identify and fix basic improvement needs before they might be used as the basis for opposing a nomination.
You may also wish to observe other featured portals in the same topic to get ideas on how to further improve your portal before nomination.
Place {{FPOC}} on the talk page of the nominated portal, and click the "initiate nomination" link – This will allow you to initiate the nomination in the correct format.
Note: If you are resubmitting the portal after a previously failed nomination, it is important that you follow the following instructions correctly:
Use the move tab to rename the previous nomination to a new title:
example: move Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example/Archive 1
Go back to the template you left on the talk page of the nominated portal, and replace the code {{FPOC}} with {{FPOC|Archive 1}}. Save the page and re-click the "initiate nomination" link to start the nomination again.
Fill in the blanks of the page, including why you are nominating the portal and other necessary details about the portal that need to be covered.
Click this link and place the following code (replacing Example with the name of your portal) directly under the header, and above all previous nominations. This will transclude the nomination subpage you created for your nominated portal to be seen on the main candidacy page. Be sure to include an edit summary that clearly states which portal you are nominating: e.g., nominating Portal:Example.
Nominator is strongly encouraged to watchlist the nomination page.
Supporting and objecting
Please read nominated portals fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the portal nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
If you approve of a portal, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to a portal's suitability for the Wikipedia.
To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Consensus must be reached for a portal to be promoted to featured portal status. Consensus shall be determined by a nomination closer who is not materially involved in the portal's development or maintenance, or any related WikiProjects. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.
To archive a nomination
When NOT promoted place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPORTCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
When promoted place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPORTCresult|Promoted| }} --~~~~
Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the portal in the edit summary.
Self-nomination. See archived peer review and previous FPOC. Stats: (14) Selected articles, all of "B" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (13) Selected biographies, all of "B" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (11) Selected pictures, all are free-use images, (12) Selected quotes, all have links to notable individuals with articles on Wikipedia, and all have associated free-use images, (15) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time, and (7) selected quotes shown one at a time. All of the above sections are randomised and display new content when the portal is purged. News updates automatically from Wikinews, using Wikinews Importer Bot. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status after a rigourous first featured nomination, which has helped develop the portal further. Rudget (review) 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
If there is an ongoing WP:FPOC discussion, the WP:PPREV should be archived, but it is still open at the moment, at least according to the portal's talk page. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "No free image" things on the Selected bios might be okay in the actual articles, but look unseemly in the portal itself. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True - this one was just a suggestion, not really required or anything - though it could be considered as a longer term recommendation to add some more dynamism. Cirt (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that most of the national symbols are already used in the Selected picture section. Rudget (review) 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Left column is a bit wide and right column is a bit narrow, better to showcase 2 "Selected" subsections of content at the top, and make the columns 55%/45%, and shift some stuff around. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better - but "Featured content", "Things you can do", and "Selected quote" would probably all look better if moved to somewhere inside the bottom section where there is 100% width. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is way too many things at 100% width already, it'd break up the flow. See what it is like now. Rudget (review) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but still, I'd swap locations of WikiProjects and Featured content. Cirt (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Associated Wikimedia" should have its own subpage, with links to other projects tailored to searches or existing pages as per what is currently available in this topic. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Selected quote" would look much nicer if modeled after the WP:FPORT, Portal:Sustainable development - as would subsections "Things you can do" and "WikiProjects". Cirt (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait - if you are going to go with the Archive/More format for all the other subsections, best to use that format for this one too, and not "Suggest" format. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
News section also appears to not have a footer, which could link directly to n:Portal:Wales. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I went and did this one. Cirt (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know - Also still uses the Suggest/More footer, should be changed to Archive/More, for uniformity/standardization w/ other sections of the portal. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent work. Thanks for responding so insanely fast to my above comments. Portal looks great. Cirt (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like a featured portal. Red and green is handled well and I admire the restraint on borders (none) in the boxheaders. Beautiful job. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Attractive clean colours. The column layout at my monitor resolution was significantly unbalanced (too long on the left column), though I can't see a quick fix that would balance. Looking at the Selected articles list I'm confused as the majority seem to be biographies -- when the random selection gives two biographies it looks rather odd to me. Surely there must be ten or so non-biographical Welsh articles of at least B-class? Not all the biographies have images associated, eg Gethin Jones, Max Boyce, Lloyd Owen, Tommy Cooper. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is quite a problem with that, and I am looking to resolve the issue, but it is difficult. With a context that is in poorly represented on Wikipedia its hard to find any good B-class articles (or higher) which I can use without using half the page as just an introduction, in that case, it would be better to just link the page itself. Biographies, on the other hand, are in plentiful supply and this is the reason why they have been used in this particular instance. I hope it doesn't impede too much on the portal, and I will look at updating some selected articles when the time comes that articles about various Wales locations are of a good standard. Rudget (review) 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd personally suggest amalgamating the Biographies and Selected articles until there are sufficient non-biographies to stand on their own. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was addressed in the last FPOC which ultimately lead to its unsuccessfulness at that particular time. If I don't retain the Selected biography section, there wouldn't be enough to meet FPOC criteria. Greman Knight. 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you planning to do with the large blank space in the right panel? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. On my screen, there is none? Rudget 14:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Firefox at 1024x768 and after purging the portal 5 times, the space is still there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intro needs copyediting...first four sentences all start with the same word ("Wales"), for instance. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Comment. The portal columns aren't well balanced under the selections I received; the blurb lengths need to be more similar for balance. Portal:James Bond/Selected quote/14 is a red link.
Several of the selected articles lack images. The Selected biographies blurbs are rather variable in length, and some eg Eva Green contain material that doesn't seem portal worthy. The blurb should expand on the person's connection with James Bond; this isn't even stated for several singers and is only touched on for most of the actors who did not play Bond himself.
There are some problems with the selected pictures. Several are not of sufficiently high quality. At least one is fair use, which is not permitted on portals. The selected picture captions need expanding in some cases to explain the actor's role in the films, and several captions need the subject wikilinking. The photo credits are missing in many cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Few of my major concerns have been met. Moreover, the portal layout appears to have broken since I last looked with large amounts of padding appearing between the boxes. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Fixed the padding and all concerns. Ultra! 12:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why are they all piled on top of each other? Two columns would be good. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with selected articles and biographies Ultra! 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selected picture on the main portal page should say "...More selections" and not "....More selections/Nominations" to keep other selected articles and biographies synchronized.
Image captions does not need to read "Credit: commons user ABC" or "Credit: en.wikipedia user XYZ". Just say "Credit: ABC" with ABC linked to the userpage of commons of en.wp.
Starting with Portal:James Bond/Selected picture/19 and onwards, the image captions are really short and does not explain how that individual or the band plays a role.
Not done I think you misread. It says 19 and onwards, not just 19 that needs to update its image caption. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done19 and onwardsUltra! 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. I hope I'm not biting you too much. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Two small things. The featured article star in bits in "Explore..." confused me and I wonder if a star and a GA symbol like the one at right might give the reader more of a clue as to what that section contains. Also I would very much like to see that gun go away, especially because it is a static image. If it was one of a set of random pictures I probably wouldn't have mentioned it. Again, good work and great colors. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have settled this below with User:Vivin. When the words are on white background, nobody should have trouble reading. Ultra! 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:James Bond/Did you know needs a little work. If others want to add any new DYKs its helpful for them to know how to. You will also need to create a subsection for each DYK with each one quoting their appropriate recent additions archive.
There's too much breakage in the bottom of the portal. Consider shifting some around so more are on the left and right rather than most being 100% wide.
Please remove the "Help" section. It's not fitting, and if anyone had a question, you can always watchlist the portal talk page.
N How come it's not fitting? I took it from the featured Portal:Energy. Ultra! 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude but how can anyone be "puzzled by James Bond?". 90-95% of all other featured portals don't have this. 90.201.215.80 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explore.... section should be renamed to "featured content" or "quality content". The image should be descaled and if the GA icon is to be included, consider using syntax.
The news section is way too large. Consider removing most of the items and move it to the left or right (depending on preference). You'll also have to use the Wikinews Importer Bot (this is described in various FPOCs below this).
Done Though I prefer archiving old news. Ultra! 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should be about it for now. Greman Knight. 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support well designed, and covers all aspects well. igordebraga≠ 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not familiar with portals, but the middle of this portal is a sloppy list. Could you not place the mainspace navigation boxes there? Alientraveller (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good portal, but why is Pierce Brosnan's picture next to 007's biography? There were other actors. Why not use the picture that has all six official actors? Emperor001 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nfair use is not permitted on portals. Ultra! 18:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N That has only the actor, not Bond like in the current one. Ultra! 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if it is a feature of the skin I'm using or not (I'm using Modern), but the "Show new selections" link isn't very visible against the blue background. That's the only problem I see. Other than that, very well-designed. --vi5in[talk] 02:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "Topics" section - surely there are articles on other actors who have been in Bond films, for example, so what is this?
Every featured portal I have seen has this to provide quick links to the most (not all) relevant articles. Ultra! 15:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to navigate Tpoics because some heads are blue and some not (I understand why, but it's hard to tell what';s going on) - consider adding rules btwn sections or something like that - (e.g. James Bond Jr. - not clear that "characters" is relating back to that heading)
Hope this helps - good luck with it. Tvoz/talk 22:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
;Message for the FPOC Director
Dear Sir/Madam, I am going on a vacation till May 19. So if consensuws is reached or oppositions are raised, please keep the result on hold till then but PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE THIS CANDIDATE if any upcoming reviewers' concerns are not addressed before the 19th. Thank you.Ultra! 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self nomination. I've been working on this portal for some time and it has developed incredibly well over the last few months. There are many features and other gizmos on the portal, namely:
25 Selected articles (all FA)
22 Selected pictures
67 DYKs, of which 13 are illustrated
14 Selected competitions
Among these, there is an "In the news" section automatically updated, a featured content section, related portals/categories/WikiProjects, and, of course, an introduction.
Support. Nicely done. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done. If you are investing in random content, the images in the introduction might change too. (Might have been my luck of the draw to see them repeat.) -Susanlesch (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating Portal:American Civil War. I had been updating this manually last year, before another user stepped in and automated it. Previous portal peer review is located here. I think it exceeds all of the featured portal criteria. It does not self-reference, it is ergonomic, it includes several self-updating sections all of which are informative, stylish, and examples of some of the best work I've seen here on Wikipedia. I only recently realized that portals could become featured, and I was surprised to learn that ACW had not yet achieved that status. MrPrada (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like things have been randomized/formatted a bit - but the footers at the bottom of selected sections still lead to old versions of "Archives" - instead of lists of the randomized content and an instructions page on how to add more. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a maintainer, I should point out that this portal uses a dynamic queue instead of randomized content. I agree some easier way might be provided to allow direct contributions to the queue. BusterD (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the subpage where all the upcoming articles for the dynamic queue are listed, with instructions for other editors as to how to contribute new articles? Cirt (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been corrected. Where there used to exist a "Suggest" link, in most cases I've replaced this with a "Create" link which leads to the instruction pages, based on those used at Portal:Norway. I've been slapping and banging everything into the handy layout templates, and I'm not done with all that stuff yet. I've held off on the instructions for the DYK and This week sections, mostly because of needing to work with the layout template a bit. Another day or two and I'll have all your concerns addressed. This has been an exhausting but fun changeover. I know lots about how I want to setup another portal now, but still need some new ideas. BusterD (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I had to adjust the instructions a bit to fit the circumstances of two subpages, but all the instruction pages are linked on the main page now. I've also included to do lists on those instruction pages. I'm planning to use the to do lists to keep tasks available to newcomers to the portal. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dynamic is just fine (random is a tool and not an end all). Good work. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love the basic colors. But they're my choices, so I'm biased. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome portal. I really appericiate the good work. Shyam(T/C) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything looks good and up to snuff to me. Cromdog (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Still some issues with the footer tabs at the bottom of the Selected sections. The "archive" leads to a page which looks like this Portal:American Civil War/Featured article/Archive1, which isn't very helpful to the visitor. The "create" link leads to this - Portal:American Civil War/Featured article - where selections 1 and 2 are missing? Also, the "Featured article" section should be moved to "Selected article" - unless all of the articles areFeatured articles. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "Featured articles" are featured (or were at time of display), as explained at the "talk" link appropriate to the section. The red links are places for new FAs when they are promoted. Including archives, I've listed 15 FAs. I've explained each archive page a bit better. Do you have another suggestion as where to keep archives? I'm way open to ideas. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is another concept which is covered in the instructions page, perhaps inadequately. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit easier to understand? BusterD (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was something that is not that easy to understand at the outset - somehow those article titles should be wikilinked and bolded within each blurb. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Intro section could also use a highlighted image, perhaps in the upper left corner, that is indicative of the portal's topic. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Images rotate hourly, but I'm planning a rotation every minute, once I fill the queue. BusterD (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under 'Things you can do - the "Requested articles" list is a bit large, the amount of redlinks looks unseemly, would look better if it were reduced to 3-5 redlinks, and then a referral to a list of additional requested articles at a subpage of a WikiProject. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The request articles list comes from the WikiProject and not the portal itself. MrPrada (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You kind of have me here, Cirt. The portal is based around the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history American Civil War task force, and its "to do" list is an integral part of this portal, featured or not. If that's a deal-breaker, then we should probably withdraw this portal from any future FP consideration until the project has few requests (meaning never). BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying it is a lot of redlinks for a portal main page - if it is drawn from a WikiProject subpage, why not feature a few that are really requested, and have some others of less priority at a subpage of the WikiProject, and then refer to those in a link within that subsection of the portal? Cirt (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articleandSelected article subsections? That seems redundant. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a few featured ACW articles. However there are numerous A-class and GA-class articles which would be candidates for "Selected Article" (see: Portal:Ohio). I don't think thats actionable for preventing Featured status. MrPrada (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no main difference in the intent of the "Featured article" and "Selected article" section (i.e. bios, or your Portal:American Civil War/Grand Parade of the States subsections) then I think this is simply a redundant subsection, and is confusing, especially since you already have a "Featured article" section at the top. In effect, the "Featured article" section functions as the "Selected article" section, just that all articles in rotation are featured. Yes, having both seems redundant and inappropriate for a featured portal - I don't know of any WP:FPORTs that have both. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my interest to present material which was not strictly battles and leaders, I originally had designed quite a lot of arcana into the portal (Selected artist's rendering, Selected photograph, Selected weapon, Selected map). Most of this was not that good, but GPotS had a resonance, perhaps a martial quality, which was commented upon positively, so I kept that. When I realized I had a number of FAs, I wanted to showcase those quarterly, but now with this rate of FA production, it's monthly, and I may never repeat an FA. I have no particular attachment to the SA subpage, but IMHO, it presents important and nuanced material which may never appear on the FA list. That's why the large number of subpages. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with BusterD here. Simply because no featured portal has ever had both "Featured Article" and "Selected Article" does not mean its exclusionary criteria. There are a number of articles which would otherwise never be featured, this at least allows users to suggest ones that can be selected from A-class, GA-class, etc. MrPrada (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Na, they are redundant. It only confuses people. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am sorry, but they are not redundant. The 'Featured Article' selection at the top is for featured articles, and rotates quarterly. There are only nine FAs, so this makes sense to me. The Selected Article/Event/Topic section was for everything else (the 112 articles that are not FAs), to be rotated weekly. Let's have a look at some of the titles of those articles: Signal Corps in the American Civil War, Battle of Fort Donelson, Civil War tokens, Battle of Chancellorsville, H.L. Hunley, Fort Corcoran, Battle of Gettysburg, Fifteenth Amendment, Coal torpedo, Richmond and Danville Railroad, Great Locomotive Chase, andSultana (steamboat). Again, none of these are featured. Most of them will probably never be. Should they be excluded from the portal? I say no. Should the featured articles be given a quicker rotation to allow these? I also say no. Featured articles are examples of our best work, and should be given a longer display period at the very top of the portal. Its a big part of why I prefer the queue style to randomization. I think most other editors would agree with me that there has to be some remedy where we can return this section and still become a featured portal. MrPrada (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We might remove this section, but looking at the newly fortified "Selected article" queue (Thanks MrPrada!), I suggest we change the subsection to "Selected event". Most of the entries listed can be tied to a date range, so with some minor changes and explanation in queue talk, this could reference some battle or significant non-battle action, like a balloon ascent or steamboat explosion. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Still some cleaning to do, shifting two objects to events, but the basic visible work is done. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - This subsection still has selections which have nothing to do with "events", and I think that this subsection is subsumed by the "Featured article" subsection at the top of the portal, and thus redundant and should be removed. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with removing this section. This portal had six votes support votes, plus the nomination, "as-is", prior to this comment. There is nothing in the FP criteria list that would preclude this, and we're inhibiting every Civil War related article that is not a FA, Biography, or <State> in the American Civil War from displaying at the portal. I think it should be returned as "Selected Topic". The consensus above clearly supported the portal with both sections. It also makes the portal unique from other portals, which should be another part of being featured. Are we really not going to have any Battles, units, technology, etc., on the front page, even if they're GA-class or above? That is a little silly. MrPrada (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When do we start counting !votes in featured portal nominations? And even if so, "comments" is a nicer way than saying "oppose" because it is not directed towards the nomination, but the portal itself. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not implying that we count votes, rather I intended to convey that there was consensus when both sections were featured. Personally, I would have asked Buster to create a section to include non-FA battles, etc., prior to nominating the portal, if it had not existed at the outset. MrPrada (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not overly wedded to SA myself, though I do agree with some of MrPrada's comments above. It's possible the portal had too many ingredients, and it's entirely possible to highlight many of the SA-type stuff in Did you know or This week entries. I could always put it back in, but I also highly value the opinions of those who've been through this process multiple times. BusterD public (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17 archived selected pictures, 14 31 complete so far this year, and more several months away from display already posted, and wanting formatting. This is a listed task on the to do list for "Selected pictures." I can either fill every slot, in which case there's no work for newcomer to jump into, or leave some future slots as incomplete and unfilled so as to demonstrate the need for entries (making some reviewers uncomfortable). Still not sure how to fit my square (time dynamic) portal through a round (random dynamic) filter. If you provide me a done/undone metric, I'll plug any hole still desiring filling. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue here, is that perhaps I am not understanding the way you have the dynamic queue set up for the portal - I tend to use a purely randomized method for selections, without regard for dates, etc. But if the way you have it is okay, and the redlinks/empty selections won't accidentally pop in the portal's main page, then okay. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easiest way to visualize the dynamic queue is to look at the queue itself. Because it reveals no content, the skeleton of the portal and its mechanisms can be better understood. For the record, I thought all this dynamic queue stuff was the way all portals were run. Foolish me. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already stated, I came to the already assembled portal with little understanding of its mechanics or design; if I had to do it all over again (and I'm about to do so with Portal:Civil war), I would choose a much more elegant and modern style. But this portal is an antique, and I'll still polish it as is. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs - The blurb text for Featured article, Grand Parade of the States, and Selected biography all seem to be a bit too long - each could be cut down to about a third of current length. Think WP:TFA size. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been wrestling with this because of the enormous variablility of the This week section (which is the section which requires the most effort to fortify, each subarticle taking several hours to create and edit). Eventually this will be a much shorter "This day" but it takes a long time to gather that many anniversary entries in a content area. This month of April, being the starting and ending month of the subject war, a lot of entries are inescapable, but in some weeks, finding entries is a difficult task. This weeks' and month's FA, GPotS and SB entries are actually intentionally puffed up to match the This week list. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't come across any WP:FPORTs with blurbs this long, I really think that the blurb text for these selected sections needs to be cut down drastically across the board. Cirt (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeCommentSupport I like the portal but I can’t support it unless the photos are organized and become "Ergonomic" as per Wikipedia’s featured portal criteria. If it gets fixed I would love to change my vote.--CPacker (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your critique. Selected pictures are formatted precisely like those of Portal:Norway, which is not getting this feedback. BusterD (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be confusing, I find the way it is archived very confusing because the photos are on different sides, if you could organize them one after the other it would make it much easier to see which photos go with each date. Example
Done Applied the same layout style to the older stuff in the 2007 archives. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Self-nomination. See archived peer review. Stats: (13) Selected articles, all of WP:GA or WP:FA quality and all have an associated free-use image, (18) Selected biographies, all of WP:FA or WP:GA quality, (31) Selected pictures, all are free-use images, (68) Selected quotes, all have links to notable individuals with articles on Wikipedia, and all but 5 of which have associated free-use images, (20) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. News updates automatically from Wikinews, using Wikinews Importer Bot. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Cirt (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Support. Though generally the informal minimum standard is 10 selected articles per randomized section - I have added a few more articles into rotation (mainly those WP:GA-rated articles I had neglected to add in initially because they didn't have an associated free-use image, but still nice additions nonetheless).
previous FPOC (21:21, 14 February 2008)
I withdrew the FPOC in, to be honest, a fit of anger. I've decide to smarten up and compromise and make everything automatic. The Suggestions page is always available to add more articles, so I didn't overstock. Big thanks to Ryan Postletwhaite for helping me out with the portal. Maxim(talk) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no concerns per issues last time, etc. Good to see Maxim made the right choice in "smartening up" :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maxim's done a gret job with the portal and it's all automated - It uses the random generator for all the selected content, and it uses the wikinews importer for the news section so there's no longer problems associated with the portal being young. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks nice however, to make it more professional, I'd suggest you italicise the header in the top box - (Ice hockey portal) - in uniform with the other subsections and I'd ask you to uniform the "read more's" as well, for example, all with three dotes after it. Here's an example (read more) and (read more...) → (read more) and (read more) or vice versa. Rudget. 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fixed the first point, and the second as well, as (read more...). I've made it as one template (Portal:ice hockey/r), so if you believe getting rid of the ellipsis would be better, it'd save me 30 edits. :-p Maxim(talk) 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
It's a well put-together portal, and I'm leaning towards supporting, but there are a few sticking points that need to be addressed. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pages that show all the various "selected" things on a subpage should have instructions for users on how to add selected content, so they don't have to figure it out on their own. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In "selected article", "selected biography", and "selected list" - some of the titles of those articles are bolded, and some are bolded and also wikilinked to the highlighted article. Preferably, they should all be both bolded and wikilinked. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories section could be reformatted with categorytree coding. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but I looked at Portal:Sustainable development and if I were to use the same system for categories as used on that portal, no changes are required IMO. --Maxim(talk) 12:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of "categorytree" usage to have 2 columns, see Portal:Television. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Wikimedia section could have its own subpage, to direct users to specific project pages, instead of the default stuff. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small touch - remove the "Purge server cache" and add "Show new selections" instead, below the intro, like in the Featured Portal, Portal:Sustainable development, among others. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I moved around the list and changed the width so "Show new selections" would look better with its placement. Maxim(talk) 12:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One thing, does the image in the introduction change? Might have just been my luck of the draw, but I'd like to see that B&W photo of pucks change if you are investing in random content. Otherwise looks nice, good job. -03:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanlesch (talk • contribs)
Comment - the image in the intro isn't random, but I've changed the image to a diagram of the rink, it's the one used as the WP:HOCKEY "symbol", for lack of a better term. Maxim(talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice diagram. (Either of the images looks good.) -Susanlesch (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of my above comments have been addressed - great work by Maxim (talk·contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All comments taken into consideration, many supports, no opposes and a good amount of time to determine consensus, that being to promote. Rudget. 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
previous FPOC In my opinion this portal displays the best Wikipedia has to offer.21 featured articles,32 selected pictures ,10 selected biographies,13 articles for Selected equipment , and 18 selected battles.All of the articles and images are featured . Bewareofdog 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, averything appears to be in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was a very good portal before last process, is a better one this time. Surpasses criteria. Lots of room to add even more FA stuff, especially bios. What might draw critique is the quantity of redlinks in the task force announcements template. When addressing this issue on P:ACW FP process, I farmed the bios out to a list of requested ones and linked that. If this redlink issue becomes a deal breaker (and IMHO it shouldn't be), you could also create a "requested engagements" sublist and move a bunch of links there. Good work! BusterD (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice and clean. Very well done. Only comment I have is the same as last time (which was answered then, thanks: some military portals have a different menu at the top, and although I think all the portals would use the same menu, that difference has been explained). Congratulations in advance, and good luck with maintenance. —SusanLesch (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work on this portal; looks really nice and organized. It seems to pass all of the criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A fabulously constructed portal that exceeds the criteria for FP-Status. Cam (Chat) 06:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Done Greman Knight. 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Not done I think you misread. It says 19 and onwards, not just 19 that needs to update its image caption. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I did this and its odd as the background is blue and the link gets hard to read. Ultra! 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Done Applied the same layout style to the older stuff in the 2007 archives. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)