Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Nominations: Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Electronics
promote 1
Line 53: Line 53:
{{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:China}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:China}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Utah}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Utah}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Ukraine}}


{{Portal nav footer|#A3B1BF|#E6F2FF}}
{{Portal nav footer|#A3B1BF|#E6F2FF}}

Revision as of 14:07, 6 February 2007

Featured Portals in Wikipedia

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.

Please see "what is a featured portal?" for general standards and criteria.

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured portal tools: (process is now historical)

Nomination procedure

  1. Check the featured portal criteria and make sure the portal meets all of them before nominating. Consider using portal peer review before submitting a portal here.
  2. Place {{portalnom}} on the talk page of the nominated portal.
  3. From there, click on the "leave comments" link.
  4. (If you are resubmitting a portal) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Foo → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portal:Foo/Archive 1
  5. Place ===[[Portal:Foo]]=== at the top.
  6. Below it, write your reason(s) for nominating the article.
  7. Add the portal to the current candidates list. You can add this list to your talk page using {{FPcandidates}}
  8. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Foo}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to replace "Foo" with the name of the nominated portal.

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:

  1. Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the portal in the edit summary.
  2. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted portals or log of failed candidacies, as appropriate.
  3. Update the log tallies in {{Featured portal log}}.
  4. On the article's talk page, change {{portalnom}} to {{featuredportal}} or {{portalnomfailed}}, as appropriate.
  5. For promotions:
    1. update Wikipedia:Featured portals.
    2. update Wikipedia:Featured content/Portals.
    3. add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.
    4. add {{FA}} to the appropriate entry at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory.
    5. add {{Featured portal}} to the portal page, just above any interwiki entries.

Nominations

Portal:Electronics

After an extensive restoration process, this portal meets requirements and is ready for featured status. It has more than enough content, localized browsing and more. Many ideas, comments and reviews were acted upom from the talk page to peer review. Joe I 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, looks good. Two minor quibbles, though:
  • The "Switch selections" link should be moved up to be above the "Selected biography" box, since it applies to it as well.
I tried, but just couldn't make the change. It makes the box sections look alittle weird. And the focus should really start with the selected design box.
  • In the box-bottom links, "Nominations" should really be "nominations".
Yes, properly, it should be lower case, but all other featured portals that use the same format, use the upper case, and I think it makes it more visible. Joe I 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Religion

This nomination appears to meet all featured portal criteria. All items in a recent portal peer review and a to do list have been addressed. Rfrisbietalk 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are few points which should be considered before getting the portal promoted.
  • Add purge link.
  • Sorry, I could not find out that one. Where is it? Shyam (T/C)
  • I do not prefer the tab for the portal. The main objective of the portal to increase collaboration related to portal and which topics cover the portal. They should be included on the portal main page itself. There is no need to use separate tabs.
  • Other portals serve the purpose for other tasks as well when they are used as tabs. I do not seek any purpose to have tabs on this portal. Rather, these tabs seem to me that contributors may be untouched with the collaborations. Portals generally serve the purpose for the ports of other articles, IMO, while using the tabs for topics is not the good idea. Shyam (T/C)
  • This concern appears to be a personal preference (which is fine) rather that a violation of a featured portal criterion. However, one of the top viewed portal pages in the English Wikipedia is Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics, a featured tabbed portal page. Clearly, using tabs in portals is not a problem. Rfrisbietalk 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related portals have unrelated portals in the section. The portals mentioned at the top need not to be a part of the section. Consider using a shorter image if the portal needs all other portal links.
  • No change needed. All of the portals listed in this section are related to religion. The first line lists serveral high-level portals on topics that historically have impacted and have been impacted by religion in significant ways. The remaining lines include subportals related to the topic of religion. The images sizes are common elements of featured portals. Rfrisbietalk 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the portals are really needed to have then please consider shortening the image or remove the image. This section covers about 25% of the portal's main page which is not good for the portal page. Shyam (T/C) 16:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be another personal preference, rather than a violation of a featured portal criterion. Religion is a broad, high-level topic with a diversity of world views on how it is regarded and practiced. Highlighting and celebrating this diversity is a strength of the Religion Portal. I have no plans to remove any related portal links or reduce image sizes. Rfrisbietalk 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam (T/C) 08:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just a few points to a otherwise brilliant portal. Firstly in the selected Picture, article, quote and scripture the footer reads "...Archive/Nominations" while the Selected religious figure, On this day... and Did you know... have "...Archive/Noms" in the footer. I understand this is due to a space issue but it should follow a uniform style throughout the portal. Hossen27 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll simply say the style is uniform. Full-width and left columns use "...Archive/Nominations" while right columns use "...Archive/Noms". Since the differences are intended to accomodate the maximum possible usability for simultaneously incompatible expectations – complete words vs. proper column displays – I consider this "compromise" solution to be superior to an arbitrary and unnecessary expectation of identical footers. Rfrisbietalk 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support very good job, embodies the spirit of Featured Portals. ~ Arjun 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support although the electric blue is a bit hard on the eyes. But that's personal opinion, of course :) Full support with regards to all other points. riana_dzasta 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please feel free to change the color to a more pleasing shade. Rfrisbietalk 12:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    #8181F7, slightly faded blue. Is it OK? riana_dzasta 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine with me. Rfrisbietalk 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is duplication between the {{browsebar}} and Related portals section. Please remove portals appearing on the {{browsebar}} from Related portals (which should become Subportals), even if they may be considered related. Otherwise, good work in bringing this portal up to standard, and special thanks to riana for altering the colour – the prior blue was a bit harsh.--cj | talk 11:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated before to Shyam, I disagree with this. If the portal is not promoted as a result, that's your choice. Rfrisbie 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC) By the way, since this is a wiki, I'm sure someone else will make the change. Rfrisbie 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't yet objected and my reasoning is different to Shyam's. Duplication is a real issue vis-à-vis the portal's usefulness and ergonomics. I am happy to make the change myself if you are happy to let it stand.--cj | talk 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point about duplication. As a highly visual user, my point is the "Related portals" is not a duplication by the fact that it includes images, while the browsebar does not. I keep losing this verbal vs. visual argument on Wikipedia, so I don't expect the outcome here to be any different. I won't reverse any changes to the portal. This is a wiki. I'll just move on. Rfrisbie 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Hinduism

Rfrisbie, I and others have worked hard on this portal. It now has a rotation system for the "selected" content and is very helpful to others. From what I can see it meets the criteria. If you disagree please give examples so that I (or someone else) can fix it. Cheers. Arjun 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I still see some issues, but none would be difficult to fix.

  • In the "Related Wikimedia" section: "Quotes on Hinduism" > "Hinduism quotes".
  • "Topics" > "Main topics", an article is a topic itself. Misses a space before "Shikshapatri". "Related topics" > "Related". I don't feel lists belong there, maybe move it to a different section?
  • Add images of those who's image is freely-licensed in the "Selected quote" section.
  • "Jan. Festivals & Events" > "Anniversaries". I prefer not to make a limit.
  • Add an image in the "Did you know..." section.
  • Provide a link to here in the "Things you can do" section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just minor stuff:

Really I don't know...the best answer would be removing them lol. I personally don't like the images in the quote section, but that is just me. Arjun 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay images are gone, how does it look as of now? Arjun 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant the image at the "Selected Hindu" section. The first word of the section goes above it, while the rest going below. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The column display problem at 800X600 was due to the "Selected quote" footer being too wide. I fixed that and restored the image. Now the image question can be settled on its own merit. Rfrisbietalk 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few more points

There are some more points which could be consider to make the portal improve.

  • At the top, is it really required to mention all the religion portals? If they all are really worthful to mention then could they not be included into the related portals section?
  • Intro section seems to be shorter to me. Could it be little expanded?
  • Selected picture section has many images which are very long as 300px. You may consider reducing the image size (e.g. 250px) which are long images. Respectively you can balance the left and right floats as 60/39 does not seem balanced. You may use 55/44.
  • Festivals section should be discussed only forthcoming festivals in the coming month. Nobody would be really interested in the festivals which was previously celebrated. If they should be included then it would be useful to include with some news.
  • I do not think including India WikiProject is a good idea in the WikiProjects section as India is not a Hindu country. Nepal WikiProject could be included in that point of view.
  • Adding or expanding Topics section would be considered appericiable.
  • Remove Portal:India and Portal:Asia from the Related portals section. Instead Portal:Himalaya region could be included. Shyam (T/C) 07:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:China

previous FPOC

Portal:Utah

The Utah Portal was started in September 2005. After Portal:Texas achieved featured status (the first U.S. state portal to do so) I took it upon myself to do the same with Utah Portal.

Looking at the criteria:

1: I've done my best to showcase what Wikipedia has to offer with regards to Utah.

2: I've included a Featured content related to Utah section to highlight the best of Utah-related content. Contributions are encouraged by the 'Things you can do' section - maintained by WikiProject Utah.

3.1 (Useful):State portals are broad and of sufficient interest to be considered useful. I've tried to only include high-quality content to the Selected article and Selected picture sections - other interesting tid-bits are included either in the Selected anniversaries or Did you know sections.

3.2 (Attractive): Attractive is in the eye of the beholder, but this portal is on par with most featured portals, with the attractive Utah red-rock orange used for section headers and footers.

3.3 (Ergonomic): My layout philosophy was to get the 'Featured content related to Utah', 'Selected article', and 'Selected picture' sections directly after the portal introduction - these contain the most Featured content.

3.4 (Well-maintained): The Selected article, Selected picture, Selected biography and Did you know sections all use the Random portal component template to ensure an ever-changing rotation of content. The only manual aspect is to change the Selected anniversaries. ((I'll soon be changing this by using the {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} functionality) The Selected anniversaries are updated monthly using the {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} functionality. updated — Zaui (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4: Appears to meet all requirements. There are 19 Selected articles, 13 Selected pictures, 25 17 Selected biographies, 9 16 Did you know entries and 15 Selected anniversaries. More can be added - I started a list of subjects to consider on the talk page.

5: All images have captions, and no fair-use images are used.

6: No self-referential issues.

Thank you for your consideration. — Zaui (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Good Work--WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Selected article, picture, and bio all need nomination links, I have a random component tool that automatically adds suggestion links if you would link to use it just let me know.

:You'll need to click on and create the suggest pages. --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The lists section has redirects in it that need to be removed. The link should go to an actual article.
  2. On your anniversaries what happens on days where there isn't one?
  3. The bold link in the article Park City leads to an disambig page.
  4. Alot of the bolded links in the selected articles leading to the main topic of an article are redirects. They need to link directly to the main page.
  5. Some of your selected article don't seem to display Wikipedia's greatest work, articles chosen as selected should be of very high quality, i.e. WP:FA, WP:GA or A-class.
  6. Some of the articles used for your bios are very low quality, some have very little content at all. selected bios should be B-class or better.
  7. In the other portal section you need to either have other actual portals listed or remove it and list the what are portals at the bottom of the page without a section.--WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I numbered the items above)

  1. I'm missing what you mean by nomination links - do you mean nomination to display or nomination for inclusion? The articles are displayed randomly using the Random portal component template. Inclusion in a selected list is up to the participants - there's no vote.
  2. Found one and fixed it.
  3. The anniversaries are updated every month - all anniversaries for each month are displayed.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Found two and fixed them.
  6. The guideline states: Each of these articles should be of high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively (emphasis mine). I'll concede that a couple could fall short of this standard - maybe FranklinCovey and Kennecott Utah Copper. I feel the other articles meet the standard. Maybe the two borderline articles would work as a DYK entry instead. UPDATE: I removed FranklinCovey and Kennecott Utah Copper and replaced them with Lake Powell and Bear River Massacre — Zaui (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'll go through them to see if some would be better as a DYK item instead of a full biographical entry. UPDATE: I've removed 8 of the stubbier biographies. — Zaui (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. OK, good point - I'll see what I can do. UPDATE: I removed the 'Portals' header. — Zaui (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! — Zaui (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take a look at Portal:Military of Australia, the suggest links are for making suggestions for new selected content. I can see your using the random portal component which is why I offered you my variation of the component that will automatically create suggest/nominate links in the footer. other wise you have to remove the footer entirely and create not only nom links but the link to the more..whatever on the bottom of every numbered article.
Reply: This isn't necessary for a Portal, is it? I can see this being helpful if there's a large collaboration, but the Utah portal has only had a couple people involved. — Zaui (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responce It is especially helpful for a small collaboration, If this portal becomes featured then alot more people will view it. They may have suggestions for articles and pictures that you might have missed since there is only a few people working on the portal. Being in a small group you are less likely to be exposed to as much information as multiple viewers of your portal would be. Not to mention that you would want to give them an outlet to voice their opinions instead of them just adding article or pictures to the portal.--WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken, I'll try to add it. — Zaui (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are complete - I used the format at Portal:Military of Australia. — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your good on the Anniversaries I didn't catch that the rotated by month, sorry.
  • If you can take care of the two worst ones then I can be ok with the others especially since alot of them just haven't been rated yet.
Reply: I removed the two, as noted above. — Zaui (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check me, but I think I've handled all these objections. — Zaui (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object

  • WikiProject section does not list parent projects and should be expanded if included in the portal.
I'll label WikiProject Utah as the parent project and add U.S. states. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah a parent wikiproject to any City Wikiprojects? Langara College 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - there are no Utah cities with WikiProjects. — Zaui (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Things you can do' text is far too small and uneasy on the eyes. More organization and having the headers more clearly defined could help.
I'll remove it - works better in a Wikiproject then a portal. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this section's removal. Portals also are for editors who are not members of the associated projects. Rfrisbietalk 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - though the criteria states The display of Wikipedia content should be a featured portal's foremost aim, and encouraging contribution secondary. I added it back with a slightly larger font size. — Zaui (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That still means it is a consideration. It's also an established practice in featured portals. Thanks for adding it back and enlarging the font. Rfrisbietalk 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still confusing as its just a list internal links with now instructions. Langara College 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand what you mean by 'internal links' and 'now instructions'. — Zaui (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internal links, just look up the word. I meant to say 'NO instructions'. As in you have a bunch of <small> bolded headers and a list of internal links. Langara College 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Utah version looks like every other one I've seen - a list of internal links sorted with short headers explaining what can be done. The instructions are the headers: "Improve to featured standard" or "Improve to good article standard" or "Create". Maybe if I re-word the headers a bit? Or link them to an explanation of what (for instance) "Create" means? I'll also try to make it bigger, but I don't want it too big - it's almost the largest thing in the portal now. — Zaui (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think now - the headers are now linked to Wikipedia name-space pages and I enlarged the headers for easier reading. The whole section is at 85% 91% (to match the text size of the topics section) of full size - does it need to be bigger? — Zaui (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely changed the format to what Portal:London has been doing. Let me know if it's better. — Zaui (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Did you know...' should have more DYK's.
I'm adding more as I can. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Did you know..." section now has 16 entries. — Zaui (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason as to why they're being shown one at a time. All the other DYK's including Wikipedia's main DYK show many entires at once. Langara College 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on a random rotation, I just want to be sure that visitors don't see repeats that often - 16 distinct entries is better then 4 entries with 4 DYKs each. — Zaui (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the selected content decided if there are many collaborators? I suggest you take a look at the Portal:London or the Portal:Vancouver to see what they have done.
Well, this isn't a large collaboration - just a couple editors actually. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've added 'Suggest' links to each pertinent section. — Zaui (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The portal's overall size is too small and should have more content.
Could you be more specific? This is a little open-ended for me to work on. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: As I'm handling the various objections, the portal will have more content. — Zaui (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! Langara College 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all issues have been covered. Let me know if there are additional issues. — Zaui (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, but much progress has been made. Langara College 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update of issues not crosed out: I've changed the 'Things you can do' section to match what Portal:London has set up. The amount of content in the portal has increased during this review process. — Zaui (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Whoops. Good catch. I'll get to work on one. — Zaui (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Topics section. — Zaui (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That section is full of categories. Those should be in the categories section. The main articles for those categories should be listed here. Rfrisbietalk 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I modeled the topic section based on what Portal:Texas has. — Zaui (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised the Topics section. — Zaui (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, perhaps some of those removed categories can go to their own section. Rfrisbietalk 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most are in the Catagory section, or are sub-cats of entries in that section. — Zaui (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Panoramic images "break" column display.
I havn't noticed this on my browsers. Will sizing down the images fix this? — Zaui (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 300px width would be okay. Rfrisbietalk 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean better balance between the left and right columns so they finish closer to each other? — Zaui (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. With rotated content it's harder to do, but I think some improvement is possible. Rfrisbietalk 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since randomized rotation is used, place the purge link higher on the page for more convenient access & use class="plainlinks".
I need a translation here - my wiki-fu isn't that advanced yet - there's only a {{purgepage}} template used. — Zaui (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See an example at Philosophy of science. Rfrisbietalk 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change. Rfrisbietalk 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — Zaui (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Suggest for selected content and DYK's don't exist.
Fixed — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No topics section.
Right. Working on that. — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Topics section. — Zaui (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still could use some expansion; comparing it to other featured portals. Mkdwtalk 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll look to expand. — Zaui (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a transportation topic and greatly expanded the geography topic. It's at least as big as the Featured Portal:Texas topic section. — Zaui (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images need captions or mouse overs
Good catch - I use popups, so I don't notice if there's no mouse-over — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added captions to all photos in Selected articles and Selected biographies. Selected pictures already are displayed with captions. — Zaui (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a section with all the major cities in Utah?
Will be part of the Topics section — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major cities are in the Topics section now. — Zaui (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider a Selected Cities/Town section as its a unique option available. Mkdwtalk 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are not enough high-quality articles about cities or towns in Utah to fill a separate section - the two I found, Park City, Utah and Salt Lake City, Utah, are in the Selected article list. — Zaui (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a quote section?
Wiki-quote is blank for Utah. Not sure where else I'd get material. — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to create the Wikiquote page for our portal. But a little research and you shouldn't have difficulty finding some quotes. I found a couple just through Google immediately. Mkdwtalk 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on one. — Zaui (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple and started a a page at wikiquote. Not near enough for a separate quote section in the portal, though. — Zaui (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs links to associate projects such as Wikiquote. I believe there's a template for that.
Good catch - it's there now. — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those pages need to be created
Missing Wikiquote. It's an easy create. Mkdwtalk 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a wikiquote page for Utah. — Zaui (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be too hard to complete. Mkdwtalk 11:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all issues have been handled. Let me know if I've missed something. — Zaui (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The portal has come a long way. Much work still needs to be done on it and I hope you'll continued to keep it updated since it has very few contributors. Mkdwtalk 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Seeing as all the major concerns have already been addressed, there are only a few minor ones left for you to address:

  • "Utah portal" > "The Utah Portal" and enlarge text.
Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Portal" is still not capitalized, take a look at the other portals to see the standards. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry - hard to break the Wikipedia section title style habit. — Zaui (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid repetition of the portal's name or subject, rename "Featured content related to Utah" to "Featured content".
Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Collaborators" section is unnecessary and isn't informative for the subject itself, I suggest removing it.
I've noticed other portals don't have this, but the best argument for leaving it is that it encourages others to pitch in and help with the insert yourself link. — Zaui (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A portal, by definition, should both be informative and encourage others to contribute, I don't see how listing regular contributers help accomplish either of these and those who would like to contribute to the portal are always welcome to. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Did you know..." section needs more entries. Bolding used to emphasize facts is unnecessary and should be removed.
The bolding in the DYK entries is the same style as used on the Main Page - other featured portals have the same thing: Food, Poetry, United States — Zaui (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Did you know..." section now has 16 entries. — Zaui (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that I meant more entries appearing inside the box itself. I personally prefer at least three. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Things you can do" section remove all "to", for instance, change "To Expand" to "Expand".
Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Wikiprojects" section should be renamed to "WikiProjects".
Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - I appreciate the time taken to review and comment. — Zaui (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(just noticed this note here) - There are articles that are more than stubs that could still be expanded. See Great Salt Lake for an example - it's currently 31kb long yet still tagged with Template:expansion. — Zaui (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the opposite. To destub is to expand, so all articles in the "Destub" subsection should be moved under "Expand". Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the list, but my guess would be that since Wikipedia makes a distinction between expansion and de-stubbing, the to-do list here has the same distinction. — Zaui (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Just an update to nomination point #4: There are now 19 21 Selected articles, 13 Selected pictures, 20 Selected biographies, 18 24 'Did you know' entries and 17 Selected anniversaries.

Also, I believe I've handled all open objections. Let me know if there are additional issues. — Zaui (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor issues

  • Using 150px image size in the introduction section for both the images could be better.
The flag is better at 150px, but the map is hard to read at that size. I changed the flag to 150px. — Zaui (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • State facts, if it is really needed to have on the portal, move up, probably just below the introduction section.
I prefer the selected and featured material up higher and the listy stuff lower down. — Zaui (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need of prefix "WikiProject" in the WikiProjects section. I suppose that could be included in the Things you can do section as they are very little. Shyam (T/C) 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the prefix off and added a couple relevent WikiProjects. — Zaui (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! — Zaui (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The things have been responded accordingly. So the portal qualifies to go for featured status. Shyam (T/C) 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More minor issues

  • Comment. Lets finish it:
    • "Nomitate" > "Nominate" in "Things you can do".
Fixed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add periods to sentences under the "Portal things to do".
I've added periods. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "State symbols" subheading under "State facts" bothers me as it isn't being suitable to a portal. I suggest switching to a smaller header such as in "Things you can do".
Fixed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sections from left are attached to the section from right in Internet Explorer, and the "edit" link goes out of the section. Might be a little difficult to fix, I suggest comparing with other portals to see where you placed one of the tags wrong.
I use IE and don't have this problem. Anyone else? If it's the "edit" link it must be something with the "box-header" template. I'll try to see if I can figure it out. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "More Anniversaries..." > "More anniversaries...".
Fixed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Topics" > "Main topics".
How about "Utah topics"? — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid repetition of the portal's name. I'm requesting this rename since an article is a topic by definition, and it would be better to specify that these are the main ones. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Main Topics". — Zaui (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need in the space between the "..." and text in the "Did you know...". I also suggest at least three entries there.
Fixed spacing. I'm entering more DYKs all the time - started with 9, there's 24 now - I could re-arrange them so that we have 6 sets of 3 items each. I'll work on that. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3 entries for each DYK in rotation. — Zaui (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove "Liberal Party (Utah)" from the "Featured content" section. Former articles should not be displayed.
removed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought - I've seen both formats around portal space. I'll expand it. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is finished. — Zaui (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change all "-"'s in the topics section to "•"'s.
Switched. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove the linking of years, decades, and centuries alone from the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" section.
I'll work on that. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is finished. — Zaui (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove the quotation marks from the current "Selected picture" description.
Fixed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've handled all these issues. — Zaui (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel it fails criteria 3b, please change the coloring. I've never been a fan of a white background, so you should change it to something that goes well with red. The portal also lacks a "Related portals" section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had the same thought about the color, and did start to try some colors out in my sandbox. I'll work on it some more. I'll add a related portals section also. — Zaui (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried some colors but I'm not sold on it. Have a look and let me know. — Zaui (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a 'Related pages' section that contains related portals and wikiprojects - similar to the Texas portal. — Zaui (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content note: there are no other portals related to Utah specifically, so I've included the other state portals instead. — Zaui (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates&oldid=106049803"