Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/June 2006

< Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates | Failed log

Portal:Association football

edit

I just accidentally stumbled across this one and immediately thought that this is an incredibly clean and simple portal that covers all the requirements and has a plethora of information and opportunities to contribute. Ideal featured portal. DJR (Talk) 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object:
    • No list of major topics.
Done. Aabha (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Did you know" hasn't been updated for months, and needs an archive.
    • "News and events" needs an archive.
    • Strange extra whitespace after the portal title; the font should probably be made larger as well.
Done. Aabha (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, though, it's a pretty good portal; but the issues above really should be fixed. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the above issues have been addressed. Aabha (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm going to wait and see whether the updates start to come in before supporting, though. Kirill Lokshin 04:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this portal is very tidy and aesthetically sound, but it involves a serious demand on being up to date. The old {{current}} template would probably be a good measure of how often this would have to be updated... and I'm not sure there is the commitment to keep this up over the long-term. DJR (Talk) 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Mathematics

edit
  • Useful: The portal provide a gateway to the 13,000+ mathematics articles within Wikipedia, and so clearly has sufficient breadth of the coverage. At the same time, the portal is carefully selective about what it displays, with links to the major areas of mathematics, key articles and categrories.
  • Attractive: While this is the most subjective of the criteria, colours are coherent and complimentary, and do not detract from the content, with no formatting faults. Also, there is a useful sprinkling of images to break up what would otherwise be a rather text-heavy page.
  • Ergonomical: It is easy to find what one is looking for, with material set out in a logical and effective manner.
  • Well-maintained: the content is updated regularly, although the subject matter is such that frequent updates are not required.
  • The manuel of style is followed, and images with no copyright issues are used for illustrative purposes when apropraite. It is not self-referential.

Tompw 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, as follows:

  • The portal is not adequately maintained; the last significant rotation of content was more than two months ago.
  • The picture shouldn't be labeled as "featured" if it's not actually a FP.
  • {{portals}} needs to be included somewhere on the page.

The two latter issues are minor and easily fixed; but the lack of updates to the content isn't really acceptable for a featured portal. Kirill Lokshin 01:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support - ticks all the boxes - very informative and excellent design / aesthetics. BUT requires regular, dedicated updates and maintenance. There is no point being "the gateway to 13,000 articles" if the "gateway" is closed and inactive. With so many articles available, there should be no excuses for "selected article" updates less than once a month. DJR (Talk) 19:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Failed_log/June_2006&oldid=193796091"