Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Anglicanism/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates | Portal:Anglicanism
The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted 15:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Anglicanism

edit

FPOC 1 FPOC 2 (05:55, 13 April 2008)

(10) Selected articles, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (15) Selected biographies, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (9) Selected pictures, all save one are Featured Pictures and all are free-use images, (21) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time, all of which appeared on the main page in the past. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. New material is added from the Wikiproject:Anglicanism. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Previous nomination was closed with no actionable suggestions being offered to allow the portal to pass the review. Claims that the summaries are "too long" are simply not actionable nor is length mentioned in the criteria.

One user propsed:

N = most recent Featured Portal promotions Median word count of summary Range of word count
13 portals 202 words 104 to 244 words
Is this what is expected? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested:

Both proposals were stonewalled by the reviewers with no respones forth coming for nearly 10 days. The final (& only) reply stated:


There is no mention of length requirements at WP:TFA, either. I ask again, what is "medium length"? We will be happy to make any changes that the critera for Featured Portal requires. -- Secisek (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To quote my comments on the previous FPOC: I don't think prescribing a specific length for article blurbs is a good idea, as the amount of text that works depends greatly on other factors such as column width and associated picture size. For readability, I think it would be good to aim for the complete blurb (including the image), at a normal screen width and resolution to take up no more than a maximum of 2/3 of the screen height, and preferably closer to 60%. For an average-sized picture on my monitor set up, that would equate to something in the region of a maximum of 225 words, but I don't know how it would work on a lower-resolution monitor. For what it's worth, summaries of printed articles usually fall in the range 50 to 250 words. Hope this is helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone and counted ten featured portals picked at random across the range of topics, and got a median of 165 words (range: 105–316) for the Selected article blurb; the Selected biography blurb is often shorter. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question about whether to make some sort of indication in the FP guidelines to this effect, though. I think doing so would be a good idea, as it would give people proposing candidates a clearer idea of what the desired optimum is. Alternately, maybe giving an indication of vertical length of the section or something similar could be proposed? John Carter (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know your opinion, Espresso Addict, and we were pleased that you shared it. Sadly, nobody added any support to it, and it remains only one editor's opinion. We need to know what the Featured Portal criteria is for the summary lengths - right now there is none, yet it seems that is where the nomination is hung up. Perhaps an RfC can clarify the criteria if no editors here can? -- Secisek (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I agree with Espresso Addict. There are many who also oppose in previous nomination. Just because they haven't say so in this new nomination, that doesn't mean their concerns are addressed. Remain oppose and not impressed by forum-shopping attitude. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I can't help but get the impression that concerns expressed earlier seem to have been "too long" without any indications given as to what is considered acceptable length. As such, the opposition seems, in a sense, to have said, "I think it's too long, but I won't define what that means; it's up to you to figure out what I like". I honestly have to question whether that is a reasonable and productive position for anyone to take in such matters, although I am grateful to Dihydrogen for his clarification above, which does provide some idea as to what he would seek. If someone could provide some sort of clear statement of what is considered an acceptable length, either by number of words, physical space taken up, whatever, it would make this nomination and potentially any number of others more reasonable, and probably assist other potential candidates meet the apparently unwritten criteria which are being used here. So far as I can tell, as a bit of an outsider, it looks to me like SECisek and Wassupwestcoast have tried to act on the basis of what are apparently the unwritten rules, and are now being told that they're wrong. Unfortunately, except for Dihydrogen, now one's willing to clarify what the unwritten rules are. I think the process would be helped very much if the opposers gave some sort of clear reason for their opposition.
However, as the nominators seem to have done everything they can to address the matters, by even analyzing the statistics of existing FPs, I have to Support the nomination, on the basis of their having done as much as they could to meet the unwritten criteria. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, walking away from this one now, but I have provided clear, actionable, guidelines as to what I personally consider a sensible length several times now. I'm a newbie here too, but I don't think ignoring concerns of overlong blurb texts just because no-one feels sufficiently authoritarian to edit the portal guidelines makes any sense. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note once again the above editor is seeking recourse to terms which have been not even remotely well defined. "Overlong blurb texts". If that is your contention, as I have now specifically asked of the other reviewers twice now, please indicate what sufficient length is, as opposed to simply retreating to vague, completely usless terms like "overlong". Until and unless such a response is given, all I see is pure criticism. I have now formally asked twice, and ask now again, making three times, that the editors who seek to call things "overlong" actually define what the proper length is, as courtesy and civility would dictate. Without such clear definition, there wouldn't necessarily be any reason for someone else, once the texts have been shortened, to say "too short", and rejecting on that basis.
I can and do understand that no one wants to "define" the length of what is and is not too long. However, if people choose not to do so, but still seek to accept or reject on the basis of those at best(?) unconfirmed, almost certainly (not necessarily in a bad way) WP:POV ways, then what we're basically saying is that there are no clear guidelines here, and all that this can basically be is a beauty contest, which each judge judging on the basis of their own opinions. I would very sincerely hope that none of our processes ever descend to that point. If this portal is to be rejected as an FP candidate, then I would logically have to assume that, unless good reason to the contrary is given, all those other FPs which have sections longer than the median length being proposed for this portal, can and should logically be placed in Featured Portal Review, on the basis of their sections being "overlong".
The editors in question have gone to extraordinary length, even calculating the average length of articles in other FPs, to determine what that length is, and seem to have abided by the results they came up with. Like it or not, if reviewers are going to review on the basis of ill-defined opinions regarding length for one portal, then those same ill-defined standards should be employed on every portal, including being cause to remove FP status from several existing portals.
For what little it might be worth, just as a basis for determining some sort of standard here, my own personal opinion regarding this matter would be that the lead section of any article which has been through peer review and passed GA or higher would be of appropriate length for inclusion in a portal. Choosing to use such comparatively established criteria would help ensure that the sections are both well written (hacking into article ledes can't help but be a little problematic) and well representative. I am also leaving a message on the Talk:Main page for some input from the editors there regarding how they determine the length of the main article section for the main page.
I can well understand how editors involved would not want to be seen as "defining terms" regarding what is and is not sufficient length. However, if anyone chooses to accept or reject a candidate on the basis of such a nebulously-defined criteria, whether they want to be dictating such terms, they effectively are defining those terms anyway.
I hope to be hearing something which could be used at least as a basis for discussion from the people on the main page soon. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope both sides read up What is a portal. To summarize things in 1 sentence, "portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." (Note the words in bold) What's the point of giving a long paragraphs to editors if they got bored because they had to read through a text block? Still not impressed? Read portal guidelines and featured portal criteria. Sections should be short and presents the topics/articles/pictures in an aesthetically pleasing way. Just like going on RFA or promote another featured contents, they are exhausting and sometimes the thing you nominated does not get promoted. What are you going to deal with it? Punch those people for opposing you? I hope not. The best way is to improve and try again later, though not immediately after the nomination was just closed as unsuccessful.
Just noticed another thing. On Wikimedia projects, the images are linked not to that project, but to the image. So you need to fix that. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Unfortunately, I really doubt if "short" and "esthetically pleasing", which are two exact quotes from what you cited, are ever going to get anything remotely like a "standard" answer. In effect, if those particular criteria are emphasized, there is no way that this can ever be anything but a beauty contest based on the individual opinions of the individual reviewers, which would not be useful. It would also very much permit individual reviewers with an axe to grind to say that a given section isn't aesthetic in one case (because they don't like the nominator or subject) while at the same time saying it is in another (where they do like the nominator or subject). This cannot be particularly helpful to the development of portals. Whether we really like it or not, we are almmost obligated to create at least some basic, fairly clear, guidelines, even if only of the "between X and Y" variety. Like I said, I think the lede section of a peer reviewed GA or higher would almost certainly be good enough as at least a starting point for discussion, although I have contacted the main page people at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Main Page#How is the length of the Featured article section determined? regarding the subject of how they try to determine the length of their sections. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Outdent.] I don't often really lose my temper around here, but this is really annoying me. If my previous comments don't constitute a guide as to what I personally consider the optimal length, I don't know what does. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is what you "personally consider" optimal length, but that is opinion, not official criteria. I accept your suggestions. Does anybody else? Your suggestion was met by stonewalling and then the nomination was closed with none of the objectors ever bothering to comment on your opinion. You have every right to be angry here, Espresso Addict.
We again get told to "improve and try again"? How can we improve it if you will not state how long these need to be. Is Espresso Addict correct? Can we add his suggestion to the criteria? I asked here numerous times. An editor in the previous nom asked you. The editor above asked you three times. Three similar guide lines, including Espresso Addicts, were suggested with no response from any of the objectors. The criteria - as you pointed out - states "Sections should be short and presents the topics/articles/pictures in an aesthetically pleasing way." The sections are short, far shorter than any GA or FA article in Wikipedia. They are the lead sections of articles that have passed GA or FA processes here. If consensus has determined how short or long a portal summary needs to be, then tell us. If not, drop your objection. Now, how long should the summaries be? Your objections have amounted to nothing more than "It doesn't pass because we said so" which is exactly how you confounded the previous two nominations. It will not happen this time. -- Secisek (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, Espresso Addict's statement for what is the desirable length for a section is "somewhere between 50 and 250 words". How do the current article selctions stand in relevance to those criteria? Listed below. Does anyone else have any alternative opinions here, or are those the rather vague (50 words to 5 times that many) terms the rest of you agree to? If not, and others have different ideas, what is the intersection of the two that you would all accept? And, if they are all agreeable, would we consider "enforcing" those terms on all the FP nominees and existing FPs?
Selection 1 - 313
Selection 2 - 243
Selection 3 - 424
Selection 4 - 376
Selection 5 - 452
Selection 6 - 236
Selection 7 - 340
Selection 8 - 344
Selection 9 - 204
Selection 10 - 302

John Carter (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "somewhere between 50 and 250 words" was actually for summaries in text publications, for comparison, rather than a suggestion for portals. My suggestion would be in terms of %age of screen height, with a maximum of 2/3 of the screen height for single column, and preferably falling within the range of around a third to 60%. For double-column text box, I'd say a third of screen height was a lot.
For a blurb plus picture in a single column (assuming a 2-column portal layout), that would equate to a range of around 100–225 words, on my monitor set up. However, I don't know how this translates to other screen resolutions. I have added a suggested wording to the Featured portal criteria talk page, if people would care to comment there. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. Good luck with maintenance and congrats on your hard work. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. For the picture of Queen Elizabeth, the credit needs linking to the NASA site, as will all the other images if this is not already done. The length of the selected biography and selected article needs vastly cutting down, as several have stated. I'd also like to see a news section, and a revamp of the topics so they're done properly, and not just with a standard article namespace template. To add to this, the appaling attitude shown by the Secisek and refusal to address concerns is also worying. I will remain opposed to this portal receiving FPO status until these issues can be addressed or a good reason given. Terrible attitude. Qst (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention Secisek believing himself to have some sort of authority than others, I quote "It will not happen this time." The only thing that will not happen this time is the portal being promoted, unless you accept that this is the unofficial criteria and people aren't going to support unless you fix it. Qst (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Concerns raised by others and me above have not been dealt with. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been reading through this discussion for about half an hour now, and I've been cross referencing against the history of the portal and the contributions of the editors involved. In not particular one case, can I see an attempt to work on the portal per the comments provided. Some comments may be seen as 'ill-defined' and 'contentious', but I don't see a single try to work on those comments (even if it was hard to differentiate between what is considered an acceptable length). I would however suggest that the nominators look at alternative featured portals (Portal:North West England, for example) and see what length their selected or featured blurbs are–instead of discussing (arguing in my opinion) what length it should be, and that there are no 'clearly defined' criterion relative to subsection length. With this in mind (that nothing has been changed as a result of the discussion) and that there are only two supports and three opposes after 2-3 weeks, there is no clear consensus to promote at this time. Rudget (Help?) 15:04, 30 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Portal:Anglicanism/archive3&oldid=1075160579"