Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Literature/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates | Portal:Literature

Portal:Literature

edit

The Literature Portal was created in 7 March 2005, but was very modest during the first year of operation. I have been paying more attention to the portal since June 2006. The portal now gives a comprehensive gateway to the literary content in Wikipedia (I hope). It meets the criteria at the featured portal guidelines. Most of the content, like selected article (FAs used mostly), picture (width 340px) and biography (a recent feature), are on an automatic schedule. All relevant boxes have archives. It receives regular updates from me and KF (DYK), but it is also supported by the WikiProject Books and its sub-projects. I would note the excellent Trains Portal for giving the impetus to move to automatic updates.

  • Selected article and picture on automatic monthly rotation since June 2006
  • The daily anniversaries section (A day in literature) is working since 14 June 2006.
  • The news section has been operating since 14 July 2006.
  • DYK and Quotes are on a weekly rotation since June 2006.

Naturally some improvements can be still done to the portal, but in my opinion it is not missing anything vital to reaching the featured portal status. With these notes I look forward to comments and suggestions. Best, feydey 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Everything looks nice, and the rotation seems alright. The only thing I reckon would improve the quality is the introduction, try to make it slightly longer. Maybe about the history, current influences and stuff. Apart from that, it looks cool. All the best -- Imoeng 00:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed it would be better if expanded, but I have seen the vast amount of topics that literature contains as a challenge. Literature includes fiction, non-fiction, comics, screenplays, poetry and numerous sub-genres so the intro would get too long if these are added and the stuff You mention (history, current influences). I kind of like it short and unspecific. But I will think about it. feydey 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, well you can just put 1 or 2 sentences about when it was discovered. Again, I am not really familiar with literature :). But yeah, I think some more sentences won't hurt. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded it now. Thanks for the advice. feydey 10:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is nice, no problem. Good luck! -- Imoeng 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems to meet all the criteria. Badbilltucker 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Object' great portal, but there are a few things that prevent me from supporting. Firstly, there are red links in the Did you know... section; per criteria, these are prohibited in content sections (or rather, limited to contribution/project sections). Secondly, I oppose outright the Quiz feature. I realise it is something which is present on other portals, but it is not something I would like to see enjoying prominence on featured portals. In any event, they are self-referential and thus contrary the criteria. Thirdly, I feel the News section should be better placed – eliminating the quiz would free up space in the right column. Finally, I would look at shortening the selected content sections to decrease the portal's length.--cj | talk 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at User_talk:KF#Portal_Lit.. <KF> 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I could demonstrate the ways in which you've failed wikiquette in your comment, that wouldn't be constructive, and is beside the point of this process you seem decidely unfamiliar with. However, I'll accept that my objection was perhaps too vague. I'll clarify my objections point-by-point:
  • The criteria (linked, for your reference) states "red links must be restricted to only contribution-encouraging aspects..." This means editor-focused sections only (Things you can do..., etc); content sections (ie, sections focused on the encyclopædia proper – Selected article, Did you know, News/Current events etc) should have no red links.
I agree. feydey 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the quiz feature on the grounds of criterion 6: "should not be self-referential". A quiz requires interactivity, interactivity requires self-reference and self-references are allowed for contribution-encouraging sections only.
I hope the new layout is satisfactory. feydey 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion with regard to the News section is minor, but based on criterion 3: "the display of Wikipedia content should be a featured portal's foremost aim, and encouraging contribution secondary". As the News section is a content section, it should logically precede sections such as 'Things you can do.
The News box is big. It used to be displayed differently [1], but it will mess out the current layout IMHO if moved (or it must be shortened drastically). I'd rather not move it, but if You feel strongly about it i'll be ready to do something. feydey 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll withdraw my final point. It centred on usability concerns, but was minor.
These are actionable objections. This portal cannot be promoted to featured status without meeting them.--cj | talk 08:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Excellent improvements. However, please don't use thumb mark-up for image formatting, as it causes faults with the box backgrounds.--cj | talk 15:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Portal:Literature/archive1&oldid=1140201646"