Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Military of Australia

Portal:Military of Australia

Submitting this portal for Feature status, to the best of my knowledge it meats the criteria for a Feature Portal. (See Peer Review here. Only possible contentious issue is the length of the introduction. Hossen27 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have contributed many of the unit profiles to this portal so I won't vote, but I will note that Hossen has done an incredible amount of work on this portal and I believe that it's a very successful 'entry point' for people with an interest in the Australian military. --Nick Dowling 06:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectSupport, Good Work --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The there needs to be at least ten selected articles.
  • The anniversaries section should always have something for each day.
  • The associated Wikimedia links don't go anywhere they need to be linked or removed.
  • The related portals aren't in alignment the width parameter is on 20% but you only have 4 portals. You should either add a fifth or change the width setting to 25%. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• One more thing, sorry your topics seem fine but other than being under a certain heading there all over the place. If a person knew what they were looking for it will take longer to find it. They need to be in some type of order, preferably alphabetical.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Response. The Anniversaries are now complete until the end of January, there is a few day in Jan without any events they will be a bit harder to find. Also the topics are now alphabatised. Hossen27 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done on those points! I do need to point out one more thing that isn't mentioned below, Selected article number 9 is a redirect to Battle of the Somme it needs to link directly to the article. as for web resources section I would have to agree with Shyam at least on the main it has a tendency to draw people away from Wikipedia. I think taking care of those two issues and the remainder below and you should be good to go. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good, I like the addition of the DYK however, you need to bold the link to goes to the article the DYK is referring to and the same goes for the anniversary section. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have bolded the DYK section but have decided not to do the same with the anniversary section section, in my opinion is does not look good or add to the section or the portal as a whole. Also having bold text in an anniversary section is not common in featured portals so I dont think this should hinder ins nomination. Hossen27 03:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Objections:

• Introduction section is very small. Please add few more lines to it.
• Why comparatively a smaller-size image for Shrine of Remembrance in the Selected article archive.
• I am not sure how Portal:United States Marine Corps is related to the portal. Instead using this, use some more closely-related portals, may be like, Portal:Weapons of mass destruction.
• Please do not use templates in Wikipedia resources. If you really want to use, then please list them in Things you can do section.
• Need an amount of work on Things you can do section.
• I am not in favor in using Web resources section.
• You can avoid red links in selected units. Some units have red-links in the archive. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Just a few points:
  • The introduction is too short.
  • The portal colours are garish, especially the background.
  • Please make sure there are no red links in upcoming anniversaries – there are quite a few in January.
  • I don't see how the New articles section is displaying Wikipedia's best content. Moreover, content from early November is not really "new".
  • There is a level of duplication between Major topics and Wikipedia resources, both in purpose and, in some cases, articles. These should probably be condensed into a single box, perhaps leaving categories separate. The template listing should be removed entirely: this is meta-data.
  • It is inconsistent to include USM and USMC and not all other equivalent portals – which would be impractical anyways. So it's best to avoid the slippery slope by limiting Related portals to just Australia and War.
  • Also, I notice that the images for the Selected articles are quite large compared to the amount of text. This diverts focus from the text, which should be the focus, and competes with Selected picture. Perhaps reduce the sizing to within 100px.

Otherwise fairly good.--cj | talk 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Response. I have completed the majority of objection listed by Cyberjunkie ad Shyam Bihari.
  • The intro has been lengthened to an appropriated size.
  • Removed red links from upcoming anniversaries and am in the process of removing in daily units.
  • have removed portal USMC but left the Mil of USA due to the strong military ties and all that
  • removed templates from wikipedia resources, also alphabetised, separated categories and moved duplicated links into major topics.
  • done some work on Things You can do Section
  • I have keep web resources but am willing to change it with a quote section
  • reduced size of new article section, down to 10 entries
  • And am still working on having 10 selective articles in the portal.
  • The colours are very subjective, i like them and have never had any other complaints so i am leaving them.

I think i have covered most of your objections. Hossen27 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my concerns. I now conditionally support this portal with the proviso being to soften/lighten the green background somewhat – it contrasts poorly with the colour of hyperlinked text.--cj | talk 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have softened the background colour the hyperlinked text are more visible now, though using Asparagus (color) instead of Olive Drab doesn't seem very military. Hossen27 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal name

I am little puzzled here. The main article Military of Australia has been redirected to Australian Defence Force. Shouldn't the portal name be Portal:Australian Defence Force? Shyam ^(T/C) 19:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Tjis discussion was brought up a while ago on the Portal talk:Military of Australia. The main reason is that the Australian Defence Force was not formed until 1976, User Nick Dowling sums it up well on the talk page discussion. Hossen27 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the portal name which has the main article redirecting to another article. Then rename it to Portal:Military history of Australia and introduce it again accordingly. Shyam ^(T/C) 04:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I do not see a major problem with the portal name redirecting to another article. It could cause minor confusion but its unlikely especially seeing that the name is explained in the opening sentence (The Military of Australia officially known as the Australian Defence Force). Secondly I believe either naming the portal Portal:Australian Defence Force and Portal:Military history of Australia would be to restrictive, limiting the scope of the portal and would cause more problems that it would solve. Hossen27 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is technically correct to have a portal lacking namesake article, then I do not have a problem. There are some more issues listed below other than objections listed above which have not been dealt.

• Could Intro section can not have single image other than these four flag images? Rewrite it, explain budget and number of people in the end.

• It has become a large introduction. Please consider shortening it. Use only one or two paragraphs. Does one of the images from Image:Autriservice.gif and Image:Adf.jpg not solve the purpose of an Intro image. Intro section contains unnecessarily four or five images. Shyam ^(T/C) 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have shortened the intor to three small paras. Each of the four flags are there for a purpose. The Tri Service for the ADF in general, the Australian flag to represent Australia and it is also the flag of the army and the other two for their respective branches. This is similar to the Miltary of the united States portal. Hossen27 03:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*Add refernces to the every news.

*Use less number of red links on the portal page at a time. You can place a link for more requested articles in the section after listing few of them. Shyam ^(T/C) 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

*Please do not make red links in the seclected units. You can remove internal red links from November and October units. Please have good back-ups for upcoming days. Shyam ^(T/C) 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The anzac image in the intro doesn't really fit. It doesn't strike you as an image pertaining to the military, especially the Australian Military you have to read the summary on the image's page to "get it". It should be removed regardless of Shyam's above statments about the amount of images.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 05:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it looked excellent and was worthy of inclusion as the Landing at Galipoli is the best known and, in many ways, most culturally significant incident in Australian military history. However, the high standard of this portal isn't affected by its removal. For the record, I like the new colour scheme. --Nick Dowling 10:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please work on Anniversary section. I am afraid after gettimg featured status, there could be same problem with this one as with one of the featured portals, Military of the United States Portal. It would be appericiable if anniversary section could have at least one anniversary per day. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to work on the Anniversary section but I am already some 20 days in advance, i don't see the the problem at Military of the United States Portal popping up here and they are 5 days behind at the moment. I am about to start February today. Hossen27 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Joe I 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support The anniversaries aren't a real issue in my opinion. If there is a problem we can always make them anniversaries in this week or month. Wandalstouring 15:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think the colour matters too much; it looks good, full of good and respectable information, and matched in its presentation like any other featured portal around. Well done. JROBBO 09:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak object Support. Close, but not of featured quality. Comments:
  • "Military of Australia news" > "News", avoid repetition of the portal's name or subject. Change all numeral external links to the name of the website (e.g. "Article on defence.gov.au"). "Archive" > "Archive...".
    • In other thought, just change the links to "(Read more...)". Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Photo credit goes right below the image, creating a space between it and the description.
  • "More Biographies..." > "More biographies...". "More Units..." > "More units...".
  • "Selected anniversaries" need periods. are done for January and February. Hossen27 12:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Did you know..." section needs an image and possibly a nominations page. "Archive" > "Archive...".
  • "New articles relating to the Military of Australia" > "New articles". Remove italics from the header. Add hyphens between the articles and their dates. "Archive" > "Archive...".
  • "Equipment" > "Selected equipment". Remove all the references from the text. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)