Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Archive/December 2009
This archive contains the peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured portal candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and copy it back to the main peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
Contents
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A portal with layout similar to the Main page, "In the news" and "Did you know?" continuously updated, random "Selected picture" and "selected article". It is a month old portal, but it fully worked since the first day. It has more traffic than, for example featured portal Horses, this month. Snek01 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe the portal is ready for Featured status, but would appreciate feedback. Any improvement, alteration or enhancement suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks. Ebyabe (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a persistent block of whitespace below the biography box. Could this be re-ordered somehow? Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, possibly. Adding something would be nice, but can't think what else could go in the spot. Not sure if moving things would help; it may only rearrange where the whitespace is. We'll try some stuff and see. Thanks! --Ebyabe (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the best I could. The elements in the left column (article, picture, biography) are not each of uniform size, and since they change randomly, sometimes there'll be whitespace. At least it's not quite so egregious now. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comments by doncram:
- The featured picture of the Union Stock Yards is not a picture of an NRHP-listed place. Only the gateway to the former stockyard is NRHP-listed, and I believe that the gateway is not included in the pic. If it is in the background somewhere, the caption should describe where it is; otherwise i think the pic should not be used.
- I am not really enamored of the leading pic of a generic NRHP historic plaque. I would not want to add to the incorrect idea some might have that all NRHP-listed places have that plaque. I concede that using that plaque photo, which seems non-specific to any one NRHP place, serves a certain role like an NRHP logo, in its location near the top of the portal. Is there any other logo that could serve the same role? I think the overall NPS logo would not be appropriate though.
- As a reviewer, I am hampered by a mental block that i have in not understanding what a portal is supposed to do, so I don't really have a clear perspective on what the leading little article should accomplish. But, I would estimate that the first mini-article there needs copy-editing. Should it be defining what the sport of NRHPing is? Or what wikipedia's role with respect to historic sites in the U.S. is, like how many sites already have been photographed? If the mini-article is to describe what is the NRHP program of the U.S., then, out of the first two paragraphs, I would prefer for the first sentence of the second paragraph to lead the mini-article.
- The following passage in the 2nd paragraph seems incorrect or inconsistent: "Some states, however, might have state or local laws that become effective when a place is listed on the National Register. In contrast, a local historic district often has enabling ordinances at the municipal level that restrict certain kinds of changes to properties and thereby encourages those changes that are sensitive to the historic character of an area." What is the contrast that is alluded to? Local zoning ordinances sometimes specifically key on whether a place is in some local register and also on whether it is NRHP-listed, and they can specify the same or different types of reviews for any changes to properties of the two types. I think the restrictions on NRHP-listed properties would pretty much amount to being "enabling ordinances at the municipal level", so I don't understand what is the contrast. It is hard to characterise all possible types of local zoning laws here, of course.
Hope these brief thoughts are helpful. doncram (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely needs more articles and biographies. And the "Purge server cache" words are awfully small and I almost missed it. You can certainly make it bigger without affecting the layout because there's quite a bit of blank space there for you to use. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More panoramas are also needed. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comments on commentary
editGee, has it been that long since I started this thread? Let's see about getting back into the swing of things.
- Stock Yard photo: found one for the actual gate already uploaded, changed on the portal
- NRHP plaque: I see the point, but it does have the benefit of being generic, and not favoring one state or territory. I'm not sure what other options are available, either. There doesn't need to be any sort of photo, but I think it adds some visual interest, moreso than a block of text, imho.
- Portal purpose: You know, I've wondered about that too. Lets look at some other portals and see whassup. I'll see what I can find out.
- 2nd paragraph question: I'm not sure on this one.
- More articles/bios/photos/etc: Always we'll need more, they can always be added. But what's enough before it could be considered feature-worthy?
- There are currently
918 articles, 26 pictures,56 biographies and315 panoramas. Articles are relatively easy to add. Bios are harder. I know I'm not as up on that stuff. And panoramas, well, they're not always categorized as such. I added what I could find. There are several more I could add, but they'd be all Florida ones I took, and this is Portal:NRHP, not Portal:Florida (which, btw, featured portal). --Ebyabe (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are currently
-Ebyabe (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation of the purpose of portals can be found here. But basically, they're about a specific topic, not a WikiProject itself. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Purge server cache is now bigger. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DrewSmith 12:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs a lot of work. No topics, archives -- suggest looking at the FP criteria and current featured portals. feydey (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. First, and very important if you want to aim for featured portals, you need to have a selection of articles. Having a selected section for each month just don't cut it anymore because people neglect and discontinue the maintenance soon after the portal is promoted. Also, aim for high-quality articles/pictures. A good indicate for articles would be GA/FA while the indicator for pictures are FP/valued images/valued pictures. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good advice. I'm not really aiming for FP though. I'm mostly trying to promote the assoiciated wikiproject. And as long as there is one other active member I will continue to update the portal regardless of it's standing. I was hoping to get some advice on whether or not it was structurally sound, appealing o they eye, etc. Thank you for taking a look though.Drew Smith 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you regularly maintain it, you don't need to spend a lot of extra effort to give it a push to become featured. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good advice. I'm not really aiming for FP though. I'm mostly trying to promote the assoiciated wikiproject. And as long as there is one other active member I will continue to update the portal regardless of it's standing. I was hoping to get some advice on whether or not it was structurally sound, appealing o they eye, etc. Thank you for taking a look though.Drew Smith 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Basically, I need creative feedback. It is ready to be a featured portal candidate? Cannibaloki 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Take a look at other Featured Portals as models.
- Intro could use a picture or better yet a rotating picture format, like at Portal:Iceland
- Selected articles could use pictures. Try modeling after Portal:Comedy
- Selected pictures should have roll-over captions and are also missing credits, see Portal:Sustainable development
- Missing - Selected biography section, see Portal:Indiana
- Missing - News (Portal:Education), Did you know (Portal:Norway), In this month (Portal:Oregon)
These improvements will help get you started on things to work on. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would like to know what changes should be made to approach feature status with this portal. If other portals could be used as a reference when discussing improvements that would be appreciated also to give a base for how to implement the change. It has both featured images, and articles and rotating content for these and the DYK aspect Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 20:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks nice. The content seems to be 95% US centric, could use some balance for a portal named "The World Roads Portal". What's with the two "Did you know" boxes? And it's usually "Did you know..." since it is followed by "...that". There's no need for "More information" links in DYK's. Get rid of the "References and notes" box (see Portal:India for a good News box). See Portal:Wine for a good "Things to do" box. Also all FP's have a "Topics" box. The selected pictures could be bigger. Why are some box titles in italics and others not? Only 2 items in ITN, a FP needs consistency and 2 items per year is low. ITN needs an archive. Change "Wikimedia" to "Associated Wikimedia". Best, feydey (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments, I have been working on them. got the Did you know boxes and Did you know More informationitem all fixed. Got rid of the section box about references. Made a new things to do box as well as made a new topics template for the topics box. Made selected pictures bigger. Made all box titles italics, I didn't notice that difference, thank you. Now I am working on ITN, trying to make a news importer robot page. Changed wikimedia to associated wikimedia. So almost all done. Added more non U.S. articles and more non U.S. images/panoramas. This one I didn't try to focus on U.S. articles, but they are the busiest road WP at the moment, but they also already have their own portal, but as this is a world road portal, left some U.S. FA and DYK on this world portal. I have put out requests for more items from world wide sources. Kind Regards.SriMesh | talk 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have made a robotic news intake for the portal now, should I remove the manually submission page for news articles? At the moment both are there.SriMesh | talk 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the U.S. has their own road portal should I remove all U.S. content here, or leave it?SriMesh | talk 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have made a robotic news intake for the portal now, should I remove the manually submission page for news articles? At the moment both are there.SriMesh | talk 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe remove some US content and keep only the featured stuff? I'll take another look in a couple of days to see how it has gone. feydey (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Topics" box should not be hidden. feydey (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to remove all US contents, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not US-centric and portals are particularly entry points for people so it should have roads from places all over the road. I want to see more roads in Asia and Africa. Silk Road, even though it is only B-class, is important enough that it should be included. Since road articles are easy to find, I have higher expectations for this portal than many others due to its relative simplicity. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have just completely revamped this portal and would like any input. I hope to bring it to FP status in March or April.
Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 15:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be good if the news section was updated more recently than about fifteen months ago. Gentgeen (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Below selected picture and selected beer, there is a huge gap on the left side. Consider shifting "Related WikiProjects" to the left side. And please remove web sources, they are not for portals. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a companion portal to the food portal and is now complete. It covers the areas of drink that are not only covered by the topic specific Wine and Beer portals and their respective WikiProjects, but includes the other drink related subjects covered by the Soft Drinks WikiProject, Spirits WikiProject, Mixed Drinks WikiProject and the Coffee and Tea Taskforce. I have configured with the random portal component so that it is dynamic, populated it with at least ten examples from all of the drink related projects and am updating them monthly. I am hoping to take this to FP status my April or May and would like some input to see if there is anything else needed before its nomination.
Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Main topic should be linked, in addition to bolding it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.