Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Archive/January 2013

Portal:Judaism

I've done a bit of work to improve this portal since the last review, including the addition of a few new sections. So far there are 24 selected articles, and 20 of them are featured. ypnypn (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The non-featured articles were removed.

Review by ResMar

Selected article is very drab, needs an image stuck in there.

Done - ypnypn (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The organization of content is questionable. You should swap quotes and DYK and bump the picture to the top of its stack.

Done - ypnypn (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the News needs dates and an archive.

Done - ypnypn (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Plenty of other stuff" in Things to do seems unprofessional.

Done - ypnypn (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the update scheme for picture of the week? If it's changed on a weekly basis, it will almost certainly fall into disuse.
- Why do you think so? -- ypnypn (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - I know that I am almost certainly going to be accused of some form of bias here, but I think it is still a relevant point to make. I remember when Portal:Anglicanism was nominated, one of the questions raised in opposition was the amount of screen changes it took to be able to view the whole portal. The length of the Weekly Torah portion at the bottom of the current portal more or less raises the same questions. I also myself have to question that particular subject on other bases. I am aware of no other portal which includes any sections, particularly sections of such length, regarding material which is so clearly more or less primarily of use to individuals who practice the religion which is the subject of the portal. It honestly raises a bit of a question whether this is intended as Portal:Judaism for use by Jews or Portal:Judaism. I can and honestly do acknowledge that might be fair reason to construct any number of portals of the type "Religion X for its practitioners," but that is not I believe what one expects from portals which contain what seem to be about the broad subject of the faith itself.

I actually agree that the Weekly Portion should be much shorter, see this diff, where I left a comment requesting that it be shortened. (In fact, the current versions are paraphrased translations, not summaries.) I can make shorter summaries myself, but it would take a while.

About the amount of text on the page, are you suggesting that I should split it up into tabs (like Portal:France? -- YPN YPN 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I might make a bit of a specific proposal, which I hope is not seen as being too onerous. I have recently started discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion about maybe making a concerted effort to bring as many portals relating to religious subjects up to FP status as possible in the next year. It also specifically includes a suggestion, if possible, of adding a third "box" to the basic portal for specific use for articles directly relating to a religion's beliefs, practices, etc. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, it might not be too much of a burden to maybe see if such an alternate portal structure can created, and, maybe, have some sort of broader discussion about which articles editos think should be included in such portals, and maybe, as a result, maybe, getting a bit more attention to those articles, with the possibility of increasing the number of articles of significant importance to those topics which might be eligible for inclusion in these portals? John Carter (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, but I doubt it would work for this portal at the moment, since there are very few high-quality important articles at present. It's a good goal, though. -- YPN YPN 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things might be useful here. One, I have started a discussion at Portal talk:Featured portals#Possible RfC regarding articles to be selected for inclusion in FPs for the purposes of maybe getting a broader consensus regarding whether there should be more of an effort to include the articles directly relating to the more broadly significant topics related to a portal in that portal. Personally, I would myself think that articles at basically rather clearly at "B" status of very high significance to a given portal should be seriously considered for inclusion as well. Also, regarding the Torah readings, maybe one way to go with that would be to start an RfC on the talk page of the portal regarding whether to include that material in the portal and where. I myself don't have any idea how many people might use the portal for such purposes, but do think that if it is used for accessing that material by a significant percentage of those who visit the portal, then, maybe, other portals should make more of an effort to do similar things there as well. But it might be a good idea to actually have that information before making any conclusive determination. Having said that, if there were to be a second "page" of the portal created for including such material, I can't see any particularly strong objections to it being included as such. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment where you said. I'll start an RfC about the Torah readings now. YPN YPN 04:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]