Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Film/archive1

< Wikipedia:Portal peer review

Portal:Film

edit

I did a major overhaul of this portal recently, using models from other Featured Portals. Of note, there is also a Featured Film Portal in the French language Wikipedia, and I used their header image. I also used {{Random portal component}} to make the portal more dynamic and make it easier to update and keep dynamic in the future. Some quick stats: -- (59) Selected articles, all of WP:FA quality, (22) Selected biographies, all of WP:FA quality, (10) Selected pictures, all free-use from Wikimedia Commons, (20) Selected quotes from film directors, (20) "Did you know" entries, all WP:DYK hooks used have previously appeared at T:DYK on the Main Page. All of the above sections use {{Random portal component}}, and pretty much the only section that will have to be updated on a regular basis is the "Featured content" section, as more articles attain WP:FA status.

Any suggestions on how to improve this Portal further, or comments if you think it is currently ready for WP:FPORTC, would be most appreciated. Thanks for taking a look. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Review by Sd31415 (talk · contribs)

Good job. Some suggestions:

  • Film → The Film Portal
  • Film news → Recent news, Current events, or the like.
  • In the news box, More... isn't necessary.
  • In the Featured content box, From WikiProject Film's Featured articles: isn't necessary, in my opinion.
  • Main Topics → Main topics
  • In the Categories box, the formatting should be uniform (current examples: · Film, History of film, , · Films Film genres, · Cinema - ).
  • I made a small formatting change to the Wikimedia box. Happy editing — [sd] 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to review
  • I'd disagree with the change to the featured content thing, mainly because of what portals are supposed to be. They're meant for both editors and regular users, but also specifically for people who aren't necessarily familiar with Wikipedia itself. The section header by itself doesn't tell a layman anything on why the seemingly random grouping of articles is included there. - Bobet 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RichardF comments

This obviously is an excellent portal, so I'm just going to focus on what I believe can be improved to make it even better.
Portal:Film design/review checklist.

  • Intro (good/important): This is "The Film Portal" not the Film article. The title should be changed. The intro doesn't seem to cover the scope of the article intro. It could be strengthened.
  • Articles (top 10): Very few images, boring. If every article is featured, then the header can be "Featured articles."
  • Bios (top 10): Header can be "Featured biographies."
  • Pics (top 10): I'm guessing more credits could be linked.
  • News (Y/N): There isn't any, just links to places where you might find some. This should include actual news items and be updated by a person on a regular basis.
  • Events (Y/N): Not there, probably could include some interesting tidbits.
  • Contribute (project to-dos): Very limited apparent offerings considering the scope of the project. Since even Template:WikiProject Films tasks doesn't cover all of the possibilities, I would add some of the ways people can get involved that are listed on Template:WP Film Sidebar, particularly Task forces and Departments. Otherwise, just tell people to go look at the project, another weaker off-portal reference.
  • Cats (core): Looks good.
  • Topics (main): If Categories has subheadings, then Topics should too.
  • Lists (Y/N): This should be one of the Topics subheadings.
  • DYK (Y/N): Where's the pics?! ;-)
  • Quotes (Y/N): I'm sure there are folks of note besides directors who have something interesting to say about films. If ever there were a portal to include images with selected quotes, this is it.
  • Portals (related): That looks like a good group, although others could be added just as well from The arts group of portals, e.g., Arts, Books, Dance, Poetry, Theatre and Musical Theatre.
  • Projects (main/related): Nice image. ;-)
  • Featured content: If the only links listed are to articles, then call it "Feature articles," but I find it hard to believe no other types of film-related pages are featured.
  • Media (Y/N): Okay, if all the links work. :-)
  • Archive/Noms/Rotation (manual/auto scheduled/random): Seamless randomization setup.
  • Header & Footer (standard/+): Okay. Some people love topical browsebars, some hate them. This might be an interesting one to consider to be part of some artsy browsebar, like Template:religion browsebar and Template:Sports portal browsebar.
  • Boxes & Background (palettes): Boring.
  • What's not there (required/optional): The lack of an Events box seems to be a missed opportunity.
  • Overall: There's no doubt it's going to be featured, but the whole impression of the portal comes off as rather bland to me. That's unfortunate for a topic that's all about creativity. The portal also has substantive off-page references at News and Things you can do. Why have a one-stop-shop if it keeps prematurely sending you away?

RichardF (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above comment

Wow, lots of comments from RichardF (talk · contribs), wasn't expecting so many more but it's good to hash this stuff out before WP:FPORTC. I'll do my best to address this stuff, and note it here, below. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for being such a good sport by responding to all my comments. :-) RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Done -- Addressed one point, changed heading to "The Film Portal". Cirt (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Articles -- I think I saw somewhere in the past that Raul654 (talk · contribs) had an issue with calling it "Featured article" and "Featured biography", even if they were featured quality, I'm not sure. I'm sorry that you feel it's boring if some don't have pictures - but I can only use free-use images if the articles have them, and it'd be a ton more work to try to go search for free-use images for each of those articles. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Bios - Again, not sure on the policy of referring to stuff as "featured" sections, but I guess if you think so I'll go ahead and change it, others can always change it later. That means I'll also have to make the changes in the instructions for adding new content that it will have to be WP:FA quality for those two sections. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •   Done -- Changed Articles and Bios headings from "Selected" to "Featured", as it only contains WP:FA content in all of both, changed instructions on Archives/Nominations pages. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •   Done - Pics - Added a link to the only other credit where one could be provided. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • News -- Please take a moment to look at the Film portal at Wikinews. They clearly do a much better job than we ever could with updating the Film-related news stuff, and there would be a lot of updating involved. Why copy and paste stuff from that most excellent portal, when a simple link over there provides a wealth more info of the exact same kind and benefit? Cirt (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • This "problem" could have a "simple" solution, but I'm not familiar enough with the "DynamicPageList" function to know how to send it across sister projects. In effect, it should be transcludable, or whatever you call it!? ;-) Just figure out how to apply the following code here (with count=5 or so) → <DynamicPageList> category=Film count=15 category=published notcategory=disputed </DynamicPageList> ← RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Events - What do you mean by "Events" ? I don't understand, how would this section be different than news? You mean historical events? Cirt (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Contribute (project to-dos): - I went ahead and added a link to the sidebar template with the taskforces, so that's   Done. I see no problem with a few off-portal references, especially to places with a wealth more info and good links. The Things you can do section has six links there, each of which are useful ways an editor can contribute, and/or find many more ways to contribute. Again, I'd rather not copy and paste a list into there from one of the other Film todo boxes, which would then have to be constantly updated along with the actual box - instead, there is a directory of "todos" of sorts, which I think is just as useful. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Who ever said "copy"? That's what transclusions are for. Whenever that doesn't "work," it's a design issue between the project and the portal. ;-) RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe so, but I think we have a sufficient amount of stuff for the average user "to do", that is already listed in the box, and the links provided give lots more options than simply transcluding one or more of the "to do" lists themselves, which would make it way too big. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Cats (core): -   Done, thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Topics (main): If Categories has subheadings, then Topics should too. -- Really? Because at other portals I have seen this arranged alphabetically. It'd be a bit of work to do that, and there's less entries in topics than in categories. I suppose alternatively we could also remove the headings in Categories, and have that be alphabetical as well? Cirt (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •   Done - Lists - Okay, I went and broke up the "Topics" into "terms" and "lists". Cirt (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • DYK -- To my knowledge there weren't pictures in those original DYK hooks when they appeared on the Main Page, I'll work on getting pics for the Quotes section though. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Quotes (Y/N): I'm sure there are folks of note besides directors who have something interesting to say about films. If ever there were a portal to include images with selected quotes, this is it. -- (1) - Yes, I will work on getting more quotes from other people besides directors, but I wanted to start by covering lots of notable directors, which I just think is neat to get their take on filmmaking. (2) - Yes, I agree with you that getting some pics for the Quotes section would be nice, but what if there are no free-use pics available for some people? Is it okay to get pics for some quotes, and not others? I will try to find them, add them, and format them appropriately and get back to you on this. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC). Update: -- Changed the layout for all of the Quotes (Portal:Sustainable development model) - some don't have pictures, but it looks much better. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Portals (related): --   Done -- Added all the portals that were suggested above, and alphabetized the whole lot of them. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Projects (main/related): --   Done, Thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Featured content: If the only links listed are to articles, then call it "Feature articles," but I find it hard to believe no other types of film-related pages are featured. -- There are a few featured lists, I will adjust that section next. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC).   Done - Added FLs. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Header & Footer (standard/+): -- I'm not a big fan of the type of Header thingy you mentioned. If there is a big clamoring for it from other editors, I'll address that then. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Boxes & Background (palettes): -- The boxes/background/palettes current format is meant to highlight the material inside the boxes, and not the boxes themselves. Also, I think the grey/silver coloring is nice, to me it evokes a sense of cinema somehow. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Overall

Too bad you think it comes across as bland overall, if you check there are actually a whole bunch of pictures and images used throughout - practically every time the portal is refreshed there are a couple pictures or at least one other picture displayed aside from the actual picture section. As for an Events section - I'll need some more input on specifically what you mean by that one before addressing it further. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All those fair use pic restrictions on portals diminish their quality, IMHO. I'll bet a monthly "Anniversaries" section would be plausible. RichardF (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're talkin' - I like the idea of a monthly "Anniversaries" section, though I don't think it's something that needs be done before the portal goes to WP:FPORTC - just a very good idea going forward to work on longer term. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Like I said from the start, none of my comments were about getting this portal ready for a featured portal nomination. It was there before you posted any of this. My review was about making the portal better. RichardF (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll give all the comments on this Peer Review page another read-through, and then go to WP:FPORTC. But of course, This Peer Review will be retained as a reference for more stuff we can do in the future to keep on improving/adding to the portal to make it even better. Thanks for all your help! Cirt (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal_peer_review/Film/archive1&oldid=193196113"