Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/April 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted 13:41, 13 April 2008.

Portal:Organized Labour[edit]

This portal has just celebrated its first birthday, had a successful peer review, and is, I think, ready to be considered as a featured portal candidate. Some of its features include: 366 rotating "Article of the Day" articles, 12 heavily-populated "This Month in Labor History" features, 50 random quotes, 48 featured photos, and 105 DYK's from the front page. Thanks in advance for your input! HausTalk 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild oppose- for god sake replace the selected article section with brief text about the article. it is looking extremely bad. Sushant gupta (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback! I took a close look at the portal with your comment in mind and came to the conclusion "There is no way an article with an infobox can look good in a half-wide column." This led to a redesign that I believe was very helpful. It may well be that "A portal that uses daily articles cannot be a featured portal" or that "A portal that transcludes selected articles cannot be a featured portal." But I hope you'll bear with me as I seek to find out. HausTalk 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no dude, you must have a layout for selected articles similar to portal:economics or any other portal. portals don't need inline citations and external linking. we don't give in-depth knowledge on portals. just a brief context about topics so that one can have a quick look up about the topic. I DO THINK THIS PORTAL has a potential to be FP. just improve this thing. Sushant gupta (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that one way to approach this candidacy is to remove the 366 date-keyed articles of the day that WP:LABOUR has put together, and replace this with blurbs from 10 featured articles. That's clear. The question is if there's a viable approach that doesn't involve dismantling the article of the day functionality. If there's not, I'll take that information back to WP:LABOUR and let the group choose whether they want a featured portal or articles of the day. Cheers. HausTalk 17:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
pls. try to get the exact importance of portals. it is to provide the viewers with brief outs. Sushant gupta (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Looks very nice but not quite ready for prime time. Can WikiProjectOrgLabTasks move up? Usage in other featured portals (and even the recommended section in Wikipedia:Portal guidelines) put a menu of other portals and Wikimedia as the footer. Can the red "talk" link in the intro be removed? Can "purge server cache" be moved up to become "Show new selections"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanlesch (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 April 2008
    • Thanks for the feedback! I implemented all your suggestions. Do you think that "Related Portals" and "Wikimedia" look better at the bottom? The reason I had them on the side was to fill up blank space when someone looks at the page with a narrow browser. I might play with making the DYK box a little bigger... If you have any other suggestions, I'm all ears. HausTalk 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think not so much a question of looks as guiding readers through the portals. Some invention is wonderful but comforming to standard navigation is a basic principle that helps everyone. Thanks for the very quick fixes. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a pleasure, and thanks again for the help! HausTalk 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One quick thing, I would remove the date (currently 07 April) from the box heading if possible. Good luck with future maintenance. Nice work. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again, Susan. I played with a couple of alternatives with respect to the date -- the part that bugged me was the blue wikilink on red. My current favorite is "Organized Labour Article Of The Day for April 07, 2008", but I'd be happy to lop off the date if anyone still thinks it needs to go. Cheers. HausTalk 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the blue is gone and all is well ("the" can be lowercase probably). Thank you again. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (and abstain from closing, obviously) - Sorry Haus, but yeah, the article thing is a big issue for me. I like innovation, but I think it's a bit too innovative. If you have 10 featured articles, and put them on random, that'd be great. If each of them has a "month significance" you could even schedule them. But transcluding an article is not a good idea, IMO. Sorry. Since I'm here, some other notes that need to be addressed;
  • First of all, the image is great. Kudos. (Don't need to change anything here! :)
  • "edit - history" links (in top section) should be plainlinks
    • And on that note, I'd argue that they're not really necessary for readers, but it's up to you. This innovation I can handle! :)
      •  Done Good point, removed.
  • The intro section has way too much bolding, makes reading difficult
    •  Done I removed the bolding outside the first sentence. I'd be happy to remove that as well.
  • "Organized Labour Article of the Day for April 09, 2008" - if you don't remove this bit (in which case, my oppose will have to stand...) please wlink the date per WP:DATE
    •  Done I re-wikilinked the date. Susanlesch pointed out above the the blue wikilink on the red background was kind of gross, but I can go either way.
  • Ensure all images in selected quote section are free use (heck, ensure *everything* on the portal is free use)
    •  Done Double-checked all pictures in the quote section.
    •  Done Double-checked all pictures in the selected picture section.
  • Not sure why the wlink in the quote section (eg. I'm seeing Seattle General Strike of 1919) is in plainlinks...
    •  Question: I don't quite understand: do you want me to remove the wikilink from the item below?
"Nothing moves in the city, without our say-so. Let the bosses curse, let the papers cry. This morning I saw it happen with these ancient eyes of mine. Without our say-so nothing moves but the tide!"

-- Rob Rosenthal, written during the Seattle General Strike of 1919.

      • Not exactly. In the page's code, the link is formatted as [[:w:Seattle general strike of 1919|Seattle General Strike of 1919]]. The :w: is not needed, as that links back to Wikipedia. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each date for the "in labor history" bit (which I'm not overly fond of, if you can find something else to replace it with...) needs a keyword in bold
    •  Question: Do you think a "Today in labor history" would work better? I have enough material to make something like "Today in Aviation" at Portal:Aviation.
  • "More DYK" --> "More Did You Know?" since readers aren't familiar with WPjargon
    •  Done Changed.
  • The Show new selections link could be bigger
    •  Done Removed <small> tag.
  • There should be a Category:Organized Labour portal which all relevant pages are in (see Category:Music of Australia portal, for instance)
    •  Done O.K., I think everything is categorized. There turned out to be 684 pages, so it's possible I missed a few.
  • Oh, yeah. Since "Organized labour" has a lowercase "l", I'd have thought the portal should have the same...if you don't want to move every subpage (trust me, it's a pain!), you might want to play around with some hacks to change the wording on the main page ({{lowercase}} or something like that).
    •  Doing... This might be tricky, but I'll see what I can come up with...
    •  Question: As far as I can tell, hacking this is impossible after MediaWiki 1.11, due to a change in how the DISPLAYTITLE magic word works explained here. I'd like to hold off on moving 684 pages until I get some more input on this one...
      • Sorry, wrong template. Done and added comments so you can copy paste the templates to other pages and use them as you wish. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would an in the news section be asking for too much? See also User:Wikinews Importer Bot, in use on Portal:Wales
    •  Question: I looked into this a while back and ended up on the fence. n:Category:Labor only has 9 articles, and only 4 of these are from 2008. I'd be happy to plug it in, I just wasn't convinced it would be a net positive.
    •  Done I went ahead and did this -- it looks better than I would have thought.

Again, sorry to oppose. I'll be watching this nomination to see what you do...who knows, I may be able to support at some stage. Good luck, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing so many good ideas! I took a quick pass and addressed what I could right away. Like I said above, I came into this understanding that understanding it's possible that "A portal that uses daily articles cannot be a featured portal" or that "A portal that transcludes selected articles cannot be a featured portal." I appreciate that you took a step back and gave the idea a fair shake. In any case, the portal has already gained a great deal from going through the process. Back in a bit for another pass. HausTalk 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! IMO, a portal that transcludes articles shouldn't be a featured portal, but I won't complain if this has consensus for promotion. In any case, it's a good portal! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tranclusions of articles in portals? 10 out of 10 for creativity. But I admit that's too long. Portals are supposed to be entry points, not presenting the whole article. But on the bright side, at least you take suggestions to improve the portal from those who opposes, unlike some people who chose to bite back instead of improving. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. HausTalk 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • BUT it is an amazing portal. MUCH better than the static, unchanging, unWikified portals that have reached FA status. Every single ounce of credit is due to you, Haus, for your impressive efforts in improving our Portal and making it a superb example of the very best kind of content on Wikipedia. The rules for FA Portals create static, stodgy, unmaintained portals. You have helped make our Portal dynamic and information as well as aesthetically appealing. Three cheers and a tiger for you! - Tim1965 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted 05:55, 13 April 2008.

Portal:Anglicanism[edit]

Stats: (7) Selected articles, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (12) Selected biographies, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (7) Selected pictures, all save one are Featured Pictures and all are free-use images, (20) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time, all of which appeared on the main page in the past. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. New material is added from the Wikiproject:Anglicanism. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. -- Secisek (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need more than just 7 articles and 7 pictures. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typicaly, perhaps, but I have not seen any number cited as a requirement, having read over the guidelines several times. I saw in another review someone pulled the number 10 out of nowhere, but this was an editor's opinion, not a requirement. In both cases the numbers are just a bit lower than would normaly be seen due to the superior quality of the material included. Articles, pictures, bios and DYKs are regularly added to the portal as they pass through the GA process or featured processes. There is no content that has not been through a GA or featured review. I could gin up the numbers of both by including what I consider content of a lesser quality, but that hardly seems the point of this review. This is an ample sellection of the best the subject has to offer and I ask you to support the nom. -- Secisek (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion I agree with Ohana. More than seven articles are required to give an in-depth cross section of the topic, the same goes for the selected pictures and biographies. For that reason and that reason alone (the rest of the portal lookwise is excellent), I have to Oppose the nom. Sorry. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that doesn't seem to hold water. Featured Portal Hinduism has a total of 22 bios and articles. Featured Portal Scientology has 20. We have 19. Featured Portal Christianity still uses archive-format (I have suggested changing it to no avail.) If there is a minimum number, what is it? I still would rather have 20 GA & FA articles rather than 30 B and 10 Start articles, but in the intrest of passing I'll play ball. If I add 4 articles we would in fact have more than any every other Featured Portal in the Religion category save Religion itself. Is there anything else wrong?

Updated stats: (9) Selected articles, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (13) Selected biographies, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (8) Selected pictures, all save one are Featured Pictures and all are free-use images, (21) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time, all of which appeared on the main page in the past. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. New material is added from the Wikiproject:Anglicanism. I STILL believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. With the additions, we have two more (bio+articles) in total than Featured Portal Scientology and the same amount as Featured Portal Hinduism. Number should no longer be a problem as this is one of the more content-heavy portals in the category. -- Secisek (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more lenient on selected pictures so you can choose whatever you like as long as it is related to the portal's topic. And I don't mind seeing selected articles that are not FA or GA. Why? It's a lame reason to oppose a portal to become featured simply because there're not enough FA or GA articles in that topic. I'm happy on anything articles that are B class or above, just no stub or start-class. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many of each though? I nominated this before and withdrew it because I felt the goal posts kept moving. -- Secisek (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Nice balance of choices for what to and what not to present so the reader is guided to information rather than overwhelmed. The intro text is quite long, maybe too long, if it is static but in this case overall more text rather than more sections seems to work out beautifully. Well done. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per FPC 1 & 3.2. There are some comments to improve the portal:
    1. Summarise selected article and selected biograpies. They are too lengthy.
    2. Selected holy days section has lack of information. That do not provide the time period. That do not provide, why that day is special.

Need some more time to improve the portal to get the Featured status. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this new opposition is not being made on solid ground. Selected holy days is identical in everyway to the section found on Featured Portal Hiduism - I added it yesterday to raise the value of the portal and now an editor feels more content somehow lowers the quality of the portal. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I welcome any suggestions to improve the portal, but the purpose of this review is to determine if this portal passes the stated criteria or not. These article summaries pass criteria 1 because each one "exemplifies our very best work." They are all GA or better. There is NOTHING in the criteria about length, you just made that up and another editor can - and likely will - come along and oppose unless we lengthen the shortened summaries.

Moving on, criteria 3.2 states that the portal must "display Wikipedia's content in an aesthetically pleasing way. The colours are coherent and complementary, and do not detract from the content. Featured portals have no formatting issues. Red links are limited in number and restricted to aspects that encourage contribution." The colors are coherent, there are no formating issues and no red links except in the project section. The portal passes. Again, there is no mention of length of articles or detials to be included in the calendar.

This is exactly why I pulled the nomination last time - the goal posts kept moving. For example, The intro section has been lengthened since the last nom as someone opposed because the intro was too short. The supporter above now felt the intro was too long and so we shortened it again. This process is flawed, I hope it isn't broken. The question is: does the portal meet the criteria as stated or not? Clearly it does, or else Scientology and Hinduism - which are already Featured Portals - don't. What has to be done to get this to pass? I don't want anybody's opinon on that subject, I want a factual check list like we have for GA or FA that includes all the criteria. Respectfully, -- Secisek (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentOppose. Your pictures are of mostly of exceptionally high quality and, with your colour choices, make a visually attractive portal. I think, however, that the lead text is still too long; on my (reasonably high-res) monitor, the introductory material plus the lead take up fully 80% of the depth. Also five lines in the legend to the map seems a little long -- could this be condensed somehow? (Or even for simplicity just use a map with only the Anglican communion and not the associated ones, if this would be appropriate.) I agree that many of the text boxes are too long and wordy. A concise summary of the content is more useful in guiding people to articles of interest. Some minor issues. Some of the headings are italicised, while others are not. You use both "Archive/nominations" & "Archive/noms"; also both "More..." and "Read more...". You might like to update the picture in the blurb on St Mary's, Acton to one of the ones currently in the article. Hope this is helpful -- the content here is of excellent quality, there just seem a few presentational issues remaining. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your minor issues have all been addressed, but right here somebody opposed the previous nom saying the intro needed to be EXPANDED. This process needs to be fixed! Again, can you point me to the guide lines for article length? Where are you getting that from? This is very frustrating for me. I also find it humorous that you feel that the pictures are "mostly of exceptionally high quality" when every selected picture save one is Featured. Please, does this pass the given criteria or not? -- Secisek (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm referring to the length of the blurb in your text boxes, not to the length of the articles that are pointed at. It's my opinion that, owing to the lengthy intro and blurbs, the portal fails to meet featured criteria 2 & 3, because it makes the portal less attractive to look at and harder to use. Others may undoubtedly differ, but that's just a quirk of any peer review system. As to my high-quality pictures comment, I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I was actually meaning to compliment all the pictures in the portal, not just the Selected Picture. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should be of good quality. There are some articles, which do not qualify to be selected, like, Old St Paul's Cathedral, St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford. There are some lists, which are not qualified as selected articles, like List of Archbishops of Canterbury and List of Church of England dioceses. You may use a sepearte section for lists, like, selected list, if you have good number of them. Other than this, you are using very long summary for most of the articles and biographies. That's why this portal requires a good amount of work. You may take some time to review and come after to get the portal well-improved. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all GA are better, how do they not qualify to be selected - esp. in light of the above comments that B class is all that is needed? How long do they need to be? How many times do I have to ask what the requirements are here? Somebody above just said "the content here is of excellent quality". You all need to settle on a single standard. This is a joke as is. -- Secisek (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link in case you need to review what a GA is:Wikipedia:Good articles. To make it easy here are the first words on that page: "Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality..."

Again, both those articles are GA. If length is an issue, somebody needs to tell me what the accepted length is. -- Secisek (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secisek, my apologies. If they are Good articles. They can be selected articles. Length of the articles is not an issue to be selected articles. Listed featured lists will not be acceptable here. The length in the summary section of most of the selected articles is an issue. You may write better summaries for each of the selected articles. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Shyam. Selected article and biographies are way too long. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand 'way too long'. I just did a word count of today's article summary (424 words) on the Portal:Anglicanism which is shorter than the summary of today's article (562) on the Featured Portal Portal:Christianity. The two biography summaries are the same length - 307 words and 303 words, respectively - on the two portals. I think 'way too long' is either hyperbole or obstructionism. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the blurbs in Portal:Christianity are far too long, as well. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long should they be!? I am in disbelief at what is happening here. -- Secisek (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It showcases a good number of GA class and higher articles and pictures. Pass.
2. The articles and pictures are all Anglican related. Pass.
3.1 The portal is useful in that it covers a core topic and provides interesting examples of the topic. Pass.
3.2 To my eye the format is attractive. There are no formatting problems. Pass.
3.3 The portal follows a format found at other portals thus will be familiar to readers. Pass.
3.4 The portal is well-maintained. There is an active wiki project behind it. The project - Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism - is highlighted in the project box. Pass.
4. The are no outstanding MoS issues including those found at Wikipedia:Portal and Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. Pass.
5. The images are appropriate; virtually all pictures are Featured and no obvious copyright problems. Pass.
6. The portal is not self-referential. Pass.

I see no impediment in supporting this portal to Featured status. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole or obstructionism
This is the fourth time I am asking in as many posts: what are the requirements on length for each summary? If people continue to oppose with out being able to answer this question, I will be forced to get the wider community involved because, yes, a quick read over the previous nomination and this one so far does make it seem like hyperbole and/or obstructionism is winning the day here. Now, where is the requirement on length?

What is more, I would like to know why the above editor felt that two GA articles did "not qualify to be selected". Hyperbole or obstructionism, indeed... -- Secisek (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Word length of blurbs / summary

I can see why Secisek is frustrated. See Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates, those against must supply an actionable reason - a specific rationale that can be addressed - and if nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Simply saying that the summaries are too long and giving neither policy, guideline or word length to frame the debate is bordering on bad faith. Secisek even points to his previous nom where the objection was that the summaries were 'too short'. Any fool can shorten the summaries if need be but only a fool would cut before having the specifications in hand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've come up with a proposed word count:
N = most recent Featured Portal promotions Median word count of summary Range of word count
13 portals 202 words 104 to 244 words
Is this what is expected? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least somebody understands. Shortening any given summary is easy and we are not opposed to doing so, but we need to know what the guideline or policy is. It needs to be written in to the requirements. If we shorten them, any other editor can oppose on the ground they aren't long enough. What is the standard? Let's make it official. This whole process is clearly at the mercy of any given editor's personal, and often contradictory, whimsy.

Above I was told that portals "Need more than just 7 articles" - yet during the first nomination, the very same editor told me - and I quote - "You just need to pick 6 articles, put them in, and you come back 6 months later and put up new ones." Perhaps the standard has evolved since the first nom, but there is no way of knowing as this critical criteria is not included in the official requirements. How many times must I ask what the requirement is? Does anybody here know? If I were to go and ammend the criteria based off this discussion it would now read:

Can we all be serious for a moment and decide what length these need to be? -- Secisek (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think prescribing a specific length for article blurbs is a good idea, as the amount of text that works depends greatly on other factors such as column width and associated picture size. For readability, I think it would be good to aim for the complete blurb (including the image), at a normal screen width and resolution to take up no more than a maximum of 2/3 of the screen height, and preferably closer to 60%. For an average-sized picture on my monitor set up, that would equate to something in the region of a maximum of 225 words, but I don't know how it would work on a lower-resolution monitor. For what it's worth, summaries of printed articles usually fall in the range 50 to 250 words. Hope this is helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone and counted ten featured portals picked at random across the range of topics, and got a median of 165 words (range: 105–316) for the Selected article blurb; the Selected biography blurb is often shorter. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone trying to use straw man argument on me? In the last nomination, I explicitly said the portal should use randomized format rather than monthly archive. Now that you switched to randomized format, you can't just keep the number of articles in rotation the same as the monthly archive method. We are not involved in any so-called obstructionism (at least not to the level in FA). Going back to the discussion regarding # of words in each section of the portal. I'm not a big fan on counting number of words because it is highly dependent on what subject the portal is about. But clearly this portal is way outside of the normal distribution. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you will not give a hard suggestion, but you still oppose? I am going to disregard your opposition if you will not offer a constructive suggestion of article length. It looks to me (and now to others, too) that you are indeed, engaging in obstruction. You claim a strawman arguement against you? The comment you refer is not an arguement against anything, but was only mentioned to point out the lack of any clear standards in this process.
Your first complaint (the response to which you are crying strawman over) was that there were not enough articles in the portal. Since then several have been added - although we still have not determined how many would be "enough" because the process has no clear standards. Your opposition is now based on article length, correct? Again, we will disregard your opposition if you do not give us "actionable" suggestions. "Too long" and "way outside of the normal distribution" does not cut it. See the suggestion below. -- Secisek (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say that most summaries should be between 100-350 words? Most leaves some room for exceptions, but gives editors some idea of what is expected. Is there support for adding this guideline to the requirements? If there is, I will adopt these guidelines for the portal. -- Secisek (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • New FA

The project had another FA promoted to the portal: Augustine of Canterbury! -- Secisek (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • New GA

The project had another GA promoted to the portal: Chester Cathedral! -- Secisek (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • New GA

The project had another GA promoted to the portal: William Wilberforce! -- Secisek (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • New Featured Picture
The project had another Featured Picture promoted to the portal (at right).
-- Secisek (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The blurbs are far too long. Take a look at WP:TFA - they should be similar to that. If you want to use multiple paragraphs (I do on mine), you should have no more than 3 paragraphs of medium length (2 if you're using an image is what I find). Same for selected biography and selected article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. There is no consensus on whether this portal should be promoted to featured status. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted 00:04, 13 April 2008.

Portal:Vermont[edit]

Nominating Portal:Vermont. I have done extensive work on this portal over the last few months. This has gotten a portal peer review, see Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Vermont/archive1. I believe that it fits the criteria. It fits number 1, as much as possible. Number 2 and 3a are a little less so, but they still should make it in. The rest fit fine. It has randomizing selected biography/article sections (used to be one), randomizing selected pictures, a DYK section, news section, and more. Looking at other featured US states portals, I believe that it fits in with them. I hope that this can become a featured portal, and if not, any feedback here would be a great help! Also, I am not using the preloader due to it not working. Soxred93 | talk bot 21:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A few comments, mainly minor issues which should be readily fixable. The bright yellow background detracts from the content, at least on my monitor. Capitalisation in the headers is a bit variable. The DYKs don't seem to be randomised -- are you planning to update them manually? The selected biography uses "(more)" to direct readers to the actual article, while the selected article lacks this link. I noticed a redlink in the selected article summary whilst hitting update, I think it was in the blurb for Ben & Jerry's. "On this day" has no events for 2 April; it might be better to use "In this week", or similar, if there aren't at least one or two events entered for every day of the year. I don't know whether putting portal maintainers on the main portal page is appropriate; certainly it seems to include a lot of white space, and might seem more appropriate on the talk page. Also I wasn't sure about the "To Do list" format; it seemed more appropriate for a wikiproject than something aimed at casual readers, and the pastel blue headers clash strongly with the yellow on my monitor. Hope these comments are helpful; I'm not particularly familiar with the featured portals on US states, so some of these things might be to fit in with them. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Color scheme changed. Header capitalization standardized. DYK's update manually. Selected articles now use (more). Redlink fixed. Others shall be updated later. On this day changed to On this week. I have seen other featured portals with the maintainers section. The To Do list is the one used by the WikiProject, using the standard NavBox collapsable div's. Thank you for your comments. Soxred93 | talk bot 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until at least all the above can be fixed, the topic and related portals section can be brought in line with other FPOs and the events in history section can be scrapped. Rudget (review) 12:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per RudgetCPacker (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would it be possible to give the default font size to the titles of the drop down sections of the To Do section? They look kind of squished compared to navboxes readers will encounter elsewhere. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Soxred93 | talk bot 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. Please try again when the issues raised here are dealt with in full. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was not promoted 15:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Anglicanism[edit]

FPOC 1 FPOC 2 (05:55, 13 April 2008)

(10) Selected articles, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (15) Selected biographies, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (9) Selected pictures, all save one are Featured Pictures and all are free-use images, (21) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time, all of which appeared on the main page in the past. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. New material is added from the Wikiproject:Anglicanism. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Previous nomination was closed with no actionable suggestions being offered to allow the portal to pass the review. Claims that the summaries are "too long" are simply not actionable nor is length mentioned in the criteria.

One user propsed:

N = most recent Featured Portal promotions Median word count of summary Range of word count
13 portals 202 words 104 to 244 words
Is this what is expected? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested:

Both proposals were stonewalled by the reviewers with no respones forth coming for nearly 10 days. The final (& only) reply stated:


There is no mention of length requirements at WP:TFA, either. I ask again, what is "medium length"? We will be happy to make any changes that the critera for Featured Portal requires. -- Secisek (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologise if I was unclear in my comments. Please look at Portal:Music of Australia ("my" portal)—obviously it varies based on articles and the like. If you could trim about 10% off Portal:Anglicanism/Selected article/2, that would be the optimal size for a with-image blurb, IMO. I could support with something like that—it seems OK otherwise, but I'll take a closer look. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there support for this criteria? It seems fine to me. -- Secisek (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave concrete suggestions previously for what constituted a reasonable length, which seemed to be ignored. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote my comments on the previous FPOC: I don't think prescribing a specific length for article blurbs is a good idea, as the amount of text that works depends greatly on other factors such as column width and associated picture size. For readability, I think it would be good to aim for the complete blurb (including the image), at a normal screen width and resolution to take up no more than a maximum of 2/3 of the screen height, and preferably closer to 60%. For an average-sized picture on my monitor set up, that would equate to something in the region of a maximum of 225 words, but I don't know how it would work on a lower-resolution monitor. For what it's worth, summaries of printed articles usually fall in the range 50 to 250 words. Hope this is helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone and counted ten featured portals picked at random across the range of topics, and got a median of 165 words (range: 105–316) for the Selected article blurb; the Selected biography blurb is often shorter. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question about whether to make some sort of indication in the FP guidelines to this effect, though. I think doing so would be a good idea, as it would give people proposing candidates a clearer idea of what the desired optimum is. Alternately, maybe giving an indication of vertical length of the section or something similar could be proposed? John Carter (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know your opinion, Espresso Addict, and we were pleased that you shared it. Sadly, nobody added any support to it, and it remains only one editor's opinion. We need to know what the Featured Portal criteria is for the summary lengths - right now there is none, yet it seems that is where the nomination is hung up. Perhaps an RfC can clarify the criteria if no editors here can? -- Secisek (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I agree with Espresso Addict. There are many who also oppose in previous nomination. Just because they haven't say so in this new nomination, that doesn't mean their concerns are addressed. Remain oppose and not impressed by forum-shopping attitude. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I can't help but get the impression that concerns expressed earlier seem to have been "too long" without any indications given as to what is considered acceptable length. As such, the opposition seems, in a sense, to have said, "I think it's too long, but I won't define what that means; it's up to you to figure out what I like". I honestly have to question whether that is a reasonable and productive position for anyone to take in such matters, although I am grateful to Dihydrogen for his clarification above, which does provide some idea as to what he would seek. If someone could provide some sort of clear statement of what is considered an acceptable length, either by number of words, physical space taken up, whatever, it would make this nomination and potentially any number of others more reasonable, and probably assist other potential candidates meet the apparently unwritten criteria which are being used here. So far as I can tell, as a bit of an outsider, it looks to me like SECisek and Wassupwestcoast have tried to act on the basis of what are apparently the unwritten rules, and are now being told that they're wrong. Unfortunately, except for Dihydrogen, now one's willing to clarify what the unwritten rules are. I think the process would be helped very much if the opposers gave some sort of clear reason for their opposition.
However, as the nominators seem to have done everything they can to address the matters, by even analyzing the statistics of existing FPs, I have to Support the nomination, on the basis of their having done as much as they could to meet the unwritten criteria. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, walking away from this one now, but I have provided clear, actionable, guidelines as to what I personally consider a sensible length several times now. I'm a newbie here too, but I don't think ignoring concerns of overlong blurb texts just because no-one feels sufficiently authoritarian to edit the portal guidelines makes any sense. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note once again the above editor is seeking recourse to terms which have been not even remotely well defined. "Overlong blurb texts". If that is your contention, as I have now specifically asked of the other reviewers twice now, please indicate what sufficient length is, as opposed to simply retreating to vague, completely usless terms like "overlong". Until and unless such a response is given, all I see is pure criticism. I have now formally asked twice, and ask now again, making three times, that the editors who seek to call things "overlong" actually define what the proper length is, as courtesy and civility would dictate. Without such clear definition, there wouldn't necessarily be any reason for someone else, once the texts have been shortened, to say "too short", and rejecting on that basis.
I can and do understand that no one wants to "define" the length of what is and is not too long. However, if people choose not to do so, but still seek to accept or reject on the basis of those at best(?) unconfirmed, almost certainly (not necessarily in a bad way) WP:POV ways, then what we're basically saying is that there are no clear guidelines here, and all that this can basically be is a beauty contest, which each judge judging on the basis of their own opinions. I would very sincerely hope that none of our processes ever descend to that point. If this portal is to be rejected as an FP candidate, then I would logically have to assume that, unless good reason to the contrary is given, all those other FPs which have sections longer than the median length being proposed for this portal, can and should logically be placed in Featured Portal Review, on the basis of their sections being "overlong".
The editors in question have gone to extraordinary length, even calculating the average length of articles in other FPs, to determine what that length is, and seem to have abided by the results they came up with. Like it or not, if reviewers are going to review on the basis of ill-defined opinions regarding length for one portal, then those same ill-defined standards should be employed on every portal, including being cause to remove FP status from several existing portals.
For what little it might be worth, just as a basis for determining some sort of standard here, my own personal opinion regarding this matter would be that the lead section of any article which has been through peer review and passed GA or higher would be of appropriate length for inclusion in a portal. Choosing to use such comparatively established criteria would help ensure that the sections are both well written (hacking into article ledes can't help but be a little problematic) and well representative. I am also leaving a message on the Talk:Main page for some input from the editors there regarding how they determine the length of the main article section for the main page.
I can well understand how editors involved would not want to be seen as "defining terms" regarding what is and is not sufficient length. However, if anyone chooses to accept or reject a candidate on the basis of such a nebulously-defined criteria, whether they want to be dictating such terms, they effectively are defining those terms anyway.
I hope to be hearing something which could be used at least as a basis for discussion from the people on the main page soon. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope both sides read up What is a portal. To summarize things in 1 sentence, "portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." (Note the words in bold) What's the point of giving a long paragraphs to editors if they got bored because they had to read through a text block? Still not impressed? Read portal guidelines and featured portal criteria. Sections should be short and presents the topics/articles/pictures in an aesthetically pleasing way. Just like going on RFA or promote another featured contents, they are exhausting and sometimes the thing you nominated does not get promoted. What are you going to deal with it? Punch those people for opposing you? I hope not. The best way is to improve and try again later, though not immediately after the nomination was just closed as unsuccessful.
Just noticed another thing. On Wikimedia projects, the images are linked not to that project, but to the image. So you need to fix that. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Unfortunately, I really doubt if "short" and "esthetically pleasing", which are two exact quotes from what you cited, are ever going to get anything remotely like a "standard" answer. In effect, if those particular criteria are emphasized, there is no way that this can ever be anything but a beauty contest based on the individual opinions of the individual reviewers, which would not be useful. It would also very much permit individual reviewers with an axe to grind to say that a given section isn't aesthetic in one case (because they don't like the nominator or subject) while at the same time saying it is in another (where they do like the nominator or subject). This cannot be particularly helpful to the development of portals. Whether we really like it or not, we are almmost obligated to create at least some basic, fairly clear, guidelines, even if only of the "between X and Y" variety. Like I said, I think the lede section of a peer reviewed GA or higher would almost certainly be good enough as at least a starting point for discussion, although I have contacted the main page people at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Main Page#How is the length of the Featured article section determined? regarding the subject of how they try to determine the length of their sections. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Outdent.] I don't often really lose my temper around here, but this is really annoying me. If my previous comments don't constitute a guide as to what I personally consider the optimal length, I don't know what does. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is what you "personally consider" optimal length, but that is opinion, not official criteria. I accept your suggestions. Does anybody else? Your suggestion was met by stonewalling and then the nomination was closed with none of the objectors ever bothering to comment on your opinion. You have every right to be angry here, Espresso Addict.
We again get told to "improve and try again"? How can we improve it if you will not state how long these need to be. Is Espresso Addict correct? Can we add his suggestion to the criteria? I asked here numerous times. An editor in the previous nom asked you. The editor above asked you three times. Three similar guide lines, including Espresso Addicts, were suggested with no response from any of the objectors. The criteria - as you pointed out - states "Sections should be short and presents the topics/articles/pictures in an aesthetically pleasing way." The sections are short, far shorter than any GA or FA article in Wikipedia. They are the lead sections of articles that have passed GA or FA processes here. If consensus has determined how short or long a portal summary needs to be, then tell us. If not, drop your objection. Now, how long should the summaries be? Your objections have amounted to nothing more than "It doesn't pass because we said so" which is exactly how you confounded the previous two nominations. It will not happen this time. -- Secisek (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, Espresso Addict's statement for what is the desirable length for a section is "somewhere between 50 and 250 words". How do the current article selctions stand in relevance to those criteria? Listed below. Does anyone else have any alternative opinions here, or are those the rather vague (50 words to 5 times that many) terms the rest of you agree to? If not, and others have different ideas, what is the intersection of the two that you would all accept? And, if they are all agreeable, would we consider "enforcing" those terms on all the FP nominees and existing FPs?
Selection 1 - 313
Selection 2 - 243
Selection 3 - 424
Selection 4 - 376
Selection 5 - 452
Selection 6 - 236
Selection 7 - 340
Selection 8 - 344
Selection 9 - 204
Selection 10 - 302

John Carter (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "somewhere between 50 and 250 words" was actually for summaries in text publications, for comparison, rather than a suggestion for portals. My suggestion would be in terms of %age of screen height, with a maximum of 2/3 of the screen height for single column, and preferably falling within the range of around a third to 60%. For double-column text box, I'd say a third of screen height was a lot.
For a blurb plus picture in a single column (assuming a 2-column portal layout), that would equate to a range of around 100–225 words, on my monitor set up. However, I don't know how this translates to other screen resolutions. I have added a suggested wording to the Featured portal criteria talk page, if people would care to comment there. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. Good luck with maintenance and congrats on your hard work. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. For the picture of Queen Elizabeth, the credit needs linking to the NASA site, as will all the other images if this is not already done. The length of the selected biography and selected article needs vastly cutting down, as several have stated. I'd also like to see a news section, and a revamp of the topics so they're done properly, and not just with a standard article namespace template. To add to this, the appaling attitude shown by the Secisek and refusal to address concerns is also worying. I will remain opposed to this portal receiving FPO status until these issues can be addressed or a good reason given. Terrible attitude. Qst (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention Secisek believing himself to have some sort of authority than others, I quote "It will not happen this time." The only thing that will not happen this time is the portal being promoted, unless you accept that this is the unofficial criteria and people aren't going to support unless you fix it. Qst (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Concerns raised by others and me above have not been dealt with. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also noting that I would encourage Secisek to behave in a more collaborative fashion, especially on a process like FPoC, which really isn't that big a deal. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been reading through this discussion for about half an hour now, and I've been cross referencing against the history of the portal and the contributions of the editors involved. In not particular one case, can I see an attempt to work on the portal per the comments provided. Some comments may be seen as 'ill-defined' and 'contentious', but I don't see a single try to work on those comments (even if it was hard to differentiate between what is considered an acceptable length). I would however suggest that the nominators look at alternative featured portals (Portal:North West England, for example) and see what length their selected or featured blurbs are–instead of discussing (arguing in my opinion) what length it should be, and that there are no 'clearly defined' criterion relative to subsection length. With this in mind (that nothing has been changed as a result of the discussion) and that there are only two supports and three opposes after 2-3 weeks, there is no clear consensus to promote at this time. Rudget (Help?) 15:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Failed_log/April_2008&oldid=905826935"