Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/February 2007

Portal:World War I

I have been working on this for some time, and, after a peer review, I feel that it is ready to be nominated for FP. All comments/criticisms welcome, and I wil do my best to respond in a timely fashion. Carom 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The portal peer review can be found here Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentSupport A very good portal just a few points before changing to support

• Featured content -> Featured content, Related content -> Related content, Associated Wikimedia -> Associated Wikimedia
• Photo credits are usually placed between the image and the caption to break it up a bit.
• I would suggest that the selected equipment images be a little larger, they are very hard to see at their present size.

besides that very good. Hossen27 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've increased the selected equpiment images to 100px - do they need to be larger, or is that sufficient? Carom 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, I'm not sure about the photo credits - some portals seem to put them below the caption (Portal: War), others above (Portal:Military of Australia). Is there any kinf of consensus on which is preferable? Carom 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the pictures in both the Selected equipment and event should be larger 125px to 15px, the amount of text is sufficient for that size image. The location of the photo credit is more of a personal preference not a requirement (i think). Hossen27 01:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Images in selected equipment/events increased to 150px. Carom 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support. I don't think moving the "Read more..." link below is possible using {{random portal component with nominate}}, maybe this might require a change in the template? Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Probably. I'm not a template wiz, but I'll see if I can't work something out...Carom 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm the one that created the random portal component with nominate and I'm currently working to add the variable, I'll have something running in the next few hours.Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there's a fair amount of white space between the {{browsebar}} and introductory box – please eliminate it. Also, it should be "Related portals" not "Related content".--cj | talk 12:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Carom 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a few things:

• Related portals, they don't need portal after the name. There is also Portal:World War II, which should go in.
• Why does the wikimedia box not have all the sister wiki's within it?
• Needs a category section.
• I would suggest making the pics in the event and equipment boxes slightly larger. Black and white is alot harder to tell what's going on. 150 should be fine.
• Selected pics captions need atleast one link each.

But, fairly good so far. :) Joe I 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, it looks like Hossen27 took care of your first point. On the second point: surprisingly, not all the sister projects have content related to WWI, and it was requested at the peer review that I remove the links to the projects that have no content. When they do have content, the links can be added. I'll work on your other points on Sunday, hopefully. Carom 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, unless you have any concerns about how I implemented the category section. Carom 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Looks good. I do have a problem with the wikimedia box being decimated. The individual viewer should be able to decide if that sister wiki has what they are looking for or not. They can't do that if no links are supplied. All assosiated wikimedia boxes, on every portal, should have all sister wiki links available. Makes for ease of use and consistency. Oh, and the "Show new selections" should be centered, using <div style="text-align:center; margin:-7px; padding-bottom:12px;">{{purge|'''Show new selections'''}} </div> .  :) Joe I 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a fair point. However, keep in mind that some of the sister projects will likely never have content related to WWI - it's simply not a topic that generates content under their purview. I'll do some digging around and see if I can justify linking to some of the other sister projects, but I think that ultimately, it makes more sense to exclude some of them then it does to keep them. Carom 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it a little more closely, there is content on WikiBooks and WikiSource, but it hasn't been collected under a "World War I" heading, so it's difficult to link to directly - in order to capture the true range of the resources available, it would be neccesary to link to a large number of (currently) unconnected pages. I'm not involved with either of those projects, so I don't know if this apparent disorganization is due to the way they are structured, or if it's simply a matter of "no-one has got to it yet." Any thoughts? If the content can be easily linked to, I'm more than happy to add it to the portal; if it cannot, I'm not entirely sure what to do.

WikiNews and WikiSpecies do not have content related to World War I, nor are the likely to, so it doesn't make any sense to add them. Carom 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. The WikiBooks and WikiSource links currently go to a page that says "there is no page by this name," but there is a prominent link to "search for this term in other pages," so users should be able to locate whatever content is available. Carom 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I fixed it using <div style="text-align:center; padding-bottom:12px;">{{purge|'''Show new selections'''}}</div> because for some reason your code wasn't showing up correctly on Firefox. S.D. ¿п? § 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support: A good portal looks nice and, in my opinion, has a nice color scheme. However, you might want to fix the Wikimedia box as Joe suggested. Happy editing, S.D. ¿п? § 04:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption does not have good photo credit. Please correct them. e.g. this picture can have photo credits Great War Primary Documents Archive rather than Photographer unknown.
• Associated Wikimedia can have Wikisource and Wikibooks entries. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Carom 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Looks great, you have a few redirects in the topics section but thats more a personal quirk and isn't that big of a deal. Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Support Yay for World War I and its peace, man! Yah! General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (at war here (screams in the background)) 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Electronics

After an extensive restoration process, this portal meets requirements and is ready for featured status. It has more than enough content, localized browsing and more. Many ideas, comments and reviews were acted upom from the talk page to peer review. Joe I 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent portal. Using shortcut in the introduction section could be better. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Wonderful job, and see no problems. —dima/s-ko/ 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support: All my comments have been addressed. Great work! S.D. ¿п? § 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support: A very impressive portal full support. Hossen27 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great work. Might you consider making the 'related portals' box 100% to get rid of the whitespace below the Wikiprojects box? riana_dzasta 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support Support. News section still needs an archive and proper linking per WP:DATE. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I think that this portal is very good. --Meno25 13:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. Two minor quibbles, though:

• The "Switch selections" link should be moved up to be above the "Selected biography" box, since it applies to it as well.

I tried, but just couldn't make the change. It makes the box sections look alittle weird. And the focus should really start with the selected design box.

• In the box-bottom links, "Nominations" should really be "nominations".

Yes, properly, it should be lower case, but all other featured portals that use the same format, use the upper case, and I think it makes it more visible. Joe I 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Religion

This nomination appears to meet all featured portal criteria. All items in a recent portal peer review and a to do list have been addressed. Rfrisbie^talk 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support — All issues seem to have been addressed and I don't see any others, Bravo Zulu. — WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support: All comments have been addressed. Great work! S.D. ¿п? § 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Flawless? Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. as above. -- Jeff3000 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. So below. (Religion Portal humor) ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a genuine FP. feydey 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are few points which should be considered before getting the portal promoted.

• Add purge link.

• No change needed. A purge link already exists as "Show new selections." This is a common and accepted element of featured portals. Rfrisbie^talk 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I could not find out that one. Where is it? Shyam ^(T/C)

• Directly below the introduction, the typical placement for portals using a randomized rotation of selections. Rfrisbie^talk 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The link is not visible in Mozilla Firefox. Please try to fix the problem. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the div code used to format the purge link (it looked fine in IE). I assume it's visible in Foxfire now. Rfrisbie^talk 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, now it is visible in firefox as well. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• A Firefox expert fixed the apparent cause of the display problem. I restored the original layout as it should now display properly for both Firefox and IE. Rfrisbie^talk 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I do not prefer the tab for the portal. The main objective of the portal to increase collaboration related to portal and which topics cover the portal. They should be included on the portal main page itself. There is no need to use separate tabs.

• No change needed. Tabs are used on several large portals. They help break up large pages and serve as a condensed TOC. This is an accepted element of featured portals. Rfrisbie^talk 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Other portals serve the purpose for other tasks as well when they are used as tabs. I do not seek any purpose to have tabs on this portal. Rather, these tabs seem to me that contributors may be untouched with the collaborations. Portals generally serve the purpose for the ports of other articles, IMO, while using the tabs for topics is not the good idea. Shyam ^(T/C)
• This concern appears to be a personal preference (which is fine) rather that a violation of a featured portal criterion. However, one of the top viewed portal pages in the English Wikipedia is Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics, a featured tabbed portal page. Clearly, using tabs in portals is not a problem. Rfrisbie^talk 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Related portals have unrelated portals in the section. The portals mentioned at the top need not to be a part of the section. Consider using a shorter image if the portal needs all other portal links.

• No change needed. All of the portals listed in this section are related to religion. The first line lists serveral high-level portals on topics that historically have impacted and have been impacted by religion in significant ways. The remaining lines include subportals related to the topic of religion. The images sizes are common elements of featured portals. Rfrisbie^talk 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• If all the portals are really needed to have then please consider shortening the image or remove the image. This section covers about 25% of the portal's main page which is not good for the portal page. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to be another personal preference, rather than a violation of a featured portal criterion. Religion is a broad, high-level topic with a diversity of world views on how it is regarded and practiced. Highlighting and celebrating this diversity is a strength of the Religion Portal. I have no plans to remove any related portal links or reduce image sizes. Rfrisbie^talk 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Shyam ^(T/C) 08:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Joe I 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just a few points to a otherwise brilliant portal. Firstly in the selected Picture, article, quote and scripture the footer reads "...Archive/Nominations" while the Selected religious figure, On this day... and Did you know... have "...Archive/Noms" in the footer. I understand this is due to a space issue but it should follow a uniform style throughout the portal. Hossen27 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'll simply say the style is uniform. Full-width and left columns use "...Archive/Nominations" while right columns use "...Archive/Noms". Since the differences are intended to accomodate the maximum possible usability for simultaneously incompatible expectations – complete words vs. proper column displays – I consider this "compromise" solution to be superior to an arbitrary and unnecessary expectation of identical footers. Rfrisbie^talk 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support very good job, embodies the spirit of Featured Portals. ~ Arjun 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support although the electric blue is a bit hard on the eyes. But that's personal opinion, of course :) Full support with regards to all other points. riana_dzasta 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Please feel free to change the color to a more pleasing shade. Rfrisbie^talk 12:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  #8181F7, slightly faded blue. Is it OK? riana_dzasta 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  It's fine with me. Rfrisbie^talk 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there is duplication between the {{browsebar}} and Related portals section. Please remove portals appearing on the {{browsebar}} from Related portals (which should become Subportals), even if they may be considered related. Otherwise, good work in bringing this portal up to standard, and special thanks to riana for altering the colour – the prior blue was a bit harsh.--cj | talk 11:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  As stated before to Shyam, I disagree with this. If the portal is not promoted as a result, that's your choice. Rfrisbie 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC) By the way, since this is a wiki, I'm sure someone else will make the change. Rfrisbie 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  I haven't yet objected and my reasoning is different to Shyam's. Duplication is a real issue vis-à-vis the portal's usefulness and ergonomics. I am happy to make the change myself if you are happy to let it stand.--cj | talk 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  I understand your point about duplication. As a highly visual user, my point is the "Related portals" is not a duplication by the fact that it includes images, while the browsebar does not. I keep losing this verbal vs. visual argument on Wikipedia, so I don't expect the outcome here to be any different. I won't reverse any changes to the portal. This is a wiki. I'll just move on. Rfrisbie 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Utah

The Utah Portal was started in September 2005. After Portal:Texas achieved featured status (the first U.S. state portal to do so) I took it upon myself to do the same with Utah Portal.

Looking at the criteria:

1: I've done my best to showcase what Wikipedia has to offer with regards to Utah.

2: I've included a Featured content related to Utah section to highlight the best of Utah-related content. Contributions are encouraged by the 'Things you can do' section - maintained by WikiProject Utah.

3.1 (Useful):State portals are broad and of sufficient interest to be considered useful. I've tried to only include high-quality content to the Selected article and Selected picture sections - other interesting tid-bits are included either in the Selected anniversaries or Did you know sections.

3.2 (Attractive): Attractive is in the eye of the beholder, but this portal is on par with most featured portals, with the attractive Utah red-rock orange used for section headers and footers.

3.3 (Ergonomic): My layout philosophy was to get the 'Featured content related to Utah', 'Selected article', and 'Selected picture' sections directly after the portal introduction - these contain the most Featured content.

3.4 (Well-maintained): The Selected article, Selected picture, Selected biography and Did you know sections all use the Random portal component template to ensure an ever-changing rotation of content. The only manual aspect is to change the Selected anniversaries. ((I'll soon be changing this by using the {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} functionality) The Selected anniversaries are updated monthly using the {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} functionality. updated — Zaui (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

4: Appears to meet all requirements. There are 19 Selected articles, 13 Selected pictures, 25 17 Selected biographies, 9 16 Did you know entries and 15 Selected anniversaries. More can be added - I started a list of subjects to consider on the talk page.

5: All images have captions, and no fair-use images are used.

6: No self-referential issues.

Thank you for your consideration. — Zaui (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

Good Work--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The Selected article, picture, and bio all need nomination links, I have a random component tool that automatically adds suggestion links if you would link to use it just let me know.

:You'll need to click on and create the suggest pages. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The lists section has redirects in it that need to be removed. The link should go to an actual article.
2. On your anniversaries what happens on days where there isn't one?
3. The bold link in the article Park City leads to an disambig page.
4. Alot of the bolded links in the selected articles leading to the main topic of an article are redirects. They need to link directly to the main page.
5. Some of your selected article don't seem to display Wikipedia's greatest work, articles chosen as selected should be of very high quality, i.e. WP:FA, WP:GA or A-class.
6. Some of the articles used for your bios are very low quality, some have very little content at all. selected bios should be B-class or better.
7. In the other portal section you need to either have other actual portals listed or remove it and list the what are portals at the bottom of the page without a section.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(I numbered the items above)

1. I'm missing what you mean by nomination links - do you mean nomination to display or nomination for inclusion? The articles are displayed randomly using the Random portal component template. Inclusion in a selected list is up to the participants - there's no vote.
2. Found one and fixed it.
3. The anniversaries are updated every month - all anniversaries for each month are displayed.
4. Fixed.
5. Found two and fixed them.
6. The guideline states: Each of these articles should be of high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively (emphasis mine). I'll concede that a couple could fall short of this standard - maybe FranklinCovey and Kennecott Utah Copper. I feel the other articles meet the standard. Maybe the two borderline articles would work as a DYK entry instead. UPDATE: I removed FranklinCovey and Kennecott Utah Copper and replaced them with Lake Powell and Bear River Massacre — Zaui (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
7. I'll go through them to see if some would be better as a DYK item instead of a full biographical entry. UPDATE: I've removed 8 of the stubbier biographies. — Zaui (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
8. OK, good point - I'll see what I can do. UPDATE: I removed the 'Portals' header. — Zaui (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! — Zaui (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Take a look at Portal:Military of Australia, the suggest links are for making suggestions for new selected content. I can see your using the random portal component which is why I offered you my variation of the component that will automatically create suggest/nominate links in the footer. other wise you have to remove the footer entirely and create not only nom links but the link to the more..whatever on the bottom of every numbered article.

Reply: This isn't necessary for a Portal, is it? I can see this being helpful if there's a large collaboration, but the Utah portal has only had a couple people involved. — Zaui (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Responce It is especially helpful for a small collaboration, If this portal becomes featured then alot more people will view it. They may have suggestions for articles and pictures that you might have missed since there is only a few people working on the portal. Being in a small group you are less likely to be exposed to as much information as multiple viewers of your portal would be. Not to mention that you would want to give them an outlet to voice their opinions instead of them just adding article or pictures to the portal.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken, I'll try to add it. — Zaui (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

These are complete - I used the format at Portal:Military of Australia. — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your good on the Anniversaries I didn't catch that the rotated by month, sorry.
• If you can take care of the two worst ones then I can be ok with the others especially since alot of them just haven't been rated yet.

Reply: I removed the two, as noted above. — Zaui (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Check me, but I think I've handled all these objections. — Zaui (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Object

• WikiProject section does not list parent projects and should be expanded if included in the portal.

I'll label WikiProject Utah as the parent project and add U.S. states. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah a parent wikiproject to any City Wikiprojects? Langara College 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No - there are no Utah cities with WikiProjects. — Zaui (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• 'Things you can do' text is far too small and uneasy on the eyes. More organization and having the headers more clearly defined could help.

I'll remove it - works better in a Wikiproject then a portal. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to this section's removal. Portals also are for editors who are not members of the associated projects. Rfrisbie^talk 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - though the criteria states The display of Wikipedia content should be a featured portal's foremost aim, and encouraging contribution secondary. I added it back with a slightly larger font size. — Zaui (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That still means it is a consideration. It's also an established practice in featured portals. Thanks for adding it back and enlarging the font. Rfrisbie^talk 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Still confusing as its just a list internal links with now instructions. Langara College 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'internal links' and 'now instructions'. — Zaui (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Internal links, just look up the word. I meant to say 'NO instructions'. As in you have a bunch of <small> bolded headers and a list of internal links. Langara College 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Utah version looks like every other one I've seen - a list of internal links sorted with short headers explaining what can be done. The instructions are the headers: "Improve to featured standard" or "Improve to good article standard" or "Create". Maybe if I re-word the headers a bit? Or link them to an explanation of what (for instance) "Create" means? I'll also try to make it bigger, but I don't want it too big - it's almost the largest thing in the portal now. — Zaui (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See what you think now - the headers are now linked to Wikipedia name-space pages and I enlarged the headers for easier reading. The whole section is at 85% 91% (to match the text size of the topics section) of full size - does it need to be bigger? — Zaui (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've completely changed the format to what Portal:London has been doing. Let me know if it's better. — Zaui (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• 'Did you know...' should have more DYK's.

I'm adding more as I can. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Did you know..." section now has 16 entries. — Zaui (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reason as to why they're being shown one at a time. All the other DYK's including Wikipedia's main DYK show many entires at once. Langara College 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's on a random rotation, I just want to be sure that visitors don't see repeats that often - 16 distinct entries is better then 4 entries with 4 DYKs each. — Zaui (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• How is the selected content decided if there are many collaborators? I suggest you take a look at the Portal:London or the Portal:Vancouver to see what they have done.

Well, this isn't a large collaboration - just a couple editors actually. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've added 'Suggest' links to each pertinent section. — Zaui (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The portal's overall size is too small and should have more content.

Could you be more specific? This is a little open-ended for me to work on. — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: As I'm handling the various objections, the portal will have more content. — Zaui (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! Langara College 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! — Zaui (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think all issues have been covered. Let me know if there are additional issues. — Zaui (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, but much progress has been made. Langara College 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Update of issues not crosed out: I've changed the 'Things you can do' section to match what Portal:London has set up. The amount of content in the portal has increased during this review process. — Zaui (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Objections.Rfrisbie^talk 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Support. Good overall improvements. Rfrisbie^talk 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No Topics section.

Whoops. Good catch. I'll get to work on one. — Zaui (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Topics section. — Zaui (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That section is full of categories. Those should be in the categories section. The main articles for those categories should be listed here. Rfrisbie^talk 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I modeled the topic section based on what Portal:Texas has. — Zaui (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the Topics section. — Zaui (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps some of those removed categories can go to their own section. Rfrisbie^talk 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Most are in the Catagory section, or are sub-cats of entries in that section. — Zaui (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Panoramic images "break" column display.

I havn't noticed this on my browsers. Will sizing down the images fix this? — Zaui (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the 300px width would be okay. Rfrisbie^talk 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestions. Rfrisbie^talk 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Better balance out blank column space.

Do you mean better balance between the left and right columns so they finish closer to each other? — Zaui (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. With rotated content it's harder to do, but I think some improvement is possible. Rfrisbie^talk 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Since randomized rotation is used, place the purge link higher on the page for more convenient access & use class="plainlinks".

I need a translation here - my wiki-fu isn't that advanced yet - there's only a {{purgepage}} template used. — Zaui (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See an example at Philosophy of science. Rfrisbie^talk 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. Rfrisbie^talk 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! — Zaui (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Suggest for selected content and DYK's don't exist.

Fixed — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• No topics section.

Right. Working on that. — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Topics section. — Zaui (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Still could use some expansion; comparing it to other featured portals. Mkdw^talk 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look to expand. — Zaui (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a transportation topic and greatly expanded the geography topic. It's at least as big as the Featured Portal:Texas topic section. — Zaui (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Images need captions or mouse overs

Good catch - I use popups, so I don't notice if there's no mouse-over — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added captions to all photos in Selected articles and Selected biographies. Selected pictures already are displayed with captions. — Zaui (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Needs a section with all the major cities in Utah?

Will be part of the Topics section — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Major cities are in the Topics section now. — Zaui (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to consider a Selected Cities/Town section as its a unique option available. Mkdw^talk 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are not enough high-quality articles about cities or towns in Utah to fill a separate section - the two I found, Park City, Utah and Salt Lake City, Utah, are in the Selected article list. — Zaui (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Needs a quote section?

Wiki-quote is blank for Utah. Not sure where else I'd get material. — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to create the Wikiquote page for our portal. But a little research and you shouldn't have difficulty finding some quotes. I found a couple just through Google immediately. Mkdw^talk 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on one. — Zaui (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found a couple and started a a page at wikiquote. Not near enough for a separate quote section in the portal, though. — Zaui (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Needs links to associate projects such as Wikiquote. I believe there's a template for that.

Good catch - it's there now. — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Those pages need to be created

Missing Wikiquote. It's an easy create. Mkdw^talk 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started a wikiquote page for Utah. — Zaui (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard to complete. Mkdw^talk 11:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think all issues have been handled. Let me know if I've missed something. — Zaui (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The portal has come a long way. Much work still needs to be done on it and I hope you'll continued to keep it updated since it has very few contributors. Mkdw^talk 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

Seeing as all the major concerns have already been addressed, there are only a few minor ones left for you to address:

• "Utah portal" > "The Utah Portal" and enlarge text.

Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Portal" is still not capitalized, take a look at the other portals to see the standards. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry - hard to break the Wikipedia section title style habit. — Zaui (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Avoid repetition of the portal's name or subject, rename "Featured content related to Utah" to "Featured content".

Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The "Collaborators" section is unnecessary and isn't informative for the subject itself, I suggest removing it.

I've noticed other portals don't have this, but the best argument for leaving it is that it encourages others to pitch in and help with the insert yourself link. — Zaui (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A portal, by definition, should both be informative and encourage others to contribute, I don't see how listing regular contributers help accomplish either of these and those who would like to contribute to the portal are always welcome to. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The "Did you know..." section needs more entries. Bolding used to emphasize facts is unnecessary and should be removed.

The bolding in the DYK entries is the same style as used on the Main Page - other featured portals have the same thing: Food, Poetry, United States — Zaui (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Did you know..." section now has 16 entries. — Zaui (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By that I meant more entries appearing inside the box itself. I personally prefer at least three. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the "Things you can do" section remove all "to", for instance, change "To Expand" to "Expand".

Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The "Wikiprojects" section should be renamed to "WikiProjects".

Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The "Wikimedia" section should be renamed to "Associated Wikimedia". Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Note that by renaming section I also meant moving their subpages to the corresponding section name. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Zaui (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - I appreciate the time taken to review and comment. — Zaui (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the "Expand" and "Destub" subsections in the "Things you can do" section, those are basicly the same thing. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(just noticed this note here) - There are articles that are more than stubs that could still be expanded. See Great Salt Lake for an example - it's currently 31kb long yet still tagged with Template:expansion. — Zaui (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant the opposite. To destub is to expand, so all articles in the "Destub" subsection should be moved under "Expand". Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make the list, but my guess would be that since Wikipedia makes a distinction between expansion and de-stubbing, the to-do list here has the same distinction. — Zaui (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Update

Just an update to nomination point #4: There are now 19 21 Selected articles, 13 Selected pictures, 20 Selected biographies, 18 24 'Did you know' entries and 17 Selected anniversaries.

Also, I believe I've handled all open objections. Let me know if there are additional issues. — Zaui (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Some minor issues

• Using 150px image size in the introduction section for both the images could be better.

The flag is better at 150px, but the map is hard to read at that size. I changed the flag to 150px. — Zaui (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• State facts, if it is really needed to have on the portal, move up, probably just below the introduction section.

I prefer the selected and featured material up higher and the listy stuff lower down. — Zaui (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is no need of prefix "WikiProject" in the WikiProjects section. I suppose that could be included in the Things you can do section as they are very little. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the prefix off and added a couple relevent WikiProjects. — Zaui (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! — Zaui (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The things have been responded accordingly. So the portal qualifies to go for featured status. Shyam ^(T/C) 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

More minor issues

• Comment. Lets finish it:
  • "Nomitate" > "Nominate" in "Things you can do".

Fixed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Add periods to sentences under the "Portal things to do".

I've added periods. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The "State symbols" subheading under "State facts" bothers me as it isn't being suitable to a portal. I suggest switching to a smaller header such as in "Things you can do".

Fixed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The sections from left are attached to the section from right in Internet Explorer, and the "edit" link goes out of the section. Might be a little difficult to fix, I suggest comparing with other portals to see where you placed one of the tags wrong.

I use IE and don't have this problem. Anyone else? If it's the "edit" link it must be something with the "box-header" template. I'll try to see if I can figure it out. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • "More Anniversaries..." > "More anniversaries...".

Fixed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • "Topics" > "Main topics".

How about "Utah topics"? — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoid repetition of the portal's name. I'm requesting this rename since an article is a topic by definition, and it would be better to specify that these are the main ones. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed to "Main Topics". — Zaui (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No need in the space between the "..." and text in the "Did you know...". I also suggest at least three entries there.

Fixed spacing. I'm entering more DYKs all the time - started with 9, there's 24 now - I could re-arrange them so that we have 6 sets of 3 items each. I'll work on that. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are now 3 entries for each DYK in rotation. — Zaui (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Remove "Liberal Party (Utah)" from the "Featured content" section. Former articles should not be displayed.

removed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The "Categories" section simply needs expansion and rewriting. Look at the science portal for example. One line would be: "(bullet)Sports: Brigham Young Cougars basketball • Brigham Young Cougars football • Major league players from Utah • Major league players from Utah • Major league players from Utah • Major league players from Utah • Major league players from Utah • Major league players from Utah • Major league players from Utah". After the expansion you should put it under the topics section. Also, change "Subcategories of Utah category:" to "Main category: Utah".

I had the same thought - I've seen both formats around portal space. I'll expand it. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is finished. — Zaui (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Change all "-"'s in the topics section to "•"'s.

Switched. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Remove the linking of years, decades, and centuries alone from the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" section.

I'll work on that. — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is finished. — Zaui (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Remove the quotation marks from the current "Selected picture" description.

Fixed — Zaui (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've handled all these issues. — Zaui (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I feel it fails criteria 3b, please change the coloring. I've never been a fan of a white background, so you should change it to something that goes well with red. The portal also lacks a "Related portals" section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same thought about the color, and did start to try some colors out in my sandbox. I'll work on it some more. I'll add a related portals section also. — Zaui (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried some colors but I'm not sold on it. Have a look and let me know. — Zaui (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a 'Related pages' section that contains related portals and wikiprojects - similar to the Texas portal. — Zaui (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Content note: there are no other portals related to Utah specifically, so I've included the other state portals instead. — Zaui (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please don't group related portals with WikiProjects – they are separate concepts.--cj | talk 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've separated them. — Zaui (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks. Just found Image:CaelSanderson.jpg on Portal:Utah/DYK/6: non-free images are not allowed on portals. Please ensure that this and any other copyright images are either replaced with free alternatives or removed.--cj | talk 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've removed it. That photo has been tagged as free in the past. Before nominating I removed all fair-use images. — Zaui (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've gone through the rest - found one more to remove. — Zaui (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Hinduism

Rfrisbie, I and others have worked hard on this portal. It now has a rotation system for the "selected" content and is very helpful to others. From what I can see it meets the criteria. If you disagree please give examples so that I (or someone else) can fix it. Cheers. Arjun 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: See Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Hinduism/archive1 for a recent peer review. Rfrisbie^talk 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• All my concerns were addressed by Rfrisbie and Arjun. I feel that this portal meets all the critera, so I am !voting support. —S.D. ¿п? 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

I still see some issues, but none would be difficult to fix.

• In the "Related Wikimedia" section: "Quotes on Hinduism" > "Hinduism quotes".
• "Topics" > "Main topics", an article is a topic itself. Misses a space before "Shikshapatri". "Related topics" > "Related". I don't feel lists belong there, maybe move it to a different section?
• Add images of those who's image is freely-licensed in the "Selected quote" section.
• "Jan. Festivals & Events" > "Anniversaries". I prefer not to make a limit.
• Add an image in the "Did you know..." section.
  • The image needs to be related to one of the entries, see the main page for example. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Provide a link to here in the "Things you can do" section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just minor stuff:

• Shortcut in the intro is not needed.
• Boxes that say "noms" should spell out nominations
  • Using the full-length words will "break" the column display at 800X600 resolution. The text already is as long as it can be. Rfrisbie^talk 13:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Should add Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion to wikiprojects box, as well as India, and Asia projects. Joe I 06:27, 18 January 2007

• Comment: The recent changes to column widths need to be coordinated with image widths so that the display shows properly at an 800X600 screen resolution. As of now, it is "broken." Rfrisbie^talk 15:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's still some sort of rendering problem with the column widths, but at least now the right column goes to the top at 800X600. Rfrisbie^talk 17:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Now the image creates a lot of empty space on 1024X768. Is there any way to avoid these issues on common resolutions? Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've been trying to make "everything" work together, but so far, no luck :-( Rfrisbie^talk 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Really I don't know...the best answer would be removing them lol. I personally don't like the images in the quote section, but that is just me. Arjun 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay images are gone, how does it look as of now? Arjun 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant the image at the "Selected Hindu" section. The first word of the section goes above it, while the rest going below. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• The column display problem at 800X600 was due to the "Selected quote" footer being too wide. I fixed that and restored the image. Now the image question can be settled on its own merit. Rfrisbie^talk 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Few more points

There are some more points which could be consider to make the portal improve.

• At the top, is it really required to mention all the religion portals? If they all are really worthful to mention then could they not be included into the related portals section?
• Intro section seems to be shorter to me. Could it be little expanded?
• Selected picture section has many images which are very long as 300px. You may consider reducing the image size (e.g. 250px) which are long images. Respectively you can balance the left and right floats as 60/39 does not seem balanced. You may use 55/44.
• Festivals section should be discussed only forthcoming festivals in the coming month. Nobody would be really interested in the festivals which was previously celebrated. If they should be included then it would be useful to include with some news.
• I do not think including India WikiProject is a good idea in the WikiProjects section as India is not a Hindu country. Nepal WikiProject could be included in that point of view.
• Adding or expanding Topics section would be considered appericiable.
• Remove Portal:India and Portal:Asia from the Related portals section. Instead Portal:Himalaya region could be included. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support; great portal leading to some great articles. But I think that the Wikiprojects box could be modified in some way. --Wolf^talk 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Ukraine

After working on the portal and looking at other portals for suggestions, I believe that it is up to the Featured Portal standard. The portal is active, covers a wide topic, and is commonly updated. I see no more problems with the portal, and I hope you will also agree with me. —dima/s-ko/ 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator. —dima/s-ko/ 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as one of the co-founders. I admit being biased though, but any criticism would be welcome. --Irpen 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• ObjectSupport--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See and Edit a full article here should be read more or more about (article) and the name of the article should be a bold link to the article not just bold.
  • There needs to be nomination links for all selected articles, pictures, and paintings
  • The In the news section should have bold links to the article.
    • Its not that easy to have bold links to the article... I mean, on Main Page we see summary with bold link leading to larger article. But here, we have summary and possibly a larger article, but the article does not contain the info we have in the In the news section. Is that alright? —dima/s-ko/ 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • the Ukrainian editions of Wikimedia projects should either be centered or justified since on a wide screen monitor it aligns left.
  • Your topics seem to be categorized correctly but under each subject they're in no particular order they need to be at least alphabetical.
  • Both topics and WikiProject and collaborations have redirects to the article listed the links should go to the actual article.
  • Wikipedians in Ukraine should be in the categories section not the assoc. Wikimedia. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have fixed most of the above concerns. I did not categorize some sections in Topics because some are in their historical appearance and others are by their status (administrative divisions, government). I don't understand what you mean by Both topics and WikiProject and collaborations have redirects to the article listed the links should go to the actual article. Could you please explain? —dima/s-ko/ 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine being in historical order is no problem As for the redirects the link to the page redirects throught a different page for example You have a link in topics to Imperial Russia but the page for Imperial russia links to Russian Empire you can see this when you click on the link and at the top of the article you see "redireted from Imperial Russia" you can name the link what ever you want but it needs to translate to the actual page not a redirect page. you can view the actual page Imperial Russia here [1].

As for the news sections being bold the archive needs to be bold as well.

The Ukrainian editions of Wikimedia projects are now aligned left justified right and the images are gone. they can all fit on the same row the just need to be either centered or justified.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think its great that your making these changes so quickly and I'll be sure to update my responses asap but please allow the person that made an objection to strike it out when they feel that the issue has been remedied. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that... Is there still a problem with the Ukrainian editions of Wikimedia projects ? —dima/s-ko/ 02:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Its still messed up not to mention that the images don't correspond with the links, I have created whats need to go into the section here User:Wilsbadkarma/workpage3 just paste it into the page and you'll be fine.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have pasted it into the section. —dima/s-ko/ 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • your gonna need to revert it sorry it does the same thing at 800x600 you'll have to stick with rfrisbies version. nope it doesn't your fine--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Objection. Support. Rfrisbie^talk 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This portal does not display properly for IE at 1024X768.
    • The "Ukrainian editions of Wikimedia projects" box images go well beyond the column width.
    • "Related portals" box goes slightly beyond width.
  • Make sure the columns display properly at 800X600 as well. Rfrisbie^talk 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I do not use IE, so I cannot see the problem. But I understand what you mean. I will try to figure out a way so it will look alright. —dima/s-ko/ 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I removed the images altogether (although it is better with them..). Does it look normal now, or do I need to make a line break in between them? —dima/s-ko/ 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I like the images too. You always can try breaking them across multiple lines and/or moving them to a 100% width. I fixed a few other minor display problems I noticed. The biggest layout display problem I see for now is some images being too large for 800X600 displays. Can you adjust your settings to that resolution to see what I mean? Rfrisbie^talk 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I have added the images back on Ukrainian editions... I moved the related portals to the bottom and centered it. Does it still go out of the border? —dima/s-ko/ 02:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The first two display issues look okay now (I switched some images to match the words), even though I had to do some goofy kludging to get the centering to display properly. The main problem for display now is at 800X600 resolution. Rfrisbie^talk 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I tired to get it at 800x600 res. just I only see half of the page, but the images are fine. Could you upload a screen shot? —dima/s-ko/ 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I looked at the screen shots and have now made the images smaller (-50px). Is it still the same? —dima/s-ko/ 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
          • 270px was as large as I could have them to work at the 50% column width you have. For another example, Portal:Religion has 300px images at 60%, that work fine at 800X600. Rfrisbie^talk 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your support and your suggestions. —dima/s-ko/ 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support as a frequent contributor I used to like this portal and with the recent changes I like it even more Alex Bakharev 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing minor objections

• Use Selected article in the articles section as for pictures section has been used Selected picture.
  • The reason why "featured" is used here is that we have enough Ukraine related articles that passed the review and were promoted to WP:FA and we intend to rotate such articles in this window. "Featured" in Wikipedia context bears specific meaning and we want to emphasize that the articles qualify. Formerly, the picture window was also called "Featured" but it was renamed, if I remember correctly by the Wikipedia's Featured article director who made it a point that the word "featured" should be used carefully in Wikipedia context to maintain the prestigiousness of the label. For now, we do not have enough featured images related to Ukraine. That's why we call them "Selected". --Irpen 07:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Then I think, there is no need of nomination procedue.It is already a redundant link. If you are considering to add good articles in the list then make it selected. I am not sure about the procedure for featuring period for a particular article/picture and related maintenance. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Use inter-wiki link for Wikinews, i.e. Wikinews on Ukraine, instead of external link.
• Use Image:Cscr-candidate.png instead of Image:Former featured article candidate.png for featured article candidates in Things you can do section.
• Place Associated Wikimedia and Ukrainian editions of Wikimedia projects at the bottom.
• Related portals section has single portal at the top. Please reformat the section. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have fixed the above suggestions. But what do you mean Place Associated Wikimedia and Ukrainian editions of Wikimedia projects at the bottom. Should I remove them from the right column and make them centered instead? —dima/s-ko/ 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It is your wish to have centered them or not. But place centered them preferably. But these two section should go to the bottom of the page. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, I have moved it to the bottom. —dima/s-ko/ 17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Make wikinews link as Wikinews on Ukraine or Ukraine Wikinews in the News section. Other than this I support the portal to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Addition to this, in the Categories section use More categories instead of More at Category:Ukraine .... Shyam ^(T/C) 17:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've implemented the changes. On a side note, I have added a Selected anniversary because of the excessive blank space made by the moving of Wikimedia sections. Does anyone mind this addition? —dima/s-ko/ 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Renewing objections in light of changes
• The Associated Wikimedia & Ukrainian editions of Wikimedia projects need to be centered or justified they are currently aligned right.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I too have a wide-screen monitor but they are centered on my monitor... I have tried something to fix it. Does it work? —dima/s-ko/ 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Back in business--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am unsure about the criteria of listing anniversaries. Some are listed as December 1, January 23, November 22- January 23. That is very nice step. You can use selected anniversary for a particular month for example. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have made it January-only. —dima/s-ko/ 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You can also place a link in the section which goes to other months' anniversaries. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have just started Portal:Ukraine/List of selected anniversaries for a full list. But it will take some time to fill it up. —dima/s-ko/ 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Scouting shows a monthly example. Rfrisbie^talk 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, no problem. Use [[Portal:Ukraine/Selected anniversaries/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}]] and place Portal:Ukraine/List of selected anniversaries for other anniversaries in the section. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok I have finished adding anniversaries for Ukraine, but more will be needed as on some there are only one or two.. —dima/s-ko/ 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • IMO, it would be better to move Portal:Ukraine/List of selected anniversaries to Portal:Ukraine/Selected anniversaries. Transclude all months' anniversaries to Portal:Ukraine/Selected anniversaries. Made transclusion of {{Portal:Ukraine/Selected anniversaries/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}}} on the portal page with a link for Portal:Ukraine/Selected anniversaries . Shyam ^(T/C) 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well alright. I just left it the way it was so it would be easier to "navigate" from one month to the other. But I can always make a category. Does an admin need to move it or can I? —dima/s-ko/ 21:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, that was requiring an administrator to fix the move. I have fixed it, hopefully you do not mind with that move. Accordingly I have made some changes to the portal. Now you can trasclude all months' anniversaries to the page. Please remove NavBox template from different months' anniversaries and fix a link related to Portal:Ukraine/Selected anniversaries to them. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks! —dima/s-ko/ 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Is it possible to use transclusion of the supage of featured article page? I am not sure how it will be maintained regularly. For example, you can feature a particular article on monthly basis similar to anniversary section. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, I guess we could do that.. I'll try right now. Actually, I don't think that we need to transclude the Featured article. I mean, we change the article every now and there are not very many of them... What do you think? —dima/s-ko/ 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There are maintenace problems to make changes manually in Portal:Ukraine/Featured article. There is no guarantee, how long a particular featured/selected article would be available on the portal page. It could be the case in that situation that the same article is available for last few months in that case. That lacks the curiosity of people if there is nothing new to see on the portal. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 13:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I have finished transcluding the Featured articles. —dima/s-ko/ 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Great portal. Here goes my full support to portal to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

End Listing minor objections

• Support - per above minus User:Shyam Bihari's header 3 section. Mkdw^talk 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 13:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - active and well designed portal. --Riurik ^(discuss) 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - all the objections have been fixed. Very nice. Arjun 17:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Just a few minor preferences:
• "Ukrainian editions of Wikimedia projects" should go above "Associated Wikimedia".
• "Topics" > "Main topics".
• No need to capitalize "NEWS FROM UKRAINE", it hurts.
• "Wikiprojects" > "WikiProjects". Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have implemented your suggestions. Thanks, —dima/s-ko/ 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Portal:Physics

This is a fairly old portal; it was started on 24 March 2005. For a long time, it's been fairly inactive; it's become increasingly active over the last few months, and I've just given it a facelift and instituted a few new systems. We now have weekly rotation of "Selected articles" and "Selected pictures"; we also have News (links to physics-related stories on Wikinews) and Anniversary sections. There's also the usual intro to the subject, and lists of categories/useful starting pages. I believe that the portal is now up to Featured status, hence this nomination. Mike Peel 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Objections:

• Expand Introduction. Use an image which is more closer to physics in Introduction section. IMO, Black hole does not have very close relationship with physics.
• Move down Where to start section. Add more topics to the section.
• Use Wikipedia links, wherever possible, in the News section. Use wikinews link as a reference or a link.
• For Selected article/picture please connect the seperate years archives with cross-links. Place only a single current archive link on the main page. What is the current selected article. It is hard to know. There is no link for that. Please place a bold link. Place photo credit with the image. Correct the 2006 archive of selecte article. e.g. Which article was feature in Week 49 (probably December 7 - 13). There are two different articles in the archive, i.e. Ernest Rutherford and Werner Heisenberg. Please remove the incorrect and redundant archives.
• Use current month anniversary rather than using upcoming two months anniversaries.
• Any specific reasons for having seperate sections for Theoritical physics and Experimental physics. Could they not be combined in Topics.
• Any specific reason for using wikibook section seperately. Physics on wikiboks in Associated wikimedia is not sufficient to serve the purpose?
• There are good numbers of good biographic articles in Selected articles. Why the portal could not have seperate Selected biography?
• Bold the highlighted links in the DYK section.
• Need some work on Things you can do section. Place the links in the section what is going on the project, e.g. Peer-review, Wikipedia:Missing science topics and more.
• There are many science related WikiProjetcs which are not listed. Please list them also. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I hope I have now addressed all of your objections (see Portal:Physics). I haven't created a "Selected biography" section, as I'm concerned that there won't be sufficient good-quality articles to be featured in both Selected Articles (52 per year) and a new section. Although, I guess that one possibility would be to only update a Selected Biography section once per month.

Have you any other objections/suggestions for improvement? Mike Peel 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work. Almost all the issues have been dealt carefully. In DYK section, you could use "..." as suffix in the heading. Please consider using "...More interesting facts" rather than "...More Did you know" which does not suit. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I was aware that "More Did you know" didn't sound too good, but I wasn't able to think up a better line at the time. Your suggested changes have now been made. Mike Peel 08:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed "..." on the portal page. Hopefully, you wanted to fix in that manner as I did. I support the portal to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Why is the "Things you can do" referring to the portal itself? This kind of self-reference should be found on the portal's talk page under the todo list. Please format the section properly and add articles needing attention instead, see the "Things you can do" on the disasters portal for a good example. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From item 6 on Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?: "Aspects of portals that encourage contribution may be self-referential." I took that to mean that entries under "Things you can do" can include improving the portal. Articles needing attention are listed on other pages on Wikipedia, which are linked to within that section. It doesn't make sense for me to duplicate this, as I would then have to regularly copy across updates from the other pages. Mike Peel 12:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, you might move the "Pages needing attention" section on WikiProject Physics to a subpage and synchronize the subpages using "{{}}" brackets. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but that just lists the pages in a different format, sans the portal tasks and wikiproject links. It's less of a "Things you can do" list, and more a "Pages needing attention" list, anyhow. I still hold that the best method (i.e. keeping the page simple and up-to-date) is to link to the pages as I have currently done. Mike Peel 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Overall very nicely done, just a few minor problems:
  • In "Did you know...": "'Lasers" should be "lasers" (linking only the singular word), add an image of the Large Hadron Collider accelerator chain, and create a suggestions page for it.
  • In "December anniversaries": "December 22 – 1968" should be "December 22, 1986" and the hyphen should come after it.
  • In "Physics news": I don't like the change of dates format between the sections, so change either it or "December anniversaries". There also seem to be no updates for over a month, while over 2 or 3 months without updates are often a criteria for FP delisting. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first two points should now be addressed, along with most of the latter. I'm currently working on the news section; that should be up to date shortly. We've only been using Wikinews as a source up to now, which hasn't been updated since Nov 19th. Mike Peel 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please avoid thumb mark-up in image formatting. It conflicts with background colours.--cj | talk 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've now switched the image from the thumb markup to a right-aligned image. Mike Peel 20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please avoid using red links in selected article, selected picture archive which are mess of red-links. These comments could be hidden by "<!---COMMENTS--->" from the page. I do not think 2008 link should be there so early. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the 2008 links from the pages. With the red links, there are several different approaches that could be taken: 1) they could be left; while they look a bit ugly, they hopefully encourage people to add selected articles/pictures to them. 2) They could be hidden; this would make the page more tidy, but it makes the process of adding new selected articles/pictures much more obscure, and hence less likely to be done by people other than me. 3) I could create all of the future selected article/picture pages using a placeholder; this is probably the best option, and seems to be the one used at WP:FA, but creates more work for me unless I figure out a way to automate the process. What do people here think? Mike Peel 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect about the proper mantainance of the portal. The portal does not have selected picture of the present week while it is in the process of promotion. I would recommend to have all the contents for at least coming two weeks. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I've been a bit distracted with templates this last week. I added this week's image this morning, and will add the next month's worth or so later this evening. Mike Peel 10:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider reducing the image size for the present selected picture. It is a very long image. So, I suppose, 250px would be sufficient to have for this one. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I went with 200px wide; it still seems to be large enough to see all the details at that size. Mike Peel 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The issues have been dealt accordingly. I do not think of any points to delay in promotion of the portal. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support looks great. Arjun 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Joe I 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Shouldn't we soon make a decision?? It seems that the portal has support for featured status, unless anyone else has objections? Snailwalker | talk 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)