Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/November 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Dogs[edit]

This portal meets all of the featured criteria. All recommendations listed at Portal talk:Dogs for improving it to featured portal status have been addressed. Rfrisbietalk 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cats[edit]

This portal has been reviewed by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals who offered several recommendations at Portal talk:Cats for improving it to featured portal status. The general consensus was that some minor improvements could elevate this portal to featured status. All recommendations were addressed either by implementing the recommendation or by explaining why no change was made in that area. Rfrisbietalk 18:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about the biased remark. This portal really does look good though. Gphototalk 02:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from an obviously biased party, based on portal's meeting criteria, not personal feelings. Badbilltucker 00:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very eyepleasing, cats are cool. Joe I 11:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very nice.__Seadog ♪ 02:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dogs is better Support, looks awesome. :) riana_dzasta 17:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Military of the United States[edit]

I started this portal over three months ago. After much time updating and refining it, there's no doubt that it meets criteria. Much of everything is on auto rotate, and I've been zealous of the addition of new items and daily entries. There are a few unusual items, mainly the tabs, which are newly added. Any problems, I'm sure can be worked thru and overcome. Joe I 10:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks good to me. I like how the boxes do not just follow the conventional featured picture, featured bio, DYK, etc. form. Gphototalk 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good. Badbilltucker 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done.--Eupator 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, everything looks good. Kirill Lokshin 20:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A place for everything and everythings in its place. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks great. There is empty space in the right column that should be taken care of, however.--cj | talk 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cetaceans[edit]

I have been maintaining this portal now for quite a few months and feel that it has probably reached FP standard. I feel that it meets the required criteria to be a featured portal. Automatic rotations of content is set up on everything that i feel it can be set up for. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Chris_huhtalk 12:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is quite good, but two things to look at:
    • The selected picture box should include an explicit image credit.
    • The intro could really stand to be a bit longer; a full paragraph or two wouldn't be a bad idea. Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those changes have now been made. Lots of effort has been put into improving the portal, and I support it as a featured portal candidate. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well done. Neil916 (Talk) 20:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Noticed the "todo" list mentioned voting on the portal, but that can't be helped. Portal seems well constructed and seems to meet all the criteria. Badbilltucker 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sobre, joli, efficace. (A kind of translation : ? , pretty, efficient ) Alvaro 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very clean and nice.__Seadog ♪ 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good work. riana_dzasta 09:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-looks good to me!--Chili 03:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Germany[edit]

I hope this portal is more or less acceptable by now. It has had auto-updating high-quality content (the monthly Selected article is a FA, the Selected Picture a FP either here, on commons or on the German Wikipedia) since March and has a daily Anniversaries section with pictures. To encourage contribution, it has a section announcing the newest articles. The size of pictures and boxes has been chosen so the portal looks decent on resolutions between 800x600 and 1280x1024. I believe the portal meets the criteria, but would welcome any feedback and further improvements. Kusma (討論) 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone clearly biased, the only objection I can only find archives for two sections. Archives of the others (DYK, etc.) might be useful as well. I support it unless I am found to be less than objective and have to recuse myself. Badbilltucker 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The DYKs are currently archived on the talk page, but that's probably not such a good place, especially as there is no link from the main Portal page. I'll create a proper archive for this and the News section within the next 24 hours. The new articles are archived at Portal:Germany/New article announcements and its archive pages, but the link is not called "Archive" - should it be? Kusma (討論) 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added archive links for DYK and News. Kusma (討論) 20:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, now unqualified as opposed to earlier qualified support. Badbilltucker 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nicely done. -Gphoto 13:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this has been a great portal for a long while – I'm surprised it was brought here earlier. Admittedly, however, I'm not that supportive of new article sections on portals. Great work,--cj | talk 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the month have to appear in the box header? And isn't that an inconvienence to change all the time? Also isn't the DYK box for highlighting new articles? Why have both DYK and the new articles box? Joe I 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The month name appears there to show that it changes monthly. Do you have a better formulation that shows this? The header changes automagically using the {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} magic word, so it is no inconvenience at all. The DYK box is used to highlight new articles from which an interesting fact can be extracted (the current selection is completely composed of entries that were on Template:Did you know on the Main Page), while the new articles box is used to show all articles that have recently been created, not all of which are eligible for the Main page DYK (for example, they are unreferenced) or do not seem to contain a sufficiently interesting fact. Kusma (討論) 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough explanations although I disagree. Knowing how often the content is rotated wouldn't make a difference to me, if I knew what the month name meant. No solution, it's really no big deal. As for the DYK, this is Portal:Germany, not the main page why must you go by their criteria? Just having redundant boxes seems a waste, but really no biggie there either. The rest does look nice. :) Joe I 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support  :) Joe I 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Houston[edit]

The Houston Portal was created last month. I feel that the portal does meet the required criteria, so I thought I would give it a try. Even if not approved, the process of review by other editors will be beneficial. Thank you, Postoak 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not bad at all. A few things to be fixed, though:
    • The redlinks for the archives/candidate pages/etc. should be turned blue, even if the pages they point to don't have much content.
    • The "Categories" box should be labeled "Topics", as what's there aren't actually categories. A listing of categories should also be created, either separately or within the same box. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've updated the "Categories" box based on your recommendations. Also, I removed the candidate pages which seems to be the norm on most of the other portals. Postoak 03:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Postoak! Thanks to your efforts, the infobox has grown into an FPC overnight! WhisperToMe 04:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it looks great, and I think there's a nice collection of sub-articles as well, better than some other cities. However, I would like to work on the quality of some of the articles (e.g. History of Houston). I'm not that familiar with the criteria for featured portals (vs. criteria for featured articles), but it looks great to me. Thanks, Postoak and WhisperToMe. Ufwuct 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Everything looks good. -Gphoto 14:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems fine. Good work.--cj | talk 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Joe I 20:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Photography[edit]

I created this portal just a little while ago, but it seems to meet all the criteria for a Featured Portal. Everything that should be current is updated automatically. The portal is quite comprehensive, providing a list of all topics in photography. -Gphoto (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object as follows:
    • None of the rotating content sections have archives.
    • The thumbnail markup clashes with the background color; thumbnail images and captions need to be manually aligned instead.
    • The selected picture is way too big, preventing the portal from adjusting gracefully to lower resolutions.
    • There's no auto-rotation on the "Did you know" and "Quotes" sections, and no history of updates to them.
    • No listing of categories.
    • No listing of related portals.
    • The "Things you can do" box is unacceptably self-referential; almost everything listed there has to do with the portal itself, rather than the topic. Kirill Lokshin 22:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I think it is just a matter of slight modification. However I do not agree with DYK and quotes section, as I have seen a number of featured portals do not have them. The rotating content archive also can be found at Portal:Photography/LoST. I will fix some of these things. Cheers -- Imoeng 07:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have checked the possible related portals and found only one portal, which is pornography. So, I reckon one related portal is rather silly to be placed in this portal. About the categories, if you can see and search photography categories, all the contect is already there, in the "Photography Topics" box. Are you agree with me? Cheers -- Imoeng 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - hehehe. I have just put the category box, however, again, it is quite similar with the list of topics. Cheers -- Imoeng 07:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Things look rather nicer now, but you still need to figure out what you're going to do with the DYK and quotes; if they're going to be rotated, they need archives & some actual rotation.
As far as related portals are concerned, how about Arts, Visual arts, Film, etc.? Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the DYK is now auto-rotated, and related portals have been added. Now, auto-rotation for the quotes. Cheers -- Imoeng 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now the quotes are auto-rotated. As said, related portals have been added. -Gphoto 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They still need archive links; and the transclusion of the auto-rotated content should be done directly from the main portal page, rather than through a subpage, as otherwise the [edit] links on the portal don't actually point to the content displayed. Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now; support from me. Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything has been done. :D Oh can I support? Because I am involved in the improvement as well. Cheers -- Imoeng 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can support (with or without disclosure). Only nominators may not support, as their nominations are indicative of their position.--cj | talk 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Support from me. Cheers -- Imoeng 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really know the steps involved in this, but is the portal now featured? Any feedback would be appreciated! Thanks, -Gphoto 04:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Indonesia was nominated after two weeks. So you have to be a little patient. :D Cheers -- Imoeng 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow, that's a huge pic :) A list of subpages on the talk page would be nice. Joe I 09:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the WP:PHOTO (aka. WikiProject photo) shortcut on the portal? feydey 09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portal:Photography is long, so the shortcut is nice. If there is a portal shortcut, I would be happy to change the current shortcut over to it. -Gphoto 13:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps P:PHOTO like Portal:Tube changed to (P:TUBE). feydey 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Regards, Gphototalk 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to write support here some time ago, but just forgot. Well structured portal and no objections now. feydey 00:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Featured_log/November_2006&oldid=90332980"