Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/July 2006: Difference between revisions

Portal:Hong Kong

previous FPOC 1

previous FPOC 2

Portal:Northern Ireland

This portal has been running now for some months, and the content is reasonably complete. Despite the small number of participants, the portal is reasonably well managed and updated, with more people contributing to it as time passes. Previous issues have been resolved, and the portal has become a useful tool in helping maintain and create articles relating to the subject matter. --Mal 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object:
  • Archives should be created for all sections that rotate content.
  • A box giving an overview of major topics should be created.
  • Redlinks should be removed from the "Lists" box; it may be worthwhile to merge this into the topic box as well.
  • The "Northern Ireland on Wikipedia" box is self-referential in a rather tacky sort of way; I would suggest removing it entirely.
  • Most importantly, I fail to see any evidence that the content is being rotated to any significant degree. Kirill Lokshin 04:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for your analysis Kirill. I'd like to address your points one-by-one if I may.

• • Archives should be created for all sections that rotate content.

I have now done this.

• • A box giving an overview of major topics should be created.

This was already done, but wasn't included in the Portal. I had used other portals as a guide - specifically those portals relating to the British Isles in order to maintain some level of consistency between these portals. I have now added the topics template to the portal though.

• • Redlinks should be removed from the "Lists" box; it may be worthwhile to merge this into the topic box as well.

There was only one redlink. This was a pending task due to the CfD/AfD of the 3rd of April this year. That redlink is now fixed.

• • The "Northern Ireland on Wikipedia" box is self-referential in a rather tacky sort of way; I would suggest removing it entirely.

I took this idea directly from the Scottish Portal. I thought it was interesting and could possibly be added to. However, the fact that it is self-referring is a good point. I'd like to see other opinions on this.

• • Most importantly, I fail to see any evidence that the content is being rotated to any significant degree.

Besides the point about the 'Northern Ireland on Wiki' box, this remains your only outstanding issue regarding the portal. I'd like to say a few words about that below.

Northern Ireland is a small region, but not one without a lot of history and potential (and already existing) articles. The Wikipedia only has a small number of contributors in comparison to other themes/regions/topics. The Northern Ireland Portal has only a small percentage of that number. While other users have contributed to it, and articles have benefitted from it and from the

Northern Irish articles Project

), I have been almost solely responsible for the maintainence of the Portal.

This is an almost stupendous task, considering the number of articles and the scope of the portal. And yet this portal seems better maintained, aesthetically pleasing and useful than many other portals.

My recent addition of voting pages and archive pages (taken from the London Portal, and prompted by your own suggestion) should hopefully make it easier to have consistant rotation of material. However, I have decided that the rotation period should be increased from monthly to quarterly, considering the (current) low level of input to the portal.

Hopefully you will reconsider your last point given this explaination of the background of the Portal to date, and that you will also reconsider your objection to making this portal a featured portal, given that other, successful, featured portals appear to be of similar standards. --Mal 20:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the

featured portal criteria

: "Any featured portal that requires maintenance and that is not updated for three or more months will be summarily demoted." In my opinion, a portal that cannot effect a change in content any more often than once every three months does not represent Wikipedia's best work, and really shouldn't be featured.

I fail to see, incidentally, why the low level of outside input should be a concern; there's absolutely nothing wrong with just picking the selected articles by fiat. Is it that difficult to find twelve decent articles related to Northern Ireland to use for a rudimentary content rotation? Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the featured portal criteria should probably be guidelines more than anything. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then surely it is a duck.

The reason that I think the rotated featured articles cannot be updated any more than once every quarter is because I am the only user who has rotated any content, and I am not always 'active' in Wikipedia for extended periods.

You mention "twelve decent articles". Do you mean that the same twelve should, or could (within the context of featured status), be repeated every year? --Mal 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes. At the very least, it would give you a year to find more people to help with the updates ;-) ::I would suggest queueing up a few months worth of articles at a one-a-month rate (using subpages); you can consider the issue again once those run out. Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly pledge more time to concentrate on NI specific issues, and I see no problem at all in rotating the content every month. A list of articles on the talk page would mean that even if the article chosen every month is not done by vote, people can raise objections to any of the articles at any time, and add their own candidates. Thus, people who only drop by once every so often can still have their say.

I would suggest having a trawl through articles on NI and finding some contributors; there are quite a lot of people who contribute regularly to NI based articles, but who don't seem to be involved in either the NI notice board, or the portal. Dropping them a line on their talk page might be a good idea. This is something I can help with (if anyone else thinks it's the way to go). Martin 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title is almost unreadable against the header color.--ragesoss 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
  • The colors are alittle hard, but I guess that's northern Ireland's colors, green and red, right?
  • I agree, the Northern Ireland on Wikipedia part is to self-refferential.
  • And there doesn't seem to be alot of content available, or accessable. "Potential", yes. But if you can make a tighter update schedule, then it should be ok. Joe I 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Architecture

I believe this Portal meets the criteria to be a FP:--Mcginnly 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object:
  • The "Did you know" and "News" sections need archives; both could use more frequent updates.
  • The "Selected picture" section should include an image credit directly in the text.
  • The "Things to do" and "WikiProjects" sections seem to both be listing open tasks; they should be merged.
  • A box giving an overview of major topics should be created; the current "Articles" box is rather deficient in its breadth.
  • The "Selected anniversaries" section is utterly bizarre; the dates listed don't seem to be tied to any particular day. Either make this work like selected anniversaries section elsewhere in Wikipedia or remove it entirely. Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Joe I 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave subheadings out of "Selected article"
  • Intro abit to long
  • Maybe the featured pictures box(the big one) shouldn't be there, just link in the current featured pic.

Portal:Free software

Nomination - I really like what they've done and the organisational features they've chosen. --bdude Talk 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong object, for a number of different reasons:
  1. The "Featured article" isn't actually one; the section is also irregularly updated.
  2. The "Did you know" section hasn't been updated since December, and lacks an archive.
  3. There should be another changing content section; given the topic, a "News" section might be doable.
  4. There are too many to-do boxes; combine them all into a single box.
  5. The "Legal and legislative" section contains a number of NPOV violations in the way it uses redirects.
  6. The various lists of topics need to be better organized; nesting them in a single outer box (or collapsing them to a single box entirely) might help.

In short, this needs massive work before it could be featured. Kirill Lokshin 05:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderate support (Note: I'm the main contributor to the portal) I think this portal has some innovative features, is well maintained, and is fairly clear. I think it will be a featured portal one day, and it doesn't bother me whether this happens at this nomination or a subsequent one, but I will respond to Kirill's comments (and I hope Kirill won't mind me adding numbers to the points so that the corresponding responses are clearer).

1. Of course the "Featured article" is not a "Wikipedia featured article", and it doesn't claim to be, and it couldn't be (because there would only be 7 to choose from). There is a seperate box listing "wikipedia featured articles", and the portal's "featured articles" box has been updated 15 times in 20 weeks.
2. Yes, the "Did you know" box was a failure and has now been removed. I don't like deleting contributions of others, but the person who added it never maintained it.
3. This portal is not a news site, so I don't see the value in adding a "changing content" news section - and I do see the cost in maintaining it. (If someone else wants to add an maintain one, I have no objection, but no one else has done so - maybe others agree.)
4. There were three to-do style boxes, and I've now merged two into one. Merging the remaining two would not make sense (one is a long list of needy article titles, the other is a short list of suggested tasks).
5. For the "Legislative and legal" box, I have now added the names which proponents of those technologies use
6. Better organise the lists of topics? Each is organised into a box, which seems fine. I do think the "Categories" box needs a rethink - it was made before an explosion of free software realated categories. Maybe there's a good way to organise the lists, I'll give it a think, but the current organisation is also good.

Gronky 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments (using your convenient numbering system):

1. Then it can't be called a "Featured" article, period; this is why most portals have switched to using the term "Selected article" for such things.

3. The news section was just an idea; as it is now, only one of the boxes has any changing content on a regular basis. Whether this is a problem is, of course, open to debate. (Another interesting idea would be doing a "Selected biography" box; I think there are enough related bio articles to make it possible.)

4. Maybe move them to the bottom, then? The task list seems a bit too prominently placed.

6. It's a bit confusing, particularly where there is overalp between the boxes; there are multiple links to various articles and categories in some cases. My suggestion would be to have a larger topic box with subsections, like Portal:London has.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. ok, changed.

3. I'll keep the idea of another "changing content" section in mind. A selected biography doesn't really grab me for various reasons (Most bio articles are short and low quality, chosing them is boringly over-controversial, etc.).

4. The prominent placing of the task list is very much intentional. I was hoping the two column design could divide "for learning" and "for contributing", and the task list is to be an introduction to the "for contributing". Now that I (have to) explain that, I guess I should make that clearer - probably by mentioning the other boxes in the task list box.

6. I'll look into this.

Gronky 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Yeah, it's not all that obvious, particularly as the right-hand side also has some of the topic lists ;-) This is an issue that might be cleared up if you do rearrange the various lists of topics, though, so it's not too much of a concern.

The portal is still missing some things to be featured at this point, in my opinion; but it has definitely been improving since the nomination started. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak object - I'm being extremely pinnickity but I can't help feeling that the ergonomics and aesthetics of the page could be improved slightly... there's an awful lot of material and it's quite overpowering. Perhaps consider more liberal use of simple formatting tricks and maybe a different colour scheme. Portal:London and Portal:Australia are quite good examples. DJR (Talk) 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, perhaps consider piping the category links. It's understood that they're categories - we don't need to see the "Category:" namespace. It is improving though... DJR (Talk) 19:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - lots of good work has been done which is very nice to see. I'd like to see the "Category" box come above "Task list" - I feel portals should be slightly more reader-orientated than editor-orientated. Other than that, it looks pretty good. DJR (Talk) 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Support - This portal is somewhat well maintained (my primary reason for being so weak), has a good layout, and is a good resource for those interested in the topic. ~
  P/S/T/Z 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Support, lots of content and nice layout, but not quite 'complete' yet. --
  l ^T 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Object because the portal:

1. Uses copyright images
2. Is self-referential
3. Has red links external to contributer sections
4. Is ergonomically unsound
5. Contains formatting faults (thumbnails, section headings)
6. Is presumably dependent on a sole maintainer.--
   talk 10:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

The portal has received a lot of useful criticism during this nomination, and I've acted on most, but you haven't given enough information for a constructive reaction. Please be helpful.

1. It uses logos, which are fair use, see Wikipedia policy

2. Self-referential? Are you refering to the task in the task list asking people to add the "portal free software" tag to free software articles? There is nothing wrong with that, it's a navigation aid. If someone arrives on a free software article, they might want to know what other info Wikipedia has on the topic, so the portal tag allows them to "come in via the free software door". It's not a secret portal.

3. There is one red link, and it's in the "Selected article" box. One goal of that box is to encourage people to contribute to the selected article. The purpose of red links is to show people which topics have not been written about yet. That's how wikipedia works.

4. Please describe.

5. Please describe - or better yet, fix one and let us learn from your example.

6. It has a primary maintainer, but I don't think the portal is dependent on me. The problem with a sole maintainer is that they may lose interest, but my track record proves that this theoretical problem does not exist in real life.

Gronky 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the pithyness of my initial comment; I was testing the waters to see what level of attention this nomination was recieving, given I had noticed the nominator has not since returned. My objection was legitimate, however. I'll elaborate on my points now.

1. Yes, logos are
   that policy
   has thus far prohibited fair use images on portals. It is an unacceptable state of affairs, but it is the present situation.
2. No, I was referring to the few sentences in Operating systems and Free software licenses as well as to the Wikipedia featured articles.
   WP:ASR
   applies to all sections except the ones you mention – the "contribution-encouraging aspects".
3. When I last viewed the portal, there were three red links external to the contributer sections, which is precisely what the "contribution-encouraging aspects" of a portal are. The criteria limits red links to those sections because the function of a portal is to display and provide access to as much good content as it can. Red links merely detract from that purpose. In any event, the red links are now gone. Please ensure they don't return.
4. This I've largely fixed this myself. Referring back to the criteria, "the display of Wikipedia content should be a featured portals foremost aim, and encouraging contribution secondary." Thus, Task List was incorrectly positioned. There are other issues with regards to construction, but these are more relevant to my next point.
5. Thumbnails should not be used on portal because they conflict with overlapping backgrounds. I've reformatted the image in Selected article as an example of correct usage. The images should be kept to a maximum of 100px. The Categories, Articles needing contributers/Contribute and even Task List/Things you can do sections are not user-friendly or attractive. These should be reformatted similarly to those on other featured portals.
6. Even still, what could hurt it to make the future certain by converting to the auto-rotate system. Consider this point aside my objection.
7. This is a new point. I don't quite get the point of Terminology when all that it discusses should be done in the Introduction. Moreover, Legal and legislative and Free software licenses are directly related, but superficially split. Operating systems could be made into a topic list.

The portal is getting better, but I don't think it is yet comparable to existing featured portals. Therefore, my objection stands.--

talk 07:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - I should also add that Portal:London is pretty much solely maintained by myself, and that didn't stop it being one of the first two featured portals... DJR (Talk) 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference there was that there was an accompanying infrastructure that appeared as though it would provide continuous updates. I refer to the suggestions/vote subpages and WikiProject London.--

talk 07:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]