Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:English law

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

The portal was promoted by Cirt 03:30, 11 February 2011 [1].

Portal:Law of England and Wales

Notified:
WP:WALES on 19 Oct. Renotified all three, plus UK Wikipedians' notice board
, on 2 Nov.

Peer review: here, with no outstanding issues (as far as I can see).

Statistics for the {{Random portal component with nominate}} sections: NB I have been adding further articles whilst this nomination has been running as new GAs have been written; the original totals are in brackets)

Selected article: 29 (was 20) articles (8 FAs, 3 FLs, 17 GAs; 1 B-class (Welsh law, included despite its lack of GA status because of its importance to the topic as a whole))
Selected biography: 12 (was 8) articles (3 FAs, 9 GAs)
Selected case: 11 (was 10) articles (1 FA, 10 GAs)
Selected legislation: 14 (was 10) articles (1 FA, 12 GAs)
Selected picture: 15 (1 is an FP)
Selected quotation - 19, all sourced
DYKs – 10 sets of 5, all from the DYK archives

In addition:

Three random images in the intro: the Houses of Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Supreme Court
News – bot-imported from Wikinews, as well as some manually added stories
The usual links to related portals / WikiProjects / other Wikimedia / relevant topics / relevant categories / "quality content"

Thoughts / comments / recommendations / praise welcome!

Bencherlite^Talk 11:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

~~Comment~~ Support I've never reviewed a portal before so I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for, but I wondered why the images in the first introductory box is not aligned at the top of the text? It seems to leave unnecessary white space at the end of that section on my screen. I visited several times and each time was presented with relevant, well written text and suitable images, however the differing sizes of these components (particularly the selected picture) changed the layout each time - I'm not sure if this can be overcome? It's not an area I know much about, therefore I found sections interesting, but means I can't comment on whether it is broad and comprehensive in coverage. Just one minor thought - would it be possible to indicate on the selected legislation whether it is still current - I saw this on some but not others. Also from my ignorant viewpoit could "extant" in the lead paragraph be wikilinked or explained?— Rod ^talk 17:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for dropping by, much appreciated. In no particular order:
  1. I've changed "extant" to "still in force" in the intro
  2. I've moved the introductory image to the top of the intro page to see how that works for people - it transcludes a random subpage image, rather than having a direct image placement as in a standard article, and on different browsers there are "issues" with unnecessary white space in various places as a result. For example, on my browser here at work running Internet Explorer, the top of the text is now one line below the top of the image (which I think was why I moved the image down originally); I'll check on my Firefox home computer later and see how it looks there.
  3. On the same topic, I've also reduced the captions for each of the three intro pictures to omit links to the buildings and just give links to the institutions they house.
  4. I've added a few words here and there in most of the "selected legislation" blurbs to clarify the current status of the statute.
  5. As for making the size of the components standard, I'm not sure that I can do much more with the blurbs, which I've tried to keep at a standard length - some take up slightly more space because of a picture, which I've included where possible, but the impact of that upon the page layout will depend on a user's brower settings (particularly width and font size). The "selected picture" size variations are mainly because some are in landscape and others in portrait format; if there's a way to set the layout parameter for the section in such a way that the box size is the same regardless, that would certainly be useful. However, I think that some minor variation in layout depending on the random choice of subpages is inevitable, and is to be found in most featured portals.
- Thanks once again.
  Bencherlite^Talk 18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Thanks - the top images works better for me (firefox on large screen etc). As far as the selected image goes Ken Clarke 2010.jpg, Royal-courts-of-justice.jpg etc are obviously much taller than UK Supreme Court badge.svg, Old Bailey Microcosm edited.jpg etc. Have you tried setting 200px or similar? For the portrait ones you could try the "|upright" parameter but I don't know if these work in portal set up pages. All your excellent systems for selecting random images, text etc has made me think about returning to Portal:Somerset which I set up years ago but have never really done anything with.— Rod ^talk 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Larger images resized to 200px; not a perfect match each time you hit "purge", but closer, I hope!
      Bencherlite^Talk 00:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Having found out a bit more about Portals in the last couple of days I keep coming back to this one and, with the changes which have been made can now support.— Rod ^talk 13:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you very much for your review and your support, Rod. I look forward to seeing
        Bencherlite^Talk 13:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Meets the basic criteria, has a full catalogue of content, and gets bonus points for having useful content. Not a huge fan of the colour scheme, but these days most of the good themes have been taken by other featured portals so I won't count that against this nomination. Excellent work, all in. Support.
AGK 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Support agree that the existing color scheme is sort of, well, bland, and wouldn't mind one with a bit sharper color contrast, but that's just a matter of personal opinion, and it seems to meet all the requirements quite well. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your supports. I've changed the colour to a darker one (a sort of dark lilac on my monitor) which I hope is less insipid...

Bencherlite^Talk 10:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: I am seeing three editors commenting in support, with no opposes. Without objection, will likely close and promote, after leaving it open a little while longer. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that this is still open, more than three months since nomination, more than seven weeks since the last comment, and more than one month since promotion was said to be likely after "a little while longer". What's the problem here?

Bencherlite^Talk 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) is free to promote. Otherwise, I will close as promoted in one week. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.