Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/January 2008

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured portal candidate that was not promoted. Please do not modify it.

Nominator withdrew nomination - See bottom. Rt. 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Tasmania

[edit]

Myself, DarkFalls, Daniel and Riana have been working on this portal for the past few days, working hard to bring it up to featured criteria standards. We believe that it does now meet the the criteria appropriately. The portal is well-maintained, its News section is regularly updated and all the Selected content is of a high standard. I put forward Portal:Tasmania for consideration. All suggestions are welcome :) Spebi 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Articles: In this selected article, Bernard Comrie, Stephen Matthews, and Maria Polinsky. The Atlas of Languages. New York: Facts on File. Page 116. should be removed.
  • Pictures: A couple more selected pictures would be good.
  • Portals:
  • I like the template!
  • Comment: The claim of the news section being "regularly updated" is a little premature. The news section has only been active for a few days at best. I feel a Portal requires a history of being useful and well maintained before being considered for Featured Status, not just because it looks nice, which it does. Let's hope this team of Portal builders can keep the new Australian Portals at a standard which is beyond the efforts of the past. Will support in a month or two if the trend continues. -- Longhair\talk 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree with Longhair. The portal doesn't yet have a long enough history and so the claim that it is well maintained is a little premature. I'm becoming rather dismayed by this rather rapid succession of Australian portals being put up here at FPOC, don't get me wrong, they are very good, but at the moment it feels like they are being nominated, promoted and then left, Bulgaria for example. I'll support next time it comes around, when it looks like it has been given due care and attention. Rt. 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Thanks, Spebi, for quick response to my suggestions! Oh, and you might want to remove the portal from the Portals under construction category. Cheers, [sd] 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Spebi 03:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. Did this portal go through WP:PPREV, or come straight to WP:FPORTC ?
  2. Could use more "Did you know" entries.
  3. Missing: Related portals section.
  4. Are the In the news entries sourced to something, or is this all WP:OR on the part of the portal maintainers?
     Done --DarkFalls talk 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but how is this one "done" ? Still looks like it's all unsourced WP:OR to me... Cirt (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Not everything that isn't immediately sourced is original research. The news article that backs up the claims made in the News section is sourced, although to see the source the page must be viewed directly at Portal:Tasmania/News. Spebi 07:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out, didn't notice the info in the <noinclude></noinclude. This one's  Done for me. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Missing: Could use a Selected biography section, though not required.

Cirt (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Nomination withdrawed. We've come to an agreement that this portal needs more work than we thought it did initially, so withdrawing is the best option. Thanks for your comments, I'll be sure to implement them soon. Spebi 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured portal candidate that was not promoted. Please do not modify it.

Nominator withdrew nomination - See bottom. Rt. 11:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Catholicism

[edit]

Self-nomination To be honest, I'm more interested to gain feedback on the portal than to have a star on the right top corner. I do maintain the portal by myself. So I searched for improvements by looking at other portals, but there was a point, when this did not help any more. Peer review was without an answer. --Thw1309 (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you tell me, how your statement about randomization complies with Wikipedia:Portal guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject portal dynamics, because there, they advocate or even order the system, I used.
I replaced the images (although I have problems to believe, that the use of an image within an article is fair use, but the use within a copy of a part of the article should be no fair use).--Thw1309 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one small problem: It has been in peer review, but without any comment.--Thw1309 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the DYK are ok now.--Thw1309 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding peer review...
Thw1309 stated in the self-nomination: Peer review was without an answer.
OhanaUnited then stated: If you want to receive feedback, you should try portal peer review first before submitting a nomination.
Cirt then followed up with: I agree that a portal peer review might be a good idea on this one first.
He did try a peer review... it was in the opening statement. It can be found here. There was no response! --Bob (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, that's odd. How long was the Peer Review up for? Was a notice posted to relevant WikiProjects and talk pages of main articles associated with the Portal's subject? Another one wouldn't hurt. Cirt (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There was a notice on the talkpage and one on the talkpage of WikiProject Catholicism. I wanted to have a reaction. You will not get any reaction if you do not beat the drums. If you look at Wikipedia:Portal peer review, you will see, there are two portals, both added since October, without any comment. If you look at the archives, you will discover, that a portal is peer reviewed within six days or not at all. It is absolutely usual for portals not to be peer reviewed at all. Perhaps someone could take a look at Wikipedia:Portal peer review. There are two portals (and their editors, who were looking for help) waiting for about two months now. Perhaps one of the experts here could review them (after having reviewed this one). It's about the same with the other peer review pages or even nomination pages. If your article or portal has a popular theme, then it will be reviewed very fast If it has no popular theme, you can wait for hell to freeze. --Thw1309 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments:
    • Please see Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. Selected picture -- Images should have captions detailed enough for viewers to understand the context.
    • Please see Portal:Sustainable development, and expand the Things you can do section. An image to the left in that section would be nice as well.
    • The Patron of section is a bit too long.
    • The Did you know section would look better if actually modeled after WP:DYK. So a particular article could be referenced and bolded within each hook. Some of the hooks in the Portal:Catholicism/DYK Archive are way too long, overuse of commas, read like run-on sentences, and all of them are unsourced. I'd suggest using <noinclude></noinclude>, to add sources that back up each hook, on each hook's subpage.

Cirt (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's what I was looking for. I have changed the actual picture and reorganized the DYK and the to do section. Are they ok now? The DYK now are organized like these of the main page (some even copied from there.) --Thw1309 (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know
I guess I'm looking at the Monday hooks:
  • No need for quotes around the hooks.
  • The last hook says pictured, but there is no picture, so this should be removed.
  • (The silver key the power to bind and loose on Earth, and the gold key the power to bind and loose in Heaven, referring to Jesus's definition of Petrine authority) -- Again, see examples at WP:DYK / T:DYK. This is not common practice to have long explanations after hooks. If that is needed, the hook was not phrased right or is too brief or too long.
Selected Picture
None of the selected pictures have captions attributing them to their authors. This is a requirement.
Things you can do
Whether or not the members of the WikiProject itself agree with it, it does not seem appropriate to have "Pray" in the "Things you can do" section. This is purely supposed to be ways to focus on improving relevant articles to the Portal/WikiProject.
External Resources
I don't think it is common practice to link off to an external site within a Portal. On an individual article, sure, in the WP:EL section, but not sure if this is appropriate for a portal. Would like to hear more thoughts from other Reviewers on this one.
Patron of...

I still think the text in this section is way too long aesthetically, but that's just my take on it. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Did you know
I removed the explanations and the "pictured"
Things you can do
You don't know the value of a prayer (or a five minutes break) before you interact with a brazen editor, but you are right, so I removed it.
Selected Picture
You are right, this was a big mistake. Now the authors are all there.
External Resources
I stole this from Portal:Saints, but reduced the number of links to one. For me, the task of a portal is to give a central overlook about the articles about a theme. The need for external links generally shows a drawback of Wikipedia, which is not able to provide these informations itself. Therefore, generally I would not use an external link. In relation to catholicism there is one example. If you look at this link, you will see, that the homepage of the holy see gives a unique overview of all catholic topics. The portal would not provide total information about the topic, if this source of information would not be mentioned.

Thanks for your advice.--Thw1309 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank everyone, but especially Cirt, who makes a tremendous job here, for their advice and help. Now that I got the advices, I was looking for, could anyone tell me, how to get out of here? Thank you very much and happy editing. --Thw1309 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is really a nice portal. There are some inputs to improve the portal before being featured. Archiving of Patron is not the good way. It would be better if it can be archived on the monthly basis. The patron section should be a bit shortened, in my opinion. The news should be in the reverse order. The latest news should be on the top. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 10:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrib articles are already getting shorter, but the system of patrons archive has a good reason. Every day, the saint, whose feastday is shown by one of the Catholic calenders of saints, is displayed. There are no saints of months, so I have to keep the current system. News will be corrected immediately. --Thw1309 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was a misunderstanding. The patrons archive is divided in 12 months now. I have a problem with the length of the patron article. I do not want to produce a large gasp. So I have to balance the length of the articles of the days. My special problem are long prayers and "Peter and Paul", the double feastday of the two apostles. The longer the articles are, the better for me to adjust.--Thw1309 (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be better if you link the monthly archived page on the portal main page, e.g. Portal:Catholicism/Patron Archive can be replaceed by Portal:Catholicism/Patron Archive/December for the month of December. You may use {{CURRENTMONTH}}. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were right with your original idea. An archive of 365 Saints was to difficult to work with and especially to find something. To link the section to one month only, would complicate the search for the patron of a special day too. Thanks for your great help.--Thw1309 (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not get you. What does it mean, To link the section to one month only, would complicate the search for the patron of a special day too.? To link the current month archive page will redirect the user to the contents page. For example, you can have a look on Main page. Please let me know, if my rambling is not clear. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 12:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand. I did not think this to be possible. The only thing, my limited mind could imagine, was a direct link to each month, which would have made it difficult to look at the patrons of the other months. This is so great. I want this, but it will take some time to understand and to copy it. Thanks a lot.--Thw1309 (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time. If something is needed, then please let me know. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 10:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant job. Now I support the portal to be featured. Shyam (T/C) 09:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Great work! A few comments —
  • There are large gaps between The Catholicism Portal and Catholicism is the entirety of the beliefs and practices and also shall decide to inflict." and [Extract of English translation.
  • [Extract of English translation starts with a [ but ends with Retrieved Jan 5, 2007. ) (should be changed to trieved Jan 5, 2007.]).
  • I would suggest not italicizing Edit by [sd], 12:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC) centering the text for each selected picture and deleting the spaces before Attributes in the patrons box.[reply]
  • In the patrons box, Archive → More patrons..., for uniformity.
  • Did you know... needs to be centered.
  • The title Related portals should go below the image.
  • Catholic quote → Selected quote
  • Archive | Suggest a quote?... → Suggest • More quotes...
  • External Resources → External resources
  • Patrons for January, etc. need to be created. Cheers, [sd] 23:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your suggestions are already realized.
  • I know that there are still patrons articles to be created. Please keep in mind, there are 365 days. Sometimes it's a problem to find a saint with more than "martyr, third century, Italy, exact vita unknown". Therefore, I create them one by one, searching through all available calendars of saints. This will be finished about May, 2008. I'm sorry about this, but I do not have the time, to create them all by one.
  • You are right, "more patrons" would be good for uniformity, but you should recall the title of the section: "Patron of (date)". Usually, there are more than one patron of a day (usually the kind of vita unknown). The saints of the archive are patrons of other days. Therefore "more patrons" could lead to wrong assumptions.
  • Did you know is the title of the DYK section, but it is also the beginning of the question, with the different endings in the section. So I wanted to have a connection between these parts of the question.
  • What does "italicazing" mean? English is not my native language and even the experts on the translation webpages do not offer a translation or battle about the translation. Thanks for your detailed revision and qualified comments.--Thw1309 (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to be sorry. The only guys, who should be sorry, are those of the translation websites. One of the offered translations had the same meaning as "highlighting". It's already corrected. Thanks and happy editing. --Thw1309 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawed. Thanks to the efforts of the editors above, the portal was improved significantly. Thanks to everyone. I reached the goal of this nomination, so I can withdraw it now. Thanks again and happy editing. --Thw1309 09:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.