Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/July 2007

Hello. I was quite surprised that this portal hadn't been created, so I went ahead and did so. I've tirelessly improved the portal, and I would like to gain everyone else's opinion. The portal sat over at the Portal Review page, but to my dismay, nobody commented on it. So, I thought an FPC nom would gain more effective comments on the improvement on the portal.

I've checked the requirements, and I think it is covered. This portal is rather new, so please comment on anything that could be improved; whether it be content or color, any pointers on the portal's improvement would be much appreciated.

Thank you all for talking the time time to discuss this portal. *Cremepuff222* 01:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now - The page looks all over the place. On my screen, all the pictures are all over the place & blot out parts of the sections. The sections themselves are all over the place, with the quotes before the selected picture, the to do section below most of the other sections & so on etc. Also, I don't see any way of continually updating the portal's sections, such as randomisation or queued articles etc. For the subject matter, I doubt there will be many articles or selections so that an interesting & continually updated selection could be upkept. So for now, oppose. Spawn Man 02:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Er..., what internet browser do you use? It looks fine for me on both Firefox and IE... Thanks for the comments, though. *Cremepuff222* 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Internet Explorer, but I've done everything I can in my window mode & the images still blank out parts of the boxes still. I don't think it's a browser problem, but rather a lay out problem. Maybe you should get rid of the captions below some of the pictures by not making them "frames". Spawn Man 06:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now - Per Spawn Man. The portal does look all over the place, and I'm using FireFox. There are too many blank spaces, and the alignment is not unified (one of the main reasons that it "looks all over the place"). Also, a featured portal should always have a clear system that encourages participation, and by this I mean the inclusion of links such as "Archive", "Nominate" beside the Selected Article and et cetera). Aquarius • talk 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps the issue is the screen resolution, because the pages look absolutely fine to me. As for the links, if you click on the box headings, you'll be brought to the "archives". Perhaps a more noticeable link is needed... Well anyway, thanks. *Cremepuff222* 20:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I really wish someone would reply to my comments! *Cremepuff222* 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay... Spawn Man 12:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahaha, good one... :) I meant the ones up there. *Cremepuff222* 17:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. It's a nice portal. I think you have a good start but there are still a couple of things that can be improved. I'll change my vote to "support" once you have addressed them. Here they are:

1. Archive - it needs some kind of archive easily accessible to readers. I know this portal already has Portal:Origami/Selected article and Portal:Origami/Selected picture that can be further developed into a proper archive system. See examples at Portal:Visual arts/Selected article or Portal:Cricket/Featured article
2. Participation of the readers - maybe nomination of articles? Is the nomination page combined with the archive or are they separate? See examples at Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America/Selected article candidates and Portal:Fish/Nominations
3. "Related topics". A featured portal should have a reasonable scope of coverage of wikipedia articles. See "Topics related to India" at Portal:India or "Major topics" at Portal:Visual arts.
4. Overall design. Should be attractive and somehow related to the topic. See Portal:Visual arts and Portal:Food.
5. Overall content. For some reason I feel that the origami portal in its current form doesn't really have much information to offer. Maybe it should either add more sections or expand some of the current sections or do both. See how extensive Portal:Food or Portal:London are.

So that's all the suggestions I can think of. Good luck! --Melanochromis 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a very nice rationale, thank you! This should make my job much easier... Thanks! *Cremepuff222* 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I find it a bit lack of information, especially if it changes only once a month. You should try using random portal component template. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submitted. I feel that most of the previous comments were addressed. However, there were no final voting issued as the page received few attention. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Peer review
• Past featured bid

Comments Just a few things:

• Intro - seems to be alittle to much space below the image on the left. "China" should be linked in the first sentence.

Shortened.

I meant beneath the map of china, upper left. Joe I 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles - article name should be linked in the first sentence. All article images should be the same size. A new article should appear each month(March and April are the same).

All fixed (including previous archives).

• Pics - There should be atleast one or two links in pic descriptions. The credit should appear directly after the pic, before the description. A new pic should appear each month(March and April are the same).

All fixed (including previous archives).

• On this day - seeing as how unpopulated this is, maybe you should condense it to a weekly or monthly thing.

The anniversaries is full with potential, and I have made the content for the next 30 days available.

• News - I have a problem having a news box without actual news in it.

It bothers me too. Some want an inclusion, some wants it completely out. Do you support the latter?

Seeing as how it's country specific news, leaving it out wouldn't be a bad thing. Joe I 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The selection of articles and pics is concerning. A short history along with double duty for March and April. I don't think this should be promoted until a significant amount of future selections are chosen. Joe I 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a blank period at March, and I duplicated it, which I shouldn't have done so I admit my fault. I have now fixed it.

The rest of the history are legitimate, and it goes back to June 2006, you probably missed the archive for the previous year (hence the mention of "short history"). I have made an attempt to make the archive links more clear.

Thanks for the comments, looking forward to more! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. Joe I 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The portal looks very nice. I am sure, though, that more Anniversaries can be found, and would prefer to see a little more bluelinks for future anniversaries (say, try to do at least a week in advance for the next month, and see whether you can keep that up). I realize that this is a ton of work (I wrote all of Portal:Germany/Anniversaries), but I don't think a portal that looks likely to contain redlinked content soon should be Featured. Another objetcion is the lack of updates to Portal:China/Did you know — I am sure that decent candidates can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject China/New articles that do not give the impression that Wikipedia's newest China-related articles are 3 months old. Kusma (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and is there a reason for the absence of a zh-min-nan: and a cdo: link in the Wikipedias section? Kusma (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now completed all anniversaries for the rest of April and the entire month of May. I also archived the current DYK listings and introduced ten new qualified ones. The absence of these two Chinese language Wikipedia is now fixed. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks pretty good; the DYK currently violates its own rules ("no more than 5"), though. Perhaps you can vary the DYK length to balance the two columns. I think the portal meets the criteria now if you continue to update the DYK and Anniversary sections as not to fail the "well-maintained" criterion. Support. Kusma (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good enough for mine, Perhaps a few more pictures though? Dfrg.msc 00:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Meets all of the criteria in my estimation.--Danaman5 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Danaman5. Cliff smith 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was hoping someone else would have pick this up by now, but apparently not. This portal will not be promoted so long as it has red-linked content sections. So, oppose.--cj | talk 03:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fill in all the July anniversaries section by next week. Two months delay last nom, another two months this nom, I've lost motivation. Aquarius • talk 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay, but with respect, even two months ago there were red links on this portal.--cj | talk 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]