The portal was not promoted by Cirt 07:13, 27 May 2009 [1].
I'm nominating this portal for Featured Portal status because... well... I think it meets the criteria. :) It's relatively new, but I've been putting some work into it and will be willing to do whatever I can to help make it Featured. There are a few things which I would like to mention before they come up here:
(also, for some reason the Featured Portal Candidates preload didn't come up properly when I created this page from the {{FPOC}} template; my apologies if there is any incorrect formatting, and feel free to correct it). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good way to get comments going on this page is to leave a neutrally worded notice at the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects informing them of the ongoing discussion. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try these:
You could leave messages at the talk pages of all those. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have the above WikiProject talk pages been notified, in addition to the others suggested by BOZ (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could there be a little "trophy case" (prime articles) section with FA/A/GA articles listed? Just an idea. Or maybe a little box with all of the top-importance articles (like Dungeons & Dragons itself, and Gary Gygax, TSR, etc.). Thoughts? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 16:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images at Portal:Dungeons & Dragons/Selected picture are missing proper credits. See Portal:Sustainable development/Selected picture for a good model of how to go about addressing this. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The portal was not promoted by Cirt 11:45, 4 May 2009 [2].
This portal covers an important topic (The Beatles is consistently one of the most-read articles on Wikipedia), and is reasonably broad in its scope, containing information on Beatles' songs and albums, as well as all related personnel. Opinion on the design is split - in the peer review it was suggested that it be changed, but an off-site discussion last night sugegsted that all it needed was a change in border colour (which has been done, along with a change in the background colour of the boxes). I believe the layout is attractive, ergonomic and useful - it is not dissimilar to that of the main page. Much of the portal is randomised, so little maintenance is needed besides the updating of the collaboration per month and a change in DYKs every now and then (I'm working on randomising that too)Addendum: DYKs now randomised - the number of DYKs will increase over time. I have checked it against much of the manual of style, as have reviewers, and found no significant issues. Images are included wherever a free one is available, and all are credited to their uploader, and to a source if it was not the uploader's own work. The portal is not self-referential, except in the welcome note, collaboration section and links to sister projects/portals. as well as a link to the relevant WikiProject - again, engouraging collaboration. Therefore, I believe this portal meets all the featured portal criteria and should be promoted. Dendodge TalkContribs 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This portal is still up at WP:PPREV, with unaddressed issues there. One of these two discussions needs to be closed before this can continue. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jh12 (talk) (addressed) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
--Jh12 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from Spiby (talk · contribs) (addressed) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think portals should have high quality articles, per criteria 1a. So oppose for now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates on this? Cirt (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]