Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/February 2008

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 16:09, 4 February 2008.

Self-nomination. See archived peer review. Stats: (28) Selected articles, all of WP:FA quality, (20) Selected biographies, all of WP:FA or WP:GA quality, (20) Selected pictures, all are free-use images, (20) Selected quotes, all with free-use images and links to notable individuals with articles on Wikipedia, (44) Did you know entries, showing 5 at a time. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. The News section updates automatically from Wikinews, using User:Wikinews Importer Bot. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Support: As some who has also worked on this and a member of the Comedy WikiProject, I believe that this portal covers all the FP criteria and is of a high enough standard to become featured. ISD (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Definitely featured status. [sd] 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It is really an amazing portal. There are couple of small concerns, can't it have listing of Requested articles in Things you can do? Secondly, isn't it better way to use category, rather search option for Wikinews in Associated wikimedia? - Shyam ^(T/C) 13:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points. And - done and done. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Better than some featured ones. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful by Rudget (talk · contribs) at 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) - All points corrected, 3 supports, over 2 weeks, no opposes.[reply]

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

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 19:18, 4 February 2008.

Previous portal nomination

I have recently repaired this portal using the box skeleton. The news/photo section are regularly updated. I personally think that it is quite situable for nomination at the moment. Coloane (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The nominator, Coloane, has left Wikipedia (see his userpage) so anyone who wish to improve this portal can start right away. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I request that other featured portal co-directors to allow me to be the person to close this nomination (after I reviewed it and gave enough time for improvement) since I grew up in Hong Kong for 12 years so I can vertify if the information, articles, DYKs, categories, and pictures are chosen wisely. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC):But what is your concrete reason for closing this nomination?? To live or grow up in HK for 12 years so that you can verify certain info seems not a rational reason. Coloane (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I respect OhanaUnited (talk · contribs)'s request and respect Ohana's judgment in any regard, I just want to point out that the decision to close/archive/promote/fail a nom is not based on the desire of the closing editor to verify anything individually, but on the capability of that editor to read the discussion and determine whether or not consensus has been reached to promote or fail. (I suppose, unless there is something glaringly wrong like usage of fair-use images instead of free-images, obvious copyvio images or something like that.) Cirt (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The fact that Ohana has a bit more POV than the rest of the "closing cabal" here is a reason for him to review, not to close, this nomination. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion aside, I don't think it's particularly fair to the nominator for the first comments here to be "debating" about who closes the nomination. It's also unfair that at least two of you have completely ignored Coloane who is, probably understandably, confused about what on earth "closing" is in this sense. Let's not forget that we all started somewhere, hey? Seaserpent⁸⁵ 11:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind what I said. Here's my comments.

• Use Image:Hong Kong Location.png instead of Image:LocationHongKong.png for better illustration.  Done
• January's selected picture could have been something better. Yuen Long McDonald's have no importance other than the fact that it was a Wikimedia HK meeting location in August 2007.  Done
• In the archived selected articles in 2006, August article contains fair-use image. Same applies to February 2007.  Not done
• This month's selected article could use a better image because the article is about Happy Valley Racecourse, not the fire that broke out in there.  Not done
• The portal needs selected biography, as there are many Chinese celebrity articles in english wikipedia.  Done
• In archived selected picture in December 2006, author name is not given.  Not done

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the image of HK location. Since I am not a Hongkonger, I don't know actually which picture or HK celebrity is more important than others. Would you please choose and fix them for me?? Coloane (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I switched it to Joey Yung. Now you need to work on selected biographies. I understand that most biographies are very short or doesn't have images, but I can accept that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just randomly picked up one guy, copied and pasted it over the category of "selected biography". If you want to change, please go ahead. Thanks! :) Coloane (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There should be a "read more" on selected article and selected bio so that others can read the full article instead of the summary. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please check! Coloane (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• News section does not qualify mentioning days in brackets, as they are not frequent enough. If all of them come from the same week, then it is good way to mention days as well. Kindly also create an archive link.
• No need to use bold for (pictured) in DYK section.
• Avoid red links in the portal except requested articles, e.g. Yuet Keung Kan in selected biography. Archive link is also empty in the section.
• Kindly mention some requested articles, needing expansion articles in the Tasks you can do section.

--- Shyam ^(T/C) 06:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited, please address these above comments as I have no idea how to properly approach. Coloane (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check and complete the items that I tagged with "not done" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not lazy but I really don't know how to do it. Can you give me a hand? Coloane (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lately, an editor named HongQiGong keeps reverting the selected picture for Jan. 2008 believing that a McDonald in Hong Kong is notable. This McDonald is not notable in any way and I don't understand his rationale behind the reverts. (Seriously, would you put your local neighbourhood's McDonald as a selected picture?) Despite HongQiGong put the featured picture I placed in by Coloane's request [1] onto April's selection, it's apparent that through his reverts, HongQiGong expressed his views that he will not find another picture for January. Hence, this portal fails to establish criteria 3.1 where portal "showcases only high-quality content". I'll leave this nomination up for a few more days so that anyone can contest it before I archive it as failed nomination. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving a request to close this earlier this evening, I have read over this discussion and feel now I can determine consensus and proceed in the correct manner. There appears to have been a discussion earlier on in the nomination about who shall close the nomination, but that is of limited relevance now considering I am closing it, that meaning I will be choosing whether to promote or not, although in this case, I am choosing the former. Any points brought up by Shyam, although not addressed in majority, are apparently minor in their magnititude. I've been working with portals for quite a while now, and it is my understanding that the Hong Kong portal does reflect what is deemed their qualities. Alternatively, I respect Ohana's decision to remain uncertain in closing and DHMO's & Seaserpent's comment show this. Most comments have been addressed (those that are the most necessary in my opinion) and although there have been no actual supports as of now, I am deciding to promote this portal at 19:15, February 4, 2008 (GMT). Regards, Rudget. 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 07:26, 9 February 2008.

After going through a peer review, taking months to slowly get it right, I believe that Portal:Louisville is ready to be considered for featured status. While there is still possiblities for expansion, there are always those possibilities. WikiProject Louisville has done a lot of excellent work, and I feel that this Portal does an excellent job of that, including the fact that it has served as a prototype and guinea pig for two other Portals currently in development. Please consider this worthy of Featured status.--Bedford 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: A few suggestions—Sister portals/WikiProjects could be changed to Related portals/WikiProjects, which most featured portals have. Usually, featured portals have ...Archive/Nominations on the left and then Read more... on the right. Thanks for addressing all my comments at the peer review! Best regards, [sd] 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't like how that looked at the Indiana portal, which is why I haven't implemented that way on Louisville's. If it really matters, I'll change it.--Bedford 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Certainly a matter of personal opinion. Great work, [sd] 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This portal is in very good shape, and I applaud Bedford's efforts with it. The only change I would request before it goes featured would be to tone down the background color -- lime green isn't a color associated with Louisville in any way -- so perhaps use a light blue or light yellow, as blue and yellow are the component colors of the city's symbol. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When I was square dancing, the official men's shirt for the area square dancing association was lime green, which is what influenced me to choose lime. I'm affraid yellow in the background would clash, so I changed the background with red, which is also a primary color, and is the color that many of our local sports teams use.--Bedford 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In my opinion, the red clashes with the blue and is too bright. I used a subtle gold that matches the seal. Comments? [sd] 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It does highlight the "Show New Selections" very nicely. Nice choice of color.--Bedford 23:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I like the tweaks, I'm very thankful you guys removed that bright green. Jahnx (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Self-nomination. See archived peer review. Stats: The Intro section rotates between (5) different images related to Oregon (flag, map, etc.) (35) Selected articles, and (24) Selected biographies - all are of "B" class, or higher. All blurbs in both sections except for Asa Lovejoy in the Selected biography section contain free-use images relevant to each article's subject. The portal also has (25) Selected pictures, (93) Did you know entries, showing three at a time, all of which have an accompanying free-use image, a news section updated by User:Wikinews Importer Bot, (18) Selected panorama pictures, and (37) Selected quotes. Save for the news section, all the above-mentioned sections are randomized using {{Random portal component}}. I want to thank the dedicated members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon for all of their help, obviously couldn't have gotten the portal this far without their contributions and guidance. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good, no red link amiss, has anniversary feature I'm thinkign about using. However, the "Show new selections" could stand to be darker to eb better contrasted with the blue background it is in.--Bedford 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hrm, I'm not sure how to make it stand out more, I'll get on that. Cirt (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "Show new selections" has been changed to a white coloring, looks better now. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - (bias note, I am a major contributor to the portal) - lots of articles/items in each category, all of good quality. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - (bias note, I created the portal) - Meets all criteria and contains an impressive amount of good-quality content. — Zaui (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - (bias note, I worked on many of the articles included in the portal, and have done a small amount of work on the portal itself) – I believe this is an excellent introduction to Wikipedia's Oregon-related content; it features the best content, and arranges it in such a way that it's very inviting and accessible to the reader. Seems to meet all guidelines, and encourages contribution in addition to promoting existing content. Active group of high-powered editors assures that the portal will be kept up-to-date as more content is developed. -Pete (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - (bias note: I worked on some portal entries along with minor work populating the portal) – This is the first time I've looked at any other portal. Compared to the featured portals, Oregon's has significantly more depth and breadth, and is far more interesting and dynamic—every view is new. One can quickly find the most obtuse article related to Oregon through the portal. This doesn't seem to be the case for the geographically-based other portals. Isn't that one of the purposes of a portal? —EncMstr 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - (bias note: I worked on a few portal entries ) – It meets the criteria and is better then many I've seen.Kairos (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by Rudget (talk · contribs) at 11:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC). There appears to be current consensus that this portal be promoted to featured status. 6 days, 6 supports, no opposes. Promoted Rudget. 11:42, 10 February 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 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 15:53, 14 February 2008.

This portal recieved a peer review and has had extensive work on it to reflect the best available content, high quality design elements, and meet the featured portal criteria. Thank you for your consideration. RichardF (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; easily meets all criteria. Looks very good with lots of content. HoosierState^Talk 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; per TheHoosierState89 (talk · contribs), and the nom. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I think there shouldn't be so much yellow space under the Categories section.--Bedford 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section with the most variation in height is Portal:Indiana/Selected picture, because some images are in portrait layout while others are in landscape layout. Depending on how the combinations of selected articles and pictures in the left column with selected biographies and spotlight cities in the right column lay out, the extra yellow space can be at the bottom of either column. The solution to this concern would be to make all pictures basically the same height rather than the same width, as they are set up now. I believe this would detract from the presentation of these images and the overall quality of the portal. RichardF (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I added a notice about this discussion to the talkpages of WP:INDIANA and WP:USA. Cirt (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I added one to WP:INDP to try and get this ball rolling. HoosierState^Talk 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The portal is good. I would like to see less weightage of Attractions on main page. - Shyam ^(T/C) 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The "Attractions" section is a direct adaptation from the featured portal, Texas. RichardF (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: excellent :-) --jskellj - the nice devil 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to featured status by Rudget. Current consensus to promote, plenty of time to have a worthwhile discussion, no opposes. Rudget. 15:51, 14 February 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 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 17:03, 21 February 2008.

Self-nomination. See archived peer review. Stats: (22) Selected articles, all of WP:FA or WP:GA quality, (20) Selected biographies, all with associated free-use images, (20) Selected pictures, all are free-use images, (20) Selected quotes, all with free-use images and links to notable individuals with articles on Wikipedia, (20) Did you know entries, showing 5 at a time. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. The News section updates automatically from Wikinews, using User:Wikinews Importer Bot. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but you must write the articles Chelsio Communications and Scribd. --jskellj - the nice devil 13:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the interesting content. By the way, I think red links are allowed in the Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red links are allowed only under the "request" section. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (And that's the only section where red links appear in this portal.) Cirt (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100th portal to be promoted at 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC). Sufficient time period, high number of supports, nothing major discovered. Rudget. 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 17:03, 21 February 2008.

This seems just as good as Louisville's, has lots of connections to featured and good content. I think it's ready to be featured.--Bedford 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another great job by Bedford. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support: compliments to bedford :-) --jskellj - the nice devil 13:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Well done. Strong command of the idiom. By the way, I had to give a barnstar the first time I saw this portal. It is inspiring. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive and informative. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted at 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC). Sufficient time period, high number of supports. A week on for discussionm, nothing major discovered. Rudget. 16:44, 21 February 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 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 16:22, 29 February 2008.

Hi. Recently this portal was changed to adhere to the portal guidelines, and to mirror the appearance of several featured portals in geography. I'll do my best to make any changes suggested here. The "view" links in each section show what is under the hood (either random or static content). Atomaton instantiated the portal and its structure. Cricket02 created the suggestions structure (cleared at the moment), to welcome content ideas from any and all readers. Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good, although some randomizing would be a recommendable boon.--Bedford 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost everything is set up for random. Maybe what you saw is the biography. It is purposely frozen because at this time, WikiProject Minnesota awards "selected biography" of the month on talk pages. If we don't see many suggestions, we can use random there too (six are already in that queue, just have to change the start and end values). Thanks. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as an extremely minor contributor nearly a year ago. This portal has vastly improved and is immensely informative. Great job! ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This Portal now looks very professional and consistent with other state portals. I contributed quite a bit to content, but not at all to formatting and that is really what sets apart the "excellent" from the "good" reading on Wikipedia.--Appraiser (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks very nice, a great portal for a dedicated and well constructed group of articles. --Bobak (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really has come a long way since Minnesota was an FA a year ago. --Marumari (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really nice. The tabs on the top is above and beyond FPORT criteria. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. And thanks to User:Patrick who figured out the #ifeq to make one-page tabs. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Selected Community, Selected picture, Selected biography, On this month (February in the History of Minnesota), Selected event???? Where are the archives?
• Scenic Minnesota seemes to be a redundant section of the Selected picture.
• Associated Wikimedia has most of the blank pages. Kindly redirect them to the correct ones. e.g. in Wikiquote, Minnesota can be Minnesota search etc.
• Add purge link.
• Place some Requested articles and Articles needing improvement in the Things you can do. - Shyam ^(T/C) 10:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments.

• Archives are under the "View" link in each section. If content is ever delisted in the future then it can move to a section called archive per se. These sections exist already where they are in use.

I would recommend to have a related link in the end of each section. This would add more visibility. There should be more communities and events, as well. Shyam ^(T/C) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can make a custom box-header with an archive link at top left based on the code in Portal:Box-header, and did at one point. But I very much prefer the present, simpler interface. Adding a bunch of links like archive would dilute the single, clear message: an invitation to visitors to make suggestions. Re: communities and events, yes I agree. Maybe you didn't see the queue of 43 communities. WikiProject Minnesota has at least three photographers with new photos in the process of being uploaded, and when we have them, the communities will be added. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's your wish. But, it should not be diluted the selected one, but let others know the list. I have seen the list of communities, but it makes me feel more of selected pictures, without having suficient contexts. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Scenic Minnesota is panorama photos. It is also a placeholder for a set of iconic images developed earlier, something for future development.

As you wish. But, it lacks the sufficient back ups Shyam ^(T/C) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Things you can do should not need maintenance. The WikiProject Minnesota pages are our dashboard.

Does it mean that there is no need to create Minnesota related articles in near future? Shyam ^(T/C) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it means updating multiple sets of pages is error-prone and duplication (multiplication) of effort. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so-called multiplication/duplication of efforts is helpful to create some goos articles, then I would say, it is worthful. You can avoid duplication by using the same template at both place. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent reason. I am not able to promise anything or redesign the project by myself, and there are both a long history and many other editors' preferences to consider, but yes maybe this can be coordinated someday. The template idea sounds great. Thanks for the idea. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: purge link, I removed it because it calls attention to itself.

I did not get you. Purge link is for refreshing the portal. Shyam ^(T/C) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Caching is a browser preference. Randomizing content isn't a value-adding feature, it is a convenience for minimizing upkeep. I know some people here think random is way cool so pardon the opinion. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An updation in the section will not automatically update the portal for some time. So, I would say, this is the pre-requisite for the portal to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Link added. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will add a table for Associated Wikimedia, thanks for the suggestion and sample link! -Susanlesch (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You're right, I will do something with the month in Minnesota history. Thanks for spotting that. Archive sections added for the others. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. All done, comments above. Thanks so much for your review, Shyam. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very clean and easy to follow, I also like the tabs at the top which make it easy to navigate. Good Work--CPacker (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator. We have had nine or so days here for discussion, which is longer than the previous FPCs that I have seen. Thanks to each and every person who took time to make a review. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successful by Rudget (talk · contribs) at 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC) - All points corrected, 8 supports, over 10 days, no opposes.[reply]

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