Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/December 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Philosophy of science

[edit]

This portal appears to meet all featured portal criteria. It was the subject of a portal improvement collaboration; and all recommendations noted at Portal talk:Philosophy of science/to do have been addressed. Rfrisbietalk 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Business and Economics

[edit]

I previously submitted this portal for FP status more than two months ago, and I received a lot of constructive criticism and feedback telling me what I still had to do with the portal. I feel like I've done a great deal of work with this portal, and I believe it is now of exemplary quality. Therefore, I am re-nominating this portal for consideration to join the ranks of other great portals across Wikipedia. Nishkid64 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I'm hoping, but I haven't really gotten that much help. I have posted at the WikiProject's talk page, but I haven't gotten the response I would like to see for portal help. Nishkid64 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange idea here. But, as the portals seem to be more or less the work of a small group of editors anyway, maybe there could be some sort of collaboration effort set up? Particularly with portals that might share a somewhat similar scope, maybe we could arrange to have one group of editors update all the portals in a field at the same time. That would decrease the amount of work involved, and probably help to include more articles. Anyway, just a thought. Badbilltucker 15:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, a good portal. But there are some more points to consider before:
    • It would be better to regular archiving of selected articles. There should be a fixed criteria for a selected article that for how much time it would be on the portal page. By seeing previous archive, it seems to be random. Is there any back-up for the future selected articles?
    • Providing source(s) for market indices would be better because anyone could update the indices if (s)he is aware of it(them).
    • I think, topics are less in number. The list could be more expanded. I do not see the topic related to companies ranking from various magazines, like Fortune 1000 etc. I suppose, it is non-forgettable part of the portal's topics section. Shyam (T/C) 15:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I only recently created the monthly archive for selected articles, economy and pictures. It is in effect starting with December, and a new economy, article and picture will be featured on the portal page each month. Also, I will add the source for the market indices info. The topics section was probably the hardest part of the portal, and I hadn't even created it! I'll see what I can do, though. Thanks for addressing some minor issues. =) Nishkid64 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very great work. But, I think, the bot for updating market indices does not make it regularly. It was last updated on 21:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Could the bot make more regular updations? Shyam (T/C) 09:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't think it is wise to update the bot more than once a day. The markets are around the world, and they close at different times. So, if I decided to run the bot at 14:00 UTC, I would get the final Asian markets, but the realtime quotes for the American markets. By doing it at exactly 21:20, I can guarantee that the bot will have that specific day's final stock market results at around this time. If I update later, the Asian markets are already open for the next day and Yahoo Finance will clear the market info. It just seems better to do it once, and not have to worry about any potential problems. Nishkid64 23:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Does the news section need an archive? I've heard yes sometimes, then sometimes no one says anything. Other than that, great job getting it up to speed. Joe I 20:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the news links provided are from WikiNews, then you don't need an archive. I get my news from WikiNews for this portal, so I don't think archive is necessary here. However, for the other portal I manage, Portal:Disasters, I get the links from news websites and I have to keep an archive for that. Nishkid64 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the logic of that. I get my articles from Wikipedia, so why do they need an archive. This seems to be a double-standard. Rfrisbietalk 19:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that as wikinews already archives all news. They can be found there at anytime there for any particular dates. But the news which came from other sources, could not be get back without going to history. So it is better to have archive section separately for the news section if they do not come from wikinews. Shyam (T/C) 19:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address my point. Wikipedia archives articles and pictures. If portals are expected to archive those, why aren't they expected to archive news? Rfrisbietalk 19:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiNews is archiving the news, though. Why do you we need to archive the news when WikiNews is already doing that? I have a link at the bottom of that portal sub-section that has a link to WikiNews. People can just go there and get old news if they wish. I think the articles are archived so that people will be able to see what the actual entry was in the portal, and see what it looked like, etc. Nishkid64 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee portal news and WikiNews are identical, which is the assumption here. If I'm the only one who cares about this, then I'll stop archiving news too. Rfrisbietalk 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would still be a good idea for portals to archive news no matter where it's from. It serves as a central hub for people to see what's been going on in a general arena. Joe I 22:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frisbie, you bring up a good point. The news I put up is not the same. I've noticed a strong New Zealand showing at the business news portal at WikiNews, and I tend to not include such local New Zealand biz news. I generally use only half of WikiNews' articles for BEP. Nishkid64 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that would explain it.  :) Joe I 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Science

[edit]

This portal meets all featured status criteria. All recommendations for improvement at Portal talk:Science/to do have been addressed. Rfrisbietalk 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Literature

[edit]

The Literature Portal was created in 7 March 2005, but was very modest during the first year of operation. I have been paying more attention to the portal since June 2006. The portal now gives a comprehensive gateway to the literary content in Wikipedia (I hope). It meets the criteria at the featured portal guidelines. Most of the content, like selected article (FAs used mostly), picture (width 340px) and biography (a recent feature), are on an automatic schedule. All relevant boxes have archives. It receives regular updates from me and KF (DYK), but it is also supported by the WikiProject Books and its sub-projects. I would note the excellent Trains Portal for giving the impetus to move to automatic updates.

  • Selected article and picture on automatic monthly rotation since June 2006
  • The daily anniversaries section (A day in literature) is working since 14 June 2006.
  • The news section has been operating since 14 July 2006.
  • DYK and Quotes are on a weekly rotation since June 2006.

Naturally some improvements can be still done to the portal, but in my opinion it is not missing anything vital to reaching the featured portal status. With these notes I look forward to comments and suggestions. Best, feydey 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Everything looks nice, and the rotation seems alright. The only thing I reckon would improve the quality is the introduction, try to make it slightly longer. Maybe about the history, current influences and stuff. Apart from that, it looks cool. All the best -- Imoeng 00:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed it would be better if expanded, but I have seen the vast amount of topics that literature contains as a challenge. Literature includes fiction, non-fiction, comics, screenplays, poetry and numerous sub-genres so the intro would get too long if these are added and the stuff You mention (history, current influences). I kind of like it short and unspecific. But I will think about it. feydey 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, well you can just put 1 or 2 sentences about when it was discovered. Again, I am not really familiar with literature :). But yeah, I think some more sentences won't hurt. Cheers -- Imoeng 10:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded it now. Thanks for the advice. feydey 10:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is nice, no problem. Good luck! -- Imoeng 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems to meet all the criteria. Badbilltucker 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Object' great portal, but there are a few things that prevent me from supporting. Firstly, there are red links in the Did you know... section; per criteria, these are prohibited in content sections (or rather, limited to contribution/project sections). Secondly, I oppose outright the Quiz feature. I realise it is something which is present on other portals, but it is not something I would like to see enjoying prominence on featured portals. In any event, they are self-referential and thus contrary the criteria. Thirdly, I feel the News section should be better placed – eliminating the quiz would free up space in the right column. Finally, I would look at shortening the selected content sections to decrease the portal's length.--cj | talk 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at User_talk:KF#Portal_Lit.. <KF> 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I could demonstrate the ways in which you've failed wikiquette in your comment, that wouldn't be constructive, and is beside the point of this process you seem decidely unfamiliar with. However, I'll accept that my objection was perhaps too vague. I'll clarify my objections point-by-point:
  • The criteria (linked, for your reference) states "red links must be restricted to only contribution-encouraging aspects..." This means editor-focused sections only (Things you can do..., etc); content sections (ie, sections focused on the encyclopædia proper – Selected article, Did you know, News/Current events etc) should have no red links.
I agree. feydey 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the quiz feature on the grounds of criterion 6: "should not be self-referential". A quiz requires interactivity, interactivity requires self-reference and self-references are allowed for contribution-encouraging sections only.
I hope the new layout is satisfactory. feydey 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion with regard to the News section is minor, but based on criterion 3: "the display of Wikipedia content should be a featured portal's foremost aim, and encouraging contribution secondary". As the News section is a content section, it should logically precede sections such as 'Things you can do.
The News box is big. It used to be displayed differently [1], but it will mess out the current layout IMHO if moved (or it must be shortened drastically). I'd rather not move it, but if You feel strongly about it i'll be ready to do something. feydey 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll withdraw my final point. It centred on usability concerns, but was minor.
These are actionable objections. This portal cannot be promoted to featured status without meeting them.--cj | talk 08:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Excellent improvements. However, please don't use thumb mark-up for image formatting, as it causes faults with the box backgrounds.--cj | talk 15:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Chemistry

[edit]

A few people have been working to bring this up to featured portal standards in the past month or so, and I believe it satisfies featured portal requirements. The portal was created last year, is updated monthly with a new featured article, or whenever needed for news, and currently has 3 sections of rotating content, and a few more of standard static content. All feedback is appreciated :) riana_dzasta 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Education

[edit]

This portal meets all featured status criteria. All recommendations for improvement at Portal talk:Education/to do have been addressed. Rfrisbietalk 21:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Mathematics

[edit]

This portal satisfies the criteria. It exemplifies WP's best work; showcases the best of Wikipedia's mathematical content; is useful, attractive, ergonomic, and well-maintained; adheres to the manual of style; has useful images; and is not self-referential.

The problems cited in the last nomination have since been addressed.

Tompw 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Italian Wars

[edit]

This is the first portal I've actually finished with in quite some time. It includes five sections of rotating content (all using random rotation), and the more-or-less-standard non-rotating sections. I look forward to all comments! Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The bottom part of the portal is messed up. The "What are portals?" "List of Portals", related portals and so on have bunched themselves up in a corner down at the bottom of the page. Also, the Wikimedia box is empty except for the image link, which looks kind of odd. Fix this and the portal will be much better. --Gphototalk 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, that's really weird. I don't see any bunching up; as far as I can tell, they're floating at the bottom of the outer box. Are you using any unusual browser or resolution?
    • I'll see if I can figure out a better place to put the Commons link. Kirill Lokshin 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's happening is that the box that is supposed to have all the wikimedia stuff in it is not holding anything but the image link. My browser is Safari, and I am not operating under any unusual conditions, so I don't think that it's my browser. Hope this helps! --Gphototalk 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, that was the intended effect; there aren't any other Wikimedia links worth providing. In any case, I've combined the Wikimedia link and the related portals into a "Related content" box at the bottom; hopefully that clears up whatever the formatting problem with the portals was. Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support Yep, that fixed everything. The only thing is that the borders around the boxes are not contrasting enough for me, but that is a matter of personal preference and I'll let it go. Regards, --Gphototalk 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - seems to meet all of the criteria. And I didn't know Kirill made portals, too. Good work. :) Badbilltucker 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clean, attractive, and informative. The left column of boxes is longer than the right column, which creates a large white space on the right, but I suppose that varies as the content rotates. Not a big deal, but perhaps the "selected biography" box could be two columns wide in order to fill in some of the space. —Kevin 13:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice job. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above. • s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk · contribs • 17:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Psychology

[edit]

This portal meets all featured status criteria. All recommendations for improvement at Portal talk:Psychology have been addressed. Rfrisbietalk 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Featured_log/December_2006&oldid=905781869"