Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log/March 2007

Portal:Alternative music

Portal was recently peer reviewed, with all issues addressed. I believe it's worthy of featured status. CloudNine 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~
- Support Everything taken care of, good work. Jo e I 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add <div style="text-align:center; margin:-7px; padding-bottom:12px;">{{purge|'''Show new selections'''}} </div> above the randomized boxes.
  - Added by S.D. on 12:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- News and DYK need archive links.
  - Added. CloudNine 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Selected articles should also be bold linked at the beginning of the summary.
  - I believe they already are. Could you clarify? CloudNine 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added the link to the Nirvana article. Alternative rock in the intro needs to be linked the same way. Jo e I 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, addressed your comment. CloudNine 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No related wikimedia
  - Is this a requirement? I'm not sure if the other Wiki* projects offer much when it comes to alternative music. CloudNine 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - commons, books, quote, news, I'd say it's needed. Joe I 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe I've addressed your comment. CloudNine 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Color - pinks seems allittle gayish for alternative music.

I'm assuming this comment is a joke. WesleyDodds 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. While color is not a requirment, it says alot about the portal. Why would pink be the best? Jo e I 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? I think the color scheme suits the portal as is. It's hardly an objection against the featured portal criteria anyway. CloudNine 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sense Portal:Music is in related portals, it's not needed at the bottom.
- More content(articles/pics) needs to be added, this does not show you have a broad base of good articles to draw upon.
  - Added several more articles. Up to 8 selected articles now. CloudNine 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing linkin to the history, which is one of the most important aspects. Should add to topics box.
  - The history of alternative music? That's already covered in alternative rock, which is in the major topics box already. CloudNine 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you have quite a bit to do. Jo e I 05:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well you've done alot, however a few small more issues have come up, not a problem tho:

Pics - Find a few more good pics, to atleast match the number of articles. I do believe there is plenty of subject matter.

Done.

Use {{WikimediaForPortals}}, and make the box you currently use 100% to include the 4 sister projects noted above(commons, books, quote, news)

Done.

Topics - add an instruments line; and if you can find more than the one list, add a list line as well.

What instruments are you thinking of? There's very few that are unique to alternative rock; so should it just be guitar, bass guitar etc?

Yeah, I was thinking just basic band instruments. They may not be unique to alternative, but are very important to it's development.

Add a section to listen to selected samples, such as what's on Alternative rock.

Since virtually all of our samples are fair use, would it not contravene the rule of no fair use on portals?

Didn't realize these were fair use.

And add Timeline of alternative rock somewhere.

Done.

Other than that, you're close. Jo e I 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review again. My comments are above.

Neutral. A few comments:

Associated Wikimedia: I suggest using the template {{WikimediaForPortals}}.

Done.

Did you know: Several (about 3 or 4) more DYK's are needed (DYK's don't have to be on the main page in order to be in the portal).

Several more DYKs have been added.

I made this edit for consistency.
{{Purgepage}} is not needed. Cheers, S.D. 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several more comments:

Did you know: Archive → Archive...
Things you can do: For consistency, Creation → Create and Expansion → Expand.
News: Archive → Archive...

Done. CloudNine 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing, S.D. 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing left to do (from both my and Jo e I's suggestions) is to add around three more selected pictures. Since all my other suggestions have been fixed, support. Good work! S.D. 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 more images; there's now 8 selected articles and selected pictures. CloudNine 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Visual arts

Portal has been peer reviewed and all issues have been addressed. Satisfies criteria. Thanks for your consideration. Planetneutral 03:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support One last thing, add a lists section. Either in the cat box, topic box or it's own box would be fine. Other than that all other issues have been resolved. Looks good Joe I 05:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a starter set of lists to the topics box. I can probably find more, but is this what you had in mind? Planetneutral 05:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, exactly where I would of put it to. :) Jo e I 05:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sparkit ^TALK 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems alright, though I'm a bit puzzled about the "More about art, visual arts, artists, art history..." at the lead. As per other portals, there needs to be a single link to the main topic, with all the other subtopics linked in the topics section. Also you might as well rename that section to "Main topics"/"Major topics" as there isn't a selection process for the section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both changes have been made. Thanks! Planetneutral 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good. :) Cheers, S.D. 13:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support:The portal looks great, definitely featured material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilsbadkarma (talk • contribs)

Portal:Holidays

Started from scratch, this portal offers information on all holidays worldwide. It's comprehensive, and ergonomic. Most things during peer review have been taken care of, or addressed. This portal by all means meets the requirements. Jo e I 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Very close.

Memorials aren't holidays, please remove all the memorial-related content from the portal.

I have a problem finding what you're refering to.

This for instance. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That pic is supposed to symbolize Memorial Day which is a federal holiday.

"Wiki relations" - Split to "Related portals" and "WikiProjects".

They fit very nicely together, being so small, individual boxes would look silly.

Oh well. At least rename it to "Related content". Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"Topics" > "Main topics"/"Major topics".

Done

Songs and stories don't belong under the "Selected biography" section, but their subject character is.

I assume you're talking about frosty and rudolf, there is no character without the original song/story.

In that case, move them to the "Selected article" section. I fail to see how the article focuses on the biography. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, those articles don't focus on the bio. If I change it from "Selected biography" to "Selected personality", how would that work for ya? Jo e I 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If they don't focus on the bio, they wouldn't fit as personalities either. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Read more" links to the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded linked title works just as well. Jo e I 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't, see the main page. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:Featured content and they aren't used. There are many featured portals that don't use it, Portal:War, Portal:Military of Australia, Portal:Trains, Portal:Physics. Jo e I 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a (more...) link, which is a substitute of this. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some headers italic and others aren't? Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one note italic is the main intro heading. Jo e I 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the tab headings. Personally I prefer avoiding italic font for readability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Several comments:

Quote: Should the title of the box, "Quote," be "Selected quote"?

Check

Selected stuff: Instead of "___ archive/Nominations," it should just be "Archive/Nominations."

Check

A break is needed after the "What are portals? | List of portals | Featured portals" line.

Check

Categories: Reduce the sizes of the images with low resolution.

Check

Calendar: Maybe you could add the box header and footer around the calendar. Good work so far! Happy editing, S.D. 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do bout the calendar, Thanks. :) Jo e I 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my comments have been addressed, the portal has my support. Cheers, S.D. 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please separate Portals and WikiProjects – they are separate concepts.--cj | talk 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Well, I think it looks worse, but done. Jo e I 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Kerala

The portal is on the Indian state of Kerala. The portal has undergone 3 peer reviews at the India WikiProject, PR and at PoPR. The portal uses an automated system of selected content rotation, such that all content gets displayed at least once during a year (with equal probability for all articles). I believe the portal meets the required criteria for featured portals. I request the community's consensus in promoting it to one. Thank you!--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All concerns fixed through the peer reviews, excellent portal. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little comment regarding the subpages; this already has been mentioned in the PoPR, but I suppose adding a nominations page to the DYK section could be useful. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a portal DYK should have exactly the same standards as the main page DYK. Regardless, I'm opposed to the idea of relying on the main page DYK in section updates, as not all people might choose to make the nomination there. A nomination procedure in the portal would definitely help. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. See Portal:Kerala/DYK/Suggest. I've slightly slacked the 5 day criteria for better participation. --thunderboltz ^(TALK) 05:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Went through peer reviews and all concerns fixed. Original portal, looks very nice. S .D. ¿п? § 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Only one concern. News updating should be more frequent. As of now, 10 February is the date of updating after 18 January, which is a large gap. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was some lag in updating then. Will certainly see that it does not happen again. Thank you!--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: as per norms. Good work done there. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 09:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The Portal meets all required criteria and can be Featured. Great work by all concerned. Ajaypp^{I'm here} 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~ Support The shortcut in the intro should not be there, and there is a related portals section and things you can do, but no related projects. Jo e I 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Most of the issues have been dealt in peer review. The portal lacks of WikiProjects section, other than this the portal qualifies for being featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (both) for the observation. Related WikiProjects are now listed in the "Tasks you can do" section.--thunderboltz ^(TALK) 05:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing font size for open tasks would be appericiable. For more participation use Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Workgroups instead of Template:WPIndia Navigation in the open tasks. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Everything seems to be taken care of, good work.Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. – riana_dzasta 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice way to keep the page.Good work! ARUNKUMAR P.R 14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty good --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:West Bengal

This is the portal portraying West Bengal, a state in eastern India. The portal underwent a peer review some months back. Thereafter the portal has undergone major changes like automated features. Thanks to the works of riana_dzasta, Sd31415 and P.K.Niyogi, the portal, I believe, now meets Featured portal criteria. Please help it become a featured portal. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Despite my obvious bias, I still think this portal meets featured criteria. If not, any and all suggestions are welcome! riana_dzasta 17:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Although I have also edited this portal a lot, like riana_dzasta, I believe it meets all criteria and should become a featured portal. Of course, my opinion is biased, so please place any comments you may have! Regards, S .D. ¿п? § 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Of course, as I am involved in maintaining the portal. Even otherwise, the portal meets the requirements of being featured. Any suggestions for further improvement is welcome. -- P.K.Niyogi 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The portal really educates the reader about the shining region that is West Bengal. On the "biography" section, the box is a little too long compared to the categories box, phps someone could make the two the same size. ITs more aesthetically pleasing.Baka man 02:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the biography section, it depends on which biography you're getting. Happy editing! S .D. ¿п? § 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I understand, but you can cut out some info from the relevant subpage/box so that it always fits.Baka man 04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, we can work on this suggestion and see that biography summaries be of a standard size. -- P.K.Niyogi 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've worked on Mother Teresa's biography, which was the longest in size. Regards, S .D. ¿п? § 04:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to have a look into this one, so I will not be "Supporting" or "Opposing". Based on my experience, I can say that the portal is good enough to be a featured portal. There was a minor problem where the selected image overflew the border, but I fixed that. One of the selected pictures (RajBhavanKolkata.JPG) has a wrong license. It has a {{PD-self}} license, while the correct license would be {{PD-author}}. Also, IMG 1709.JPG is missing author credits in the selected picture summary. There is also a technical problem with 394 baul-singers-sml.jpg. The image is said to be uploaded on enwiki first and then to commons. However, in order to verify if indeed this was the case, we need a proof of it being uploaded to enwiki first. A check of upload log of User:Mukherjee (said to be the author) fails verification. So technically, the issue is still unresolved. Other than those mentioned, I think the portal is going good and should not have any problem getting featured. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ambuj for the comments. However, being asked to have a look does not preclude the scope of support or oppose!! Will see into the issues raised by you ASAP. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

394 baul-singers-sml.jpg — was uploaded in en by Mukerjee, then uploaded on Commons by Mattes, and then deleted here by Conscious because the image was already on Commons. RajBhavanKolkata.JPG fixed. IMG 1709.JPG author credit provided.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All issues raised by me stands resolved. I expect this portal to get featured. Best of luck to the contributors. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I support the portal as this portal have all criterian to be featured. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support very nicely done. Meets all the criteria as far as I can see. ~ Arjun 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Support - very nice portal. Just a few concerns: is the colour scheme the best possible? Are the selected things meant to change every time I refresh the page? Should Bengali be the only language in the "Wikipedia in Bengali" section? Otherwise, it's fine! --Wolf^talk 17:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To answer your questions, please feel free to suggest any better color schemes! Yes, the selected things are meant to change every time you refresh or purge the cache of the page. Since Bengali is the language most spoken in West Bengal, in my opinion, "Wikipedia in..." should only have the Bengali Wikipedia. Also in Official languages of India, the only language listed next to West Bengal in Bengali. Happy editing, S .D. ¿п? § 20:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please feel free to change the colours (they're located here). I personally love greens and blues, but I understand if not everybody does :) riana_dzasta 13:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a well-maintained portal. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just move West Bengal news to News and West Bengal topics to Main topics/Major topics. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, S .D. ¿п? § 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a very well kept, illuminating and active portal, even if I am slightly biased about its contents. ray 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Been following this portal since it was created. I had participated in its last peer review. The portal has developed quite well, and certainly meets the criteria. Good job!--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A brilliant example for all geographic region or state-related portals. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support One thing, the shortcut in the intro should not be there. Everything else has been taken care of, Good job. Jo e I 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Happy editing, S .D. ¿п? § 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious! Many featured portals portray the shortcut at intro, whereas many do not. Is there any consensus? IMO, the shortcut should be portrayed, as it proves to be handy sometimes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no consensus. Personally I think portals should act more like main namespace articles, which don't use shortcuts. And if one is needed for whatever reason the {{portalpar}} template should be used, as this is what it was designed for. Joe I 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, {{portalpar}} serves a different purpose. The template is used to link to a portal from an article. Whereas the three letter acronyms like WP:PIN are helpful to link to portals easily during talk page discussions. Also, accessing the portal when typing the URL becomes much easier, as its name always has to be prefixed with "Portal:".--thunderboltz ^(TALK) 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see the use of shortcuts in that way. My main thing is that portals function more as an article than anything else(they feature and consolidate articles as well as being laid out and read as an article). Articles don't have shortcuts. If a portal is to have a shortcut, I don't believe it should be displayed as it is in the intro. Jo e I 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you imply the shortcut can be displayed somewhere other than intro? --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed if we can find a suitable place. The only thing to come to my mind is the talk page, tho. Jo e I 06:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

← I don't have much of an opinion about this, but many featured portals do display shortcuts in the intro - see P:CHEM, WP:FOOD, P:PHOTO, WP:PIN... – riana_dzasta 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right now, I agree with Joe I — that the only place the shortcut could be place other than the introduction is the portal talk page, although other portals place shortcuts in the introduction. Earlier, I placed the shortcuts at the bottom of the portal talk page along with a comment. — S.D. 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. Not really a big deal :) – riana_dzasta 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a big deal! And since there are two shortcuts, we should have to rotate the shortcuts using {{Random portal component}} and create subpages with Portal:West Bengal/Shortcut/1 and so on!! (just kidding) =D Cheers, S.D. 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, have fun with that. :p – riana_dzasta 13:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He he! Everyone seems to be in good mood! Happy editing, guys! --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]