Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:London

Portal:London

I think this portal is informative, attractive and useful. It has a distinctive style that fits its topic well. the wub "?!" 17:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Perhaps one of the best portals on Wikipedia. The last time I viewed this portal was when it was first created, so I was pleasantly surprised to see its progress. My only point would be to ask that the sibling boxes in "Other Projects" be centre-aligned. On that section, is there a reason for the seemingly out-of-place Johnson quote?--cj | talk 08:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the sibling boxes with the standard {{sisterlinks}} template that covers the lot. The Johnson quote I've stuck at the bottom of the page... its quite good but I agree was quite out of place where it was. Deano 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A great portal for one of the world's great cities. The reason I'm supporting this most of all is the fact that there is a very well-organised list of London-related topics throughout, which makes it a true portal, while there are also other pieces of trivia and info that give the reader an immediate snapshot of London. I particularly like the "London on Wikipedia" section! Ronline ✉ 11:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. (Though I must declare that I did help out on it early on.) Nonetheless, I've looked at a lot of others and I think ours is deserving - it's a genuine portal in that it offers short-cuts to lots and lots of stuff, and people do be looking for London topics, and I now think after many improvements it looks the bee's knees too. Tarquin Binary 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it will get there, but ~~object~~ for now. The two "did you know" sections are stale and unmaintained (since October). Where bits in a portal cannot be or are not being easily maintained, they should be removed. The "Featured article" and "Featured picture" do not appear on WP:FA or WP:FP. We should keep the use of "featured" to refer to WP's official featured content - could another term be used? (for example, Portal:Cricket uses the term "showcase articles") I'm not sure that voting for next months article or picture is something to encourage people to do - it doesn't help the encyclopaedia and seems mostly of interest to WikiProject London members rather than readers. Other than that - it's looking great, jguk 08:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the DYKs and created an archive. I'd completely forgotten about them - I meant to do them when I did the ~~featured~~ showcase articles. And on that note, I've changed everything from featured to showcase - moved pages, renamed links etc. etc. Should all be okay I think.

As for the voting... I got the idea from several other portals, and yeah the idea is meant to be that people in the know vote for an article/picture that they think is worthy. True, does not necessarily help the encyclopedia, but it enables a greater degree of participation from a wider group of people. Otherwise it would just be me doing everything. On that basis I created the suggest a DYK page. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 10:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned as to whether this portal will be kept up to date. From my experience on WP:Cricket, on the WikiProject page we have a pretty active "New articles" section. I don't know how active the London WikiProject is, but could, perhaps the DYK box in the portal be transcluded into the London WikiProject page with an open invite to participants to update it with new articles or recently improved articles they wish to highlight to others? Also, do we really need two DYK boxes rather than just one? jguk 11:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 2 days the WikiProject has picked up some steam... but the DYK suggestion system takes care of your point. As soon as one is suggested, it is implemented. Two DYK boxes helps the page structure, and gives more opportunity for readers to find out something interesting. I don't think you can make comparisons with Portal:Cricket - you have lots of new articles because lots of new things are always happening. The cricket portal page has a completely different structure and appearance to P:London - the latter has focussed on ergonomics as well as links. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 13:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned as to whether the portal will remain fresh, though I agree it is a good portal. May I offer a way out of the impasse? I'll be willing to withdraw this objection provided that it is agreed that if the DYK section is ever not updated for a period of three months, it will be summarily demoted from its featured status (though if that ever were to occur it could be renominated for featured status), jguk 17:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On the basis of this deal, Support. Please also see my proposed amendment to Wikipedia:What is a featured portal?, jguk 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support does a very good job of pointing out the way around a large subject. Justinc 10:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]