Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:U.S. Roads

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Cirt 18:36, 1 September 2010 [1].

Portal:U.S. Roads

[edit]

This portal is supported by the U.S. Roads WikiProject with regular monthly updates. Unlike some other portals I've recently browsed, our project as a whole updates it with monthly nominations for selected article, photo and DYK hooks. The portal is also updated one extra time of the year for April Fool's Day, where the introduction and other sections of the portal change with alternate versions for the day. Additionally, a special selected article and photo are used. We strive for regional balance with our selections, attempting to shine the spotlight each month on states that have never been selected for articles or photos. Any comments are appreciated.

This is a second nomination. There were no issues left over from the previous nomination, which was closed for a lack of consensus to promote. Additionally, there was a lack of reviews related to this portal. The applicable project has been notified through its announcement template.

On behalf of several members of WP:USRD, Imzadi 1979 → 20:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: P:USRD is laid out well, covering different types of articles in different parts of the country, and is diligently maintained, nearly monthly since mid-2007, by WP:USRD. —Fredddie™ 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could notify other related WikiProject talk pages along relevant parent and sub topics? -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HWY (the parent project), WP:UKRD and WP:CRWP notified. Imzadi 1979 → 00:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's sad that this portal was failed purely for lack of support rather than for any outstanding issues, so I'll try a review even though it's not a topic I know anything about... It's a clean-looking portal, perhaps a little dull. Personally I much prefer rotating contents but it does seem to have been consistently maintained in the past and there's not been consensus to change the requirements. My comments are minor...

  • I don't think "Over 10,000 articles have been written on Interstate, US, and state roads." is appropriate, particularly not in the lead.
  • Related portals might be better towards the bottom, rather than encouraging people to click elsewhere immediately.
  • The news box seemed long, and some is several months old. I don't think it needs referencing, and certainly not in so prominent a fashion (perhaps a link at the bottom to a subpage might be appropriate if references are needed)?
  • Still of the opinion that this is overly long, given that the earliest two items are from March, and I'm not convinced about the need for references in a text box at the top level.
  • The images don't have hover text.
  • Not fixed.
  • The bottom half of the portal has no graphical content and visually is rather dull.
  • There is still a lack of graphical content, both at the bottom of the portal and in the right-hand column.
  • Some copy editing throughout would be useful. In the lead, the capitalisation is inconsistent and east–west &c needs an en rule; in the news, there are hyphens & en rules mixed after the date; DYKs have hyphens in place of en rules &c&c. (Are the DYKs from the main page, by the way, or does the project select its own?)
  • Capitalisation of highways still differs between State highways & Interstate Highways/U.S. Numbered Highways in the lead. Archived DYKs still need en rules, as does archived articles.
  • "Things you can do" seems a bit lacking, and in particular shouldn't start with "See also".
  • Suggest the archive order should be reversed (most recent first).
  • Still prefer this the other order, but agree it's more a matter of taste.
  • Also, not directly on the portal, but I found it rather off-putting to find a huge stop sign when I clicked the talk page of the US Highways WikiProject -- not very friendly to potential new editors coming in from the portal!

Hope this helps you to develop the portal! Espresso Addict (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few comments for now that are just my opinion:
  • I moved the related portals down and made it full width, which should help balance the graphics out.
  • I disagree with removing the references. We require/request references in articles, so why not here when not all of the news items will necessarily be added to articles.
  • We've kept about 8 items in the News section. As new items are added, the older ones are archived. There hasn't been many news items to add lately, and I can't make the state highway departments regularly change highway designations, build or open new major roads and such.
  • Hover text? Is that required and where is it required? Isn't there text pop-ups for the related portal graphics already?
  • Copyedited the lead. I didn't where there were needed en dashes for the DYKs. Are you talking about the current DYKs or the archives?
  • The DYKs are a mix of previous main page DYKs or any other article hooks.
  • The last comment you made isn't really applicable to this nomination, but I don't see the problem. We've had people direct comments to the main project page instead of the appropriate subpages, so some kind of box is appropriate, and a stop sign is appropriate to a highways project.
Thanks for the review. I'll comment more later. Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with Expresso that the "Over 10,000 articles..." is a bit random and should not be put in the lead. Rather, it is an uninteresting fact and could be put in the "Things you can do" section, but overall I think the fact should be omitted. --PCB 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been removed. We've been working on some infobox updates, so my progress has been a little slower than normal on this, but I'm still working on it. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't see a reason to flip the archive order. I'm not sure that it matters what order the archives are in, as long as they are kept in order, as for the rest, all applicable suggestions have been implemented. Thanks for the review. Imzadi 1979 → 19:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too busy at the moment to do a full re-review (prod me if I don't get around to it), but there are still obvious copy editing problems -- just in the first article of news, for example, the date is misformatted and "accommodate" is misspelled. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was recently added, and I might add, recently corrected. For something so minor, reviewers are allowed and even encouraged to make minor adjustments like that. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'm game for mucking in, but my RSI is flaring up after a round of copy editing to a friend's FAC. Sorry, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised comments interleaved above. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here together to a few points:

  • Consensus among the project has been to cite the sources of the news items, because as I said, not all of these developments will merit inclusion into specific articles. This is unlike the selected article blurb, where a variation on the lead is used on the portal and the lead is a summary of the referenced material in the selected article. As long as there are to be references, there will need to be a place to display them. I don't think there's a way to link a footnote from one page to appear on another.
  • Could you just put the references into an archive copy? ie put the current news in the news archive with references, but delete the citations for the news that goes on the portal front page.
  • Second, I asked before, but what is "hover text" and where is it required? How do I add it?
  • Hover text is the text that appears when you mouseover an image. As far as I'm aware it's required for all images. You add it where the caption goes: [[File:Image.jpg|right|240px|Hover text here]]
  • I don't know whether or not FPs also require descriptive alt text, which is what is read out by eg browsers for the blind. That is added using the alt parameter: [[File:Image.jpg|right|240px|alt=Alt text here|Hover text here]]
  • I can't speak for anyone else, but I have Tools/Navigation popups activated, so when I hover over any link, I get a small preview of the content. I'm guessing that's not what you mean by "hover text". I assume "hover text" is created by specifying alt text itself. Last I knew, alt text is recommended but not required for any image. —Fredddie™ 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interstate Highway and US (Numbered) Highway are proper names, state highway is a generic term unless part of a name (State Highway 1). That's why the capitalization varies. An interstate highway just crosses state lines, but an Interstate Highway is a part of the Eisenhower Interstate and Defense Highway System. Technically, most US Highways are interstate highways as well. A US Highway is a part of that system, while a US highway is any highway in the country.
  • Ok, thanks for the explanation.
  • What graphics or images would you have me add? Adding blank highway marker signs to the projects list or the numbered highway nav box would likely run afoul of MOS:ICON. The current news items don't have photos in their articles. I'm loathe to go back to the practice of defaulting to highway shield markers just to have an image, which was done in the past with the selected articles and phased out.
  • I think you're a better judge of what's available than I.
  • As for the archives, I'll run through them later this evening. A project member recently when through the archives to switch all of the "Recent selections" to bullets from any mixture of en dashes and hyphens. I'll examine the actual text myself then. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies here, as interleaving them breaks up who's saying what:

  • Um, the only way that might work is if editors who add news items comment out the references and remember to uncomment them out when archiving. Otherwise you're suggesting immediate archival, which is different than how the SA/SP processes work. Let me be clear, you have not convinced me, based on the Featured Portal Criteria that removing the references is required. WP:V should apply here just as much as in an article. The Main Page might not have references because content there is recycled content from linked articles. As I've explained here, not all news items will be worthy of inclusion in their articles over concerns with WP:Recentism.
  • I've just told you that there's no images that can be added at this time to the news box, and that adding images to the project or nav box is going to run against MOS concerns. This objection is therefore not actionable.
  • I'm working on the archives, at the moment. I'm loathe to change much more, as it is a historical record of what was on the portal at the times indicated. I will change typography, and some minor details, but no more, to preserve the archive, warts and all. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hover text", aka captions, added to the main content on the portal. I will add to the archived versions later this evening. If alt text is specified, I'll leave it in the archives, but I won't add it at this time unless someone can point me to a requirement for it. Last I know, FAC still hasn't required it again, and the guidelines on alt text have been in flux lately. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still concerned over the references, and I'm sure similar concerns have been raised on other portals before, but I'll leave it up to the FP directors to rule on that front. I think the archives should change any remaining spelling/grammar mistakes, but agree that changing the wording of what appeared previously isn't useful. I agree there's no clarity on whether alt text is required for portals (perhaps again that's something that the FP directors could comment on). I can't see hover text on two of the three images on the main portal page at the moment, and it's also missing on some of the recent images in the Selected Article archive; I didn't check all the archived images. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swept through the archives for minor grammar and spelling. I've swept through for captions, fixing them where the |alt=|link= coding interfered with them. In some cases though, the best caption is duplicative of the text below the image for the SPs. (That's the correct term for your previously confusing "hover text". If a photo is not in a thumbnail, the caption is displayed using a "tool tip".) All of your concerns, save the references, have been addressed, and I've given a logical rationale why they are being kept to address that concern. Imzadi 1979 → 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having the added references can only improve a portal subpage's quality and that of the portal overall itself, not hurt it. However, there are certainly multiple various ways to hide the references from display on the main portal page and only have them viewable on the portal subpage. "Commenting out" is one suggestion, and using <noinclude></noinclude> is another. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Cirt. This portal has done above and beyond by having references and properly maintained each month (close enough...) Just a non-binding suggestion, for April Fool's day selected picture entries, perhaps you should include the reason why it's humorous. Then again, April won't come for another 9 months so this thing is close to the bottom on the to-do list. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are now hidden. Thanks to TwinsMetsFan (talk · contribs), the references are now in a collapsible section. In weighing possible courses of action, it was felt that since many project editors add news items to the portal, unlike the SA/SP/DYK sections that are maintained by a select few editors, that the process should be kept as simple as possible. To that end, commenting out the references until archival; immediately adding the content to both the current list and the archive, and the archive containing the references alone; the use of <noinclude></noinclude> tags or other suggestions were too complicated. In the end, making the section collapsed on the main portal page was judged to be the best option. The references are still present, nothing about the news item submission process has been changed or complicated, and the references are still accessible by readers for verification of the content. (Yes, we know that the [show] link is in blue instead of white, but that's a technical issue related to how the site handles things. If anyone can suggest a workaround, please do so, but I don't think one exists.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear I'm not keen on this solution. I remain to be convinced that it's impossible to hide the references, including the citations, on the portal front page, whilst maintaining them on the news archive subpage. Even if the section is edited by multiple people who are not necessarily familiar with the system, hidden text instructions work fine in other places, and your trusted portal maintainers could always watchlist the news & news archive and copy edit submissions that don't meet the style. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can I point out another problem with the current arrangement for references on the main page? If you click on the reference number, nothing happens because the references are hidden – if the references are on show, then clicking on the reference number acts as a hyperlink. Unless a reader happens to notice the "references" box at the bottom of the portal, he/she wouldn't be likely to discover the references... This present solution is not any better than the previous situation, and is arguably worse. Why not have the references in a collapsed section within the news box, so that the reader can more easily see that there are references and can click on "show" to find more details, but the look of the portal is not affected by having the references visible to start with? BencherliteTalk 07:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess my opinion then is to return to the original situation. EA asked for the FPOC directors' opinions. Cirt and Ohana have both stated that the references improve the portal. Cirt offered suggestions to hide them, but didn't express an opinion if that should be done. Ohana did not offer suggestions nor an opinion that they should be hidden. I'm of the opinion that the references improve the portal and should remain. EA doesn't seem to agree, nor budge on the insistence that they be hidden. I'd like to revert this and return to the original situation. The FPOC criteria do not disallow the references, and as stated by the directors, they can only improve the situation. Imzadi 1979 → 07:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do seem to be going round in circles here. I think Bencherlite's fix is the best I've yet seen, but it still leaves the problem of the citations hanging around on the front page, which to me is a deal-breaker. I don't see Imzadi & I coming to consensus on this, so I'm walking away from the discussion. Please count all my comments as comments, with no support or oppose "vote". Espresso Addict (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, have you considered using <categorytree>Roads in the United States</categorytree> in the "categories" box, rather than a partial and static list of categories? This is what some Featured Portals do e.g. Portal:Nevada/Categories; advantages are that (1) the list is complete; (2) it's easier to browse the category structure from the portal, rather than having to leave the portal to do so; (3) the portal is automatically up to date with any changes to the category structure and so no further maintenance is required. BencherliteTalk 17:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion! We might need to do a little cleanup of the category structure, but it looks good. Imzadi 1979 → 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't have done the news references in this way, but I don't think it's oppose-worthy really. Keep up the good work! BencherliteTalk 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note

Portal discussion has been open for almost 3 months now, with two supports, and no opposes. Promoting... -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Portal:U.S._Roads&oldid=1146641174"