Wikipedia:Portal peer review/National Register of Historic Places/archive1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal:National Register of Historic Places

I believe the portal is ready for Featured status, but would appreciate feedback. Any improvement, alteration or enhancement suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks. Ebyabe (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a persistent block of whitespace below the biography box. Could this be re-ordered somehow? Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Hm, possibly. Adding something would be nice, but can't think what else could go in the spot. Not sure if moving things would help; it may only rearrange where the whitespace is. We'll try some stuff and see. Thanks! --Ebyabe (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the best I could. The elements in the left column (article, picture, biography) are not each of uniform size, and since they change randomly, sometimes there'll be whitespace. At least it's not quite so egregious now. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments by doncram:

The featured picture of the Union Stock Yards is not a picture of an NRHP-listed place. Only the gateway to the former stockyard is NRHP-listed, and I believe that the gateway is not included in the pic. If it is in the background somewhere, the caption should describe where it is; otherwise i think the pic should not be used.
I am not really enamored of the leading pic of a generic NRHP historic plaque. I would not want to add to the incorrect idea some might have that all NRHP-listed places have that plaque. I concede that using that plaque photo, which seems non-specific to any one NRHP place, serves a certain role like an NRHP logo, in its location near the top of the portal. Is there any other logo that could serve the same role? I think the overall NPS logo would not be appropriate though.
As a reviewer, I am hampered by a mental block that i have in not understanding what a portal is supposed to do, so I don't really have a clear perspective on what the leading little article should accomplish. But, I would estimate that the first mini-article there needs copy-editing. Should it be defining what the sport of NRHPing is? Or what wikipedia's role with respect to historic sites in the U.S. is, like how many sites already have been photographed? If the mini-article is to describe what is the NRHP program of the U.S., then, out of the first two paragraphs, I would prefer for the first sentence of the second paragraph to lead the mini-article.
The following passage in the 2nd paragraph seems incorrect or inconsistent: "Some states, however, might have state or local laws that become effective when a place is listed on the National Register. In contrast, a local historic district often has enabling ordinances at the municipal level that restrict certain kinds of changes to properties and thereby encourages those changes that are sensitive to the historic character of an area." What is the contrast that is alluded to? Local zoning ordinances sometimes specifically key on whether a place is in some local register and also on whether it is NRHP-listed, and they can specify the same or different types of reviews for any changes to properties of the two types. I think the restrictions on NRHP-listed properties would pretty much amount to being "enabling ordinances at the municipal level", so I don't understand what is the contrast. It is hard to characterise all possible types of local zoning laws here, of course.

Hope these brief thoughts are helpful. doncram (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Definitely needs more articles and biographies. And the "Purge server cache" words are awfully small and I almost missed it. You can certainly make it bigger without affecting the layout because there's quite a bit of blank space there for you to use. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More panoramas are also needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments on commentary

Gee, has it been that long since I started this thread? Let's see about getting back into the swing of things.

Stock Yard photo: found one for the actual gate already uploaded, changed on the portal

NRHP plaque: I see the point, but it does have the benefit of being generic, and not favoring one state or territory. I'm not sure what other options are available, either. There doesn't need to be any sort of photo, but I think it adds some visual interest, moreso than a block of text, imho.

Portal purpose: You know, I've wondered about that too. Lets look at some other portals and see whassup. I'll see what I can find out.

2nd paragraph question: I'm not sure on this one.

More articles/bios/photos/etc: Always we'll need more, they can always be added. But what's enough before it could be considered feature-worthy?

There are currently 9 18 articles, 26 pictures, 5 6 biographies and 3 15 panoramas. Articles are relatively easy to add. Bios are harder. I know I'm not as up on that stuff. And panoramas, well, they're not always categorized as such. I added what I could find. There are several more I could add, but they'd be all Florida ones I took, and this is Portal:NRHP, not Portal:Florida (which, btw, featured portal). --Ebyabe (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Ebyabe (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation of the purpose of portals can be found here. But basically, they're about a specific topic, not a WikiProject itself. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Purge server cache is now bigger. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.