User:Bermicourt/Portal status

WikiProject Portals

Notes on evaluating portals

When you evaluate a portal, please always add the date (month/year), version and your name ([[User:XYZ|XYZ]] or ~~~~~ (3*); please do not use ~~~~ (4*) for reasons of space, since it contains an element that cannot be checked or queried. It also stops portals from being self-evaluated. Assessments are part of a review process. They are therefore to be taken as advice and not as mandatory instructions which must be acted upon. The overall assessment should logically follow from the remarks. The following criteria should be used for evaluation:

Overall evaluation

Principles

A portal that has neither a nominated editor or editors nor a WikiProject or Task Force overseeing it, can be rated no higher than .
A portal under construction may be rated until it is ready. If it is still incomplete after a month, it should be rated
Nominated 'overseer' editors who have been inactive for more than six months may be removed.

Colour key

Good: rule of thumb: a portal is only assessed as "green" if none of the individual evaluation criteria are "red" and there are significantly more criteria rated as "green" than "yellow".
Adequate: generally ok, but has minor issues
Poor: has medium to serious issues. The rule of thumb is that if more of the detailed criteria are assessed as "red" than "green" or if there are more than three "reds", then the overall rating should be red.
: Under construction.

Status key

Detailed assessment

Header: relevant and attractive, but not too gaudy; not too large or small; good use of relevant images, coherent set of links General layout: good overall impression, basic space layout, appropriate use of section headings, use of borders and colours to distinguish between them Length: individual portal pages are short (minimal scrolling), but not too brief Text: not oversized and not too small (only use small letters in justifiable exceptional cases), appropriate use of italic and bold text Colour scheme: not too loud nor too bland, and consistent with the topic Use of space/gaps: space-saving without being cramped; no large gaps in columns and headings Wiki internals: target-oriented contact information (e. g. reference to any existing WikiProject or talk pages; preferably supported by editors overseeing the portal) and links to sister projects or related portals in a prominent place. use of CatScan, reference to featured or good articles, reviews and assistance Images: not too large or small, not too many or few, selection of relevant images, sharpness and quality Section to link ratio: not too many links per section, otherwise clarity suffers; this is true for any maintenance sections on new or wanted articles; not too many sections or too few links per section Text to list ratio: good balance between text and link lists Content/Maintenance ratio: good balance between content and maintenance sections Portal subpages: logical use of subpages; good linking and easy to find, adequate design User friendliness: logical, user-friendly structure, easy to edit, good screen resolution and browser neutrality, no fixed widths Up to date: portal has active support editor(s), is being maintained, the news feeds are up-to-date and Articles of the Month or Images of the Month are refreshed on time.

Source

Notes on evaluating portals

Overall evaluation

Detailed assessment

See also

Source