Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/December 2007

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a failed featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it.

Reasons for nominating? Well, I think this topic needs a featured portal to better promote it to readers and attract more editors (which it really needs). I have been working hard on it over the last few weeks with the goal of featured status, taking cues from existing FPs. A peer review was carried out a few weeks ago. Adrian M. H. 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come it doesn't have a selected article for NASCAR? You have one for the company that owns NASCAR, but not NASCAR itself. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other NASCAR GAs (that I am aware of). I have been able to add only two more articles to the selected content that was originally picked by the editor who created the portal because we have a paucity of GA/FA rated motorsport content. Adrian M. H. 20:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for a few issues-

• Intro- I kind of liked the idea of referring to other parts of the portal in the intro at first. But these are all self-explanatory, and should not take up space as duplicating references. This space should instead be used to expand the intro slightly.
• Archives- The article archive refers a link to the bio archive. If one does this, all archives should link to all other archives. You can cut out the Portal:Motorsports part, as this is implied.
• Pics- What are the determining factors of choosing a pic? I know of atleast one featured pic not in the portal. If it is not limited to featureds, a nominations page must be made.

• All selected pics must have a credit caption.
• Pic captions should use proper grammar, ie. periods on sentences.

• Selected articles- All target articles should be linked as well as bolded.
• Bios- Same as articles
• Quotes- Please use {{cquote}} or similar all inclusive template.

• How often do you plan on updating the quotes and dyk? There is a template used in a couple featured portals for that task, I'll find it for ya.

• {{Random subpage}} Joe I 04:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• News- Very extensive. Will you be able to keep up with this level?
• Racing disciplines- Please remove the thumbnails from the pics as this section is for the type of racing, not individual vehicles. That'll give ya room to add a motorcycle or drag racing pic(if you want, of course :)
• Related portals should be above wikimedia.
• All tabs should include {{Portals}} on the bottom, while the content tab should also include the wikimedia and related portals box.
• Categories- I'm not sure it needs an explanation, but no biggie either way.
• Is there some reason for the coloring of the portal? I find myself liking it (alot actually). Joe I 04:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to cover most of those points in no particular order:

• I search for the latest news items approximately two or thee times per day in the normal course of web browsing anyway, and have always updated the portal around the same time. New items are added daily and are only less frequent if there is nothing notable worth reporting. We won't need to worry about updates in the foreseeable future
• The "quotes" and "did you know" panels are updated weekly by Diniz and I take care of it in his absence. I prefer to do this manually
• Briefly explaining what the reader can find and where to look for it is an important part of web usability. That's a golden rule for me. I will change it only if really matters to this review. I do not think that it goes against the advice about self referencing, if that's what you had in mind

• Ok, then can you link the bolded headings in the intro. Joe I 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Credit caption? I'll look into that, but an example would be useful. What about images that came from outside sources such as Flickr: should they use the original creator's pseudonym?

• Yeah, all images should be sourced. Portal:Military of the United States/Selected picture should give a wide range of sources. Usually however the creator refers to themself is what should be used. Joe I 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The colour scheme was chosen by the portal's creator (Skully Collins) based on WP:MOTOR. It's not relevant to motorsport, but it is easy on the eye and attractive. BRG would be an option, but that would probably not be international enough
• Why should we have to add a layer of bureaucracy when I am more than able to identify good images? I am aware that there is a featured picture that is not included, for which there is a good editorial decision: it is not a particularly good photograph

• Not to be condescending or anything, but how are you more qualified than anyone else to recognize a good pic. If that is true, why are all your pics not featured and the one that is, not in the portal. If there is to be no qualitative selection criteria(being featured), then a nominations page/section is needed. No doubt you have a good portion of the quality motor sport pics, but you can't know of them all. Joe I 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All selected articles are already linked, using the method that I inherited from the portal's creator. Is this wrong?

• No, the more link is perfectly acceptable, but a bold-linking in the first sentence follows the line of the main page, which portals are modeled after. Joe I 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't use full-stops on captions. I know of no copywriter who would. Again, if it's a deal-breaker for you, I'll consider it

• Why not? I'm no proper grammer person(hate it), but if a caption makes a complete sentance, shouldn't it be treated as such? Joe I 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that categories need some brief context just as most things do. I spend a lot of time helping new users, which never lets me forget that Wikipedia can take some getting used to. I'd bet that a fair percentage of portal visitors have not even edited yet and we want to ease them towards that idea Adrian M. H. 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up my bulleted comments with your own responses makes it more difficult to identify my comments from yours and makes it more difficult to reply. I do not normally give any information about myself, other than my current profession, which is common knowledge, but since you raised it, I managed a photographic gallery for eight years and I have a degree in photographic art. I have been taking pictures since the age of seven, and although some of them are published in print, I choose not to make any available on the internet. I choose not to comment in any Featured Picture reviews either. The chosen images are not "my" images, just to clarify your wording; they were chosen after a lengthy and exhaustive examination of all applicable Commons images. Adrian M. H. 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, if there is no clear decisive criteria for your selections(mainly being featured either here or on commons), then a nominations section is needed so anyone else can have a say. Joe I 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else can have a say. We have discussed images already. The fact is, there are only one or two other editors who have contributed to the portal in recent weeks, despite leaving a note at the motorsport project's talk page, so you shouldn't expect to see much discussion. If I had not taken on the task of rebuilding and improving the portal, it would not have been done in all likelihood and it would still have, among other shortcomings, just three selected images. Of those, one was featured but not particularly suitable and the other two were, I think, just chosen for expediency. I think you are being too picky, frankly; I didn't put all those hours in just to receive negative comments. Adrian M. H. 12:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it's ever used, it needs to be available, such as it is on Portal:Motorsport/Did you know (management)(and not used). I'm the only editor on at least three portals that all have nominations sections(not yet used), because I want another persons input if and when they should add it. As you mentioned earlier, you want things easy on the new user. And being picky is part of the featured process, and I don't think it should be compromised. Joe I 19:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Searchme (talk · contribs) has made some good points, above. {{Random portal component}} would help with randomization and reduce the need for manual updating. There is a bit of a space gap at bottom right. Quotation box should use {{cquote}} formatting. Way too many items in the News section, I'd suggest probably half that many. The selected biography blurb is a bit long. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Not promoted. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a failed featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it.

I am nominating this portal to become a Featured Portal because I have done a lot of work on it and I think it now meets the criteria for a Feature Portal candidate and achieving this status may help attract more visitors to the page and make my edits worthwhile even more. Mangwanani 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, but may consider supporting given the following concerns are addressed:

• For Selected Article, Picture and Biography, there needs to be either a "Random Rotation" or a "Nomination-Selection" process. For a young portal like this one, the latter may be more appropriate and easy to implement.
• There should be more DYK entries (preferably with random rotation) complemented with a proper archive. "Read more" should not lead to recent additions to Wikipedia.

Arman ^(Talk) 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a nomination process but no one makes use of it and so I simply choose articles that have between start and FA status from the WPZW assessments. Also, if I could be told where to find new Zimbabwe related articles specifically to find DYK articles I would appreciate it. Mangwanani 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with Armanaziz (talk · contribs) that randomization would help. Consider using {{Random portal component}}. Also, the Did you know and Related portals sections at the bottom are misaligned, and leave large space gaps in the portal. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: I fixed the misalignment. Cheers, [sd] 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

1. Related portals section should not have the portals, which do not exist, ie. BW, MZ. I believe, South Africa portal should be abbreviated as SA, rather ZA.
2. Remove red links from Zimbabwe topics section.
3. Do not use red links in the portal anywhere other than the To do list. Fix red links from Article, Picture, News sections and wherever applicable. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I will now fail this nomination because the nominator did not show signs of improving the portal after the nomination started. Also, at least 3 fair-use images were found on Portal:Zimbabwe/Featured biography/2007 and removed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a failed featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it.