Wikipedia:Featured portal review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reviewing featured portals

This page is for the review and improvement of featured portals that may no longer meet the featured portal criteria. Featured portals are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

All registered users are welcome to contribute in the process.

Featured portal review (FPR)

  • The aim is to improve portals rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured portal criteria that are at issue, and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve portals in various ways: Portals may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of being useful, attractive, ergonomic and well-maintained, may also be addressed.
  • Participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by constructive and substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return toward the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • One of the featured portal directors, Cirt and OhanaUnited, determines whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and closes the listing accordingly.

There is no set time limit for the review: if changes are ongoing and improvements are happening within a reasonable length of time, and it seems useful to continue the process, the review is likely to be kept open.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Purge the cache to refresh this page
Shortcut:
WP:FPR

Featured content:

Featured portal tools:

Nominating a portal for Featured portal review (FPR)

Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, and they should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in portal content or design.

  1. Place {{FPR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated portal. Write "FPR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
    Note: if a portal has already been through the FPR process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Portal:Solar System → Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Portal:Solar System/archive1
  2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated portal]]=== at the top of the subpage.
  4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the portal, specifying the featured portal criteria that are at issue. Click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated portals, {{Wikipedia:Featured portal review/name of nominated portal}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated portal. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FPRMessage|Portalname}} to relevant talk pages (insert the portal name). Relevant talk pages include the main contributors to the portal (identifiable through the portal stats script), the editor who originally nominated the portal for Featured Portal status (identifiable through the Featured Portal Candidate link), any editors listed in relation to the portal at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FPR indicating notifications completed.

Contributing to the discussions

  • The nominator should list groups and editors notified, for example, :''Notified <main contributors, FP nominator, relevant WikiProjects>.''
    • You can consider using {{subst:FPRMessage}} notify the groups and editors.
  • The nominator should cite the specific featured portal criteria concerns that prompted the nomination for removal.
    • Useful (1a), attractive (1b), ergonomic (1c), well-maintained (1d); compliance MOS and project guidelines (2); images (3); not self-referential (4); links to other Wikimedia projects (5)
      • Use a format such as: :''Suggested FPo criteria concerns are <applicable criteria>.''
  • Discussions focus on how to improve the portal so that it meets the stated featured portal criteria at issue. The ideal resolution of a featured portal review is to close the discussion at this stage without a change in status.
  • If you approve of a portal's current featured status, write '''Keep''' followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a portal's current featured status, write '''Remove''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to a portal's suitability for the Wikipedia.
  • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Contents


[edit] Featured portal reviews

[edit] Portal:Portugal

This portal was promoted in July 2006, and was abandoned just a few months later, to all intents and purposes. As a result, it spectacularly fails the Featured portal criteria in relation to frequency of updating, which notes that portals which are not updated for 3 months will be summarily demoted. The portal uses a system of manual updating, rather than randomised content.

The "selected article/biography/place" were last changed in Sept 2006; "DYK" in Dec 2007; "picture" in Feb 2009; "quote" Feb 2009; the news dates from Feb 2007 (!); the list of new articles stops in Dec 2007. There is also a "requested article" section: but the requested article was created as long ago as June 2007!

Concern was expressed back in 2007 that the portal had stagnated, but nothing came of it. It is far short of modern standards. BencherliteTalk 17:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Notifications: original nominator Mário (talk · contribs) has not edited since Nov 2009, so no message left; messages left with WikiProject Portugal and WikiProject Europe (WikiProject Portuguese geography and WikiProject Porto are both marked as inactive) and with the listed maintainers Husond (talk · contribs), Joaopais (talk · contribs) (1 edit this month, otherwise nothing since 2009, so virtually inactive), and PedroPVZ (talk · contribs). BencherliteTalk 17:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The portal doesn't use random subpages, so I don't understand your first point.
  • As for the second, there are no rules that says that only featured material can be used (whether in fixed subpages or in random subpages), or that material can only be used once in fixed subpages. Two of the articles in Category:FA-Class Portugal articles have not been used, it seems. There are also eight articles in Category:GA-Class Portugal articles that could be considered. BencherliteTalk 10:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Biology

Notified: WP:BIOLOGY and its parent project, WP:SCIENCE; Ausir (talk · contribs), Cyde (talk · contribs) (names in the Directory) and Papa Lima Whiskey (talk · contribs) (carried out the Sept 2008 updates). Samsara (talk · contribs), who nominated the portal for FPo status, is no longer active, so no message left.

Fails 1(d) "well-maintained" and 1(a) "useful". Note that the Featured portal criteria say that portals that are not updated for three months are summarily delisted.

As relying on updates by portal maintainers, associated WikiProjects or passers-by clearly isn't working, the portal needs to be changed to one using random subpages, with a proper level of decent content for the article, biography and picture section. The DYK section needs to be expanded to use only hooks that have appeared on the main page through DYK, and lots of them, in random subpages. There is a working "biology news" section at Wikinews, so perhaps a news section ought to be added here. A lot of work is needed to bring this up to current standards. BencherliteTalk 11:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need to restrict content to DYK, but the attitude that says that we have to restrict ourselves in that way makes me less surprised that you're short of portal maintainers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to come across as having an "attitude", so my apologies if I inadvertantly gave that impression. I said that DYK hooks should be taken from the WP:DYK selections because (a) that seems to be the standard that has evolved in more recent FPo noms (this portal was promoted in August 2006), and (b) it has the advantage that the hook has been checked by someone else. BencherliteTalk 09:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_portal_review"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export