Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates

Featured Portals in Wikipedia A featured portal is a portal which is regarded by the community as being particularly good. This page is where featured portal candidates are considered by the community. Please see "what is a featured portal?" for general standards and criteria. Before nominating a portal here, it is highly recommended you receive feedback from the community by listing it at portal peer review. Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. A portal should not be a featured portal candidate and at the same time be listed at portal peer review. Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed. Do not split a nomination page into subsections, which will cause problems in its archiving (if necessary, use bolded headings). Please respond positively to constructive criticism. For a nomination to be promoted to featured portal status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators, as determined by the portal directors: Cirt and OhanaUnited. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. A bot will update the portal talk page after the portal is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FPOC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks. At present, there are 149 featured portals, of a total of 1073 portals on Wikipedia. Purge page cache

Shortcuts: WP:FPOC WP:FPORTC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals ← Featured topics Featured portal tools: Featured portal criteria Portal peer review Featured portal candidates Featured portal log Featured portal review Former featured portals

Nomination procedure Before nominating a portal for featured portal status on this page, compare it against the featured portal criteria and ensure that it meets all criteria before nominating. It is strongly recommended that you use the portal peer review process before nominating the portal. Peer reviews help to identify and fix basic improvement needs before they might be used as the basis for opposing a nomination. You may also wish to observe other featured portals in the same topic to get ideas on how to further improve your portal before nomination. Place {{FPOC}} on the talk page of the nominated portal, and click the "initiate nomination" link – This will allow you to initiate the nomination in the correct format. Note: If you are resubmitting the portal after a previously failed nomination, it is important that you follow the following instructions correctly: Use the move tab to rename the previous nomination to a new title: example: move Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example/Archive 1 Go back to the template you left on the talk page of the nominated portal, and replace the code {{FPOC}} with {{FPOC|Archive 1}}. Save the page and re-click the "initiate nomination" link to start the nomination again. Fill in the blanks of the page, including why you are nominating the portal and other necessary details about the portal that need to be covered. Click this link and place the following code (replacing Example with the name of your portal) directly under the header, and above all previous nominations. This will transclude the nomination subpage you created for your nominated portal to be seen on the main candidacy page. Be sure to include an edit summary that clearly states which portal you are nominating: e.g., nominating Portal:Example. Nominator is strongly encouraged to watchlist the nomination page. Nominator may wish to leave a neutrally worded notice at the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Supporting and objecting Please read nominated portals fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the portal nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link). If you approve of a portal, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' 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. Any registered user may vote. IP users will have their votes crossed out, but their comments on portal content should be considered. Users casting more than 1 vote by using alternate/different accounts will have all but their primary account's vote removed. Consensus must be reached for a portal to be promoted to featured portal status. Consensus shall be determined by a nomination closer who is not materially involved in the portal's development or maintenance, or any related WikiProjects. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. To archive a nomination Any editor in good standing is welcome to analyse consensus in a nomination, and close it accordingly. There are featured portal directors who are trusted and willing to close difficult or contentious nominations in which they haven't expressed an opinion. If you would like to ask that a nomination be closed, have concerns over a closure, or seek clarification in any regard, please ask at the talk page. Remove the transcluded discussion from this page (click here). While removing it, mention the name of the portal in the edit summary. Transclude the nomination to the promoted or not promoted log, as appropriate. Update the Template:Featured portal log tallies by clicking here. Update Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/List, which appears on Template:FPcandidates, by clicking here. If the article was not promoted, there is nothing else editors need to do; the bot will update the talk page. Specifically, there is no need to remove the {{FPOC}} template or update the {{articlehistory}} template; the bot will do that. Some time later, a bot will mark the nomination page closed, and update the portal talk page. Please do not update articlehistory or the talk page yourself, as that will stall the bot and create extra work. The delay in bot processing of the FPOC closing can range from minutes to a few days; editors will know if an article was featured or archived by checking the archived nominations or the featured log. If the article was listed at FPORT, it has been promoted and you can add the star to the portal, by adding {{featured portal}} to the bottom of the portal page (unless the bot has already done that). The bot will do everything else, viz., it will upgrade Project assessments, close the FPOC, remove the {{FPOC}} template, and update ArticleHistory. For successful nominations: Update Template:FPO number by clicking here. Add the portal to Portal:Featured portals, and remember to update the subtotal in the section heading. Edit Portal:Featured content/Portals. Remember to update "max" value in the "#switch:" function. Place a featured star after the portal name at Portal:Contents/Portals. Update Wikipedia:Goings-on by clicking here. Add {{icon|FA}} alongside the portal at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. Ensure the Maintainers/WikiProject information is up-to-date.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 Portal:Law of England and Wales 1.2 Portal:Cheshire

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Portal:Law of England and Wales

Notified: WP:LAW, WP:ENGLAND, WP:WALES.

Peer review: here, with no outstanding issues (as far as I can see).

Statistics for the {{Random portal component with nominate}} sections:

• Selected article: 23 articles (8 FAs, 3 FLs, 11 GAs; 1 B-class (Welsh law, included despite its lack of GA status because of its importance to the topic as a whole))
• Selected biography: 10 articles (3 FAs, 7 GAs)
• Selected case: 10 articles (1 FA, 9 GAs)
• Selected legislation: 12 articles (1 FA, 11 GAs)
• Selected picture: 15 (1 is an FP)
• Selected quotation - 19, all sourced
• DYKs – 10 sets of 5, all from the DYK archives

In addition:

• Three random images in the intro: the Houses of Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Supreme Court
• News – bot-imported from Wikinews, as well as some manually added stories
• The usual links to related portals / WikiProjects / other Wikimedia / relevant topics / relevant categories / "quality content"

Thoughts / comments / recommendations / praise welcome! Bencherlite^Talk 11:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Cheshire

The Cheshire Portal was created by Ddstretch and has been maintained & expanded by me on behalf of the small but active Cheshire WikiProject. It uses a rotating content system with 24 selected articles, 15 biographies, 28 pictures, 11 lists, 144 DYKs, 13 quotations, customised news & a monthly anniversaries section, and is frequently updated. All suggestions from a very helpful peer review in July by Bencherlite have been incorporated, and I believe the portal now meets all the criteria for featured portal status. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified WP Cheshire, the parent WP England and the English Wikipedians' noticeboard. As WP England is not very active, I have also notified the closest subprojects, viz WPs Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria, North East England and West Midlands; I hope this is acceptable. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh goody, thank you for doing all those notifications!!! :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support all my (very minor) issues were promptly resolved at peer review and I think that this deserves the star. Excellent work! Bencherlite^Talk 07:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good work! The JPS^{talk to me} 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Cheshire is a county which was altered more than most by the 1974 boundary changes. The portal deals with both the pre 1974 county and the present county, but does not seem to provide an easy way of identifying the places which were in the pre 1974 county. For example, although we have a Category:People from Cheshire (before 1974) we do not have a list of places that such people might have come from (as we do for some other counties which were substantially altered in 1974). This really points to a gap in the WP coverage of the county, rather than in the portal itself, but it would be good to see it addressed at some stage.--Mhockey (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. The portal material deals predominantly with the post-1974 boundaries, as far as I'm aware. The project covers only post-1974 geography/settlements, although obviously there's a broader coverage in historical articles (so the former Tintwistle Rural District is tagged for Cheshire, while the modern Tintwistle is tagged for Derbyshire) and some geographic entities, such as the Wirral, are now split. History of Cheshire covers the boundary changes in detail in the appropriate section. People who were born before 1974 in former parts of Cheshire are a tricky subject; they are often covered by both relevant projects.

The portal does list the main districts which moved in 1974 under April's "In this month" and also links to History of Cheshire in the "Topics" box. It would be certainly be possible to summarise the information briefly somewhere (perhaps within the "Administration" box), although I'm not sure that the main portal audience would be interested in a set of places the portal doesn't cover! I'll put a note at the project talk page to suggest creating a list of places that were formerly within Cheshire so that the portal can at least link to something. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Left a query for response to this, at User talk:Mhockey. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying. I have responded at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cheshire#List_of_places_formerly_within_Cheshire, which is probably a better place for this discussion.--Mhockey (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• As long as someone remembering to put correct month's info from Portal:Cheshire/Calendar/Archive onto the main portal page, I'm happy to support. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No-one has to "remember", since it's rotated automatically using {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}; unless you meant something else and I've misunderstood you? Bencherlite^Talk 08:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, I'm happy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Can the title be made larger, and less padding used at the very top? Also, the DYK uses bullets, but the news and calender boxes do not. I think using bullets is bit neater. What are recommended articles? If they're all GA/FAs, I think "Recognized articles" sounds nicer, and the GA icons could be used as the FA stars are already there. For Categories, why not use category tree, which is faster to navigate? Why is the selected list at the bottom? Lastly, if it's not a huge bother, maybe add a "Related WikiProjects" box in there somewhere? Otherwise, this seems very nicely done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You'll have to wait until User:Espresso Addict comes back. He hasn't edited in a month. I'll keep this nom open for another week and if he's not back by then I will close it and ask him to nominate again when he's ready. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a good plan, -- Cirt (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know when Espresso Addict will return and I have virtually no involvement with this portal, but I do have some questions in response to Fetchcomms. I think using bullets for in the news and in this month is unnecessary. The way I see it, the bulleting for the did you know section is to separate out each hook; that's not necessary with the other sections as the bolding does that job. The "recommended articles" are, as far as I see as I've not checked them all, GAs and FAs but what are the benefits of calling them recognised content as opposed to recommended articles? Are portals meant for Wikipedia's writers or readers? Will the average reader know what recognised means in this context? I think recommended suffices. While category tree is sometimes a useful tool, again I don't see why it would be preferable to the current set up. It's a streamlined version of the categories, cutting out the stuff which would be of minimal interest but they can still be accessed by following the categories. If you were putting this portal together, where would you put the selected list and why? Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Overall, I think that the minor points raised by Fetchcomms aren't enough to make me qualify my support; there's more than one way of getting a portal looking good and, even though I might not have done everything like this, I don't think the overall result is at all bad. As for the title size / padding, that might be a monitor / browser issue, as it looks OK to me on my home laptop (Firefox) and work desktop (IE). Perhaps Fetchcomms could try tweaking the title / padding x-self and see how how it looks? Bencherlite^Talk 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - great work! Dincher (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Portal Portals:  Featured (Criteria, Candidates) | List | Directory | WikiProject | Guidelines | Instructions | Categorizing | Peer review | Categories