Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:California Roads

The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was promoted by Northamerica1000. Consensus is that the portal meets the Featured portal criteria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:California Roads[edit]

I believe this portal meets the featured portal criteria. There are about 300 articles represented in this topic, and there is a selection of 31 selected articles (all FAs or GAs), 16 selected pictures, and 17 DYKs. --Rs chen 7754 01:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Portal has a wide selection of high-quality selected articles that are GA or better, and multiple pictures and DYK hooks that change every time the portal is refreshed. The only nitpick I have is that the pictures for the SA should be right-aligned. After that's fixed, I'm willing to support. Dough4872 05:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 05:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - Well done! Dough4872 05:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should we have a news section in the portal, similar to the US Roads portal?
Kevon kevono (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 20:36 (PDT)[reply]
- I would prefer not to, since otherwise the portal will have to be regularly maintained. Portal:Michigan Highways and Portal:Maryland Roads don't have it and are featured portals. --Rs chen 7754 04:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're just being lazy about the portal and ditch it after if it becomes featured status? It's true that the two portals listed above are FPs, but editors' job on Wikipedia aren't to upgrade everything to featured status (although that's a main reason), they're to making Wikipedia a better place. I think a news section would be very necessary to the portal, and if you disagree, I'll add it myself.
    Kevon kevono (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 21:18 (PDT)[reply]
    - First of all, please assume good faith. It's not being lazy, it's being realistic with editor time and resources. Please read the criteria: "Featured portals may be designed to reduce the required frequency of updating" and "Featured portals that require maintenance and are not updated for three or more months are summarily demoted". --Rs chen 7754 04:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) As the editor responsible for getting Portal:Michigan Highways to FPo status, I must strenuously protest your comments, and I'd ask that you immediately retract them, Kevon kevono. First off, the Michigan portal requires regular updating because its Selected Article, Selected Picture and DYK set change each month. Even a portal like the Maryland one needs periodic updates to ensure that the content is still accurate even though it randomly rotates through set content each time the portal is reloaded. In fact, as additional articles in that state are promoted to higher assessment levels, the displayed content needs to be periodically audited to ensure it includes the best examples Maryland's collection of highway articles has to offer. So no, we can't "just [be] lazy about the portal and ditch it after if it becomes featured". Claims otherwise have no place in a review like this one.
      Assuming a news section were required (it isn't), such a section would quickly become stale on a state-level highway portal. You just can't ensure that there will be enough changes to a state's highway system to prompt regular news updates, let alone at the quarterly intervals required by the FPo criteria. It works on P:USRD only because we have 50 states plus the territories from which to draw news updates. Even then, whole months can go by without any updates to the portal.
      I think your comments do a major disservice to the motives of the nominator. Honestly, given how you've chosen to engage in reviewing, I actually would also suggest that you discontinue reviewing anything at the Featured level for the time being. Your comments have not inspired any confidence that you actually understand what Featured means. Imzadi 1979 → 04:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, fine.
        Kevon kevono (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 21:54 (PDT)[reply]
        
        Please retract your comments as requested above, Kevon kevono. That means you need to take some affirmative action, like ~~striking through~~ the offending text, to acknowledge that it has no place in the discourse here. Imzadi 1979 → 05:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. I apologize.
        Kevon kevono (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 09:07 (PDT)[reply]

With that said, I support the nomination of this portal.

Kevon kevono (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 12:07 (PDT)[reply]

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