Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/August 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by OhanaUnited 03:12, 5 August 2012 [1].

Portal:Mauritius[edit]

I am submitting Portal:Mauritius for featured portal because I believe it meets the criteria. I put it up for peer review, but got no comments in over two weeks. -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  1. The Selected article section should have a link to the whole collection of selected articles piped as "More articles".
     Done
  2. The subpages for the Selected article should probably be called "Selected article" rather than "Featured article".
    Does that really matter?
    It would help for consistency. Dough4872 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But it doesn't affect the readers. -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Selected picture and Did you know? section archive links should be piped to dispany "More pictures" or "More Facts"
     Done
  4. Is there any more In the news items that can be added? The only item there is from September 2005. If there is not enough news items, I would suggest removing the section.
    checkY Removed
  5. The captions for the Selected pictures should be centered.
     Done
  6. Are there any more Did you know? hooks that can be included? The same hooks show up every time I load the portal.
    That is all there is.
    I would suggest creating more hooks so that different hooks show up each time. Dough4872 03:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Only hooks that have been on the main page can be used. The few you see there are the only ones about Mauritius that went on the main page. -- BCS (t · c · !) 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you know? hooks for the portal don't necessarily have to be from the main page. P:USRD, which is a featured portal, has hooks that were not on the main page. Dough4872 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How many should it have? -- BCS (t · c · !) 22:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5 times the amount currently would be sufficient so there can be five different sets randomly generated. Dough4872 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Subpages for Selected biography should be "Selected biography" for consistency and archive should be piped as "More biographies".
    checkYChanged to more biographies
  8. I would suggest higher quality articles for the Selected biography. Two of the four articles are C-class, and one is Start-class with maintenance tags.
    I included the most important people, not just the highest quality biographies.
    Portal content is not just about showing the most important articles, its also about showing quality content. Any selected articles or biographies should be at least GA. Dough4872 03:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But then that leaves one. -- BCS (t · c · !) 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always room for improvement. Dough4872 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, there is only one. I thought one isn't enough? -- BCS (t · c · !) 22:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't. I'm saying that the section needs to have multiple biographies that are quality articles to be viable. Dough4872 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So I have to get another article to GA? -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would highly suggest it if you want this to become a Featured Portal. Dough4872 04:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There is only one Selected panorama. Are there any more panoramas? If not, this section should be removed.
    What? When I refresh, I don't see the same one...
    Never mind. Dough4872 03:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Why does the "More..." link for the Selected panorama link to the Mauritius article.
     Done
  11. The spacing of the Related portals section looks off. Dough4872 02:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Fixed.
I did most of them. Read my above comments. I'll fix the rest tomorrow. -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy today, I'll do it tomorrow. -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. Anything else? -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all the concerns I have for now. Some still need to be addressed before I can support. Dough4872 02:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where in Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria does it say you have to have more than one good article biography and five sets of DYKs? -- BCS (t · c · !) 15:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1a says that featured portals should display "high-quality content" and criteria 1d says that featured portals should be updated regularly and display different content. Dough4872 23:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess this is not passing because I can't get a biography to GA in a timely manner. -- BCS (t · c · !) 00:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not willing to resolve my comments I will have to Oppose this nomination. Dough4872 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The featured portal criteria say that a featured portal "showcases only high-quality content that is preferably already featured." Wikipedia:Portal guidelines, which are a very useful set of principles generally taken into account here, note at Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines#Article selection that as a rough guide (though not a hard and fast rule), 20 articles ought to be included in "selected biography" sections and the like. Even allowing for 20 not being a hard and fast rule, this portal simply does not have enough articles included at this time (only 4 selected biographies, only 6 selected articles), and the biographies that it does include are not high-quality content (GA / FA). BencherliteTalk 10:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by OhanaUnited 03:47, 20 August 2012 [2].

Portal:Athletics[edit]

Decision: No consensus. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am submitting Portal:Athletics for featured portal because I believe it meets the criteria. I put it up for peer review, but got no comments in over three weeks. In the meantime I still listened to the suggestions in my talk of OhanaUnited (FP project director), and now the portal has 21 biographies and 21 selected articles that run. --Kasper2006 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
1. I would suggest higher quality articles for the selected article and selected biography sections. Articles featured on the portal should be GA or better.
 Done Now we have six featured articles: all the three biographies of athletes presents on wikipedia (Jim Thorpe, Stamata Revithi and Terry Fox) and three articles (List of Olympic records in athletics, 1896 Summer Olympics and Jesse Owens Award). Now bio and articles are 46! --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The same thing for the articles. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A featured portal should have all articles be GA or better. I still see plenty of sub-GA articles. Dough4872 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not easy to find 23 good articles. The majority of them, however, they are. Tell me any case where, in your opinion, are not of that maybe I widen or replace them. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. For the selected article and selected biography, I would suggest having a link to the whole collection of selected articles and selected biographies that appear on the portal. I would also add a link from the portal pointing to the whole collection of selected articles and selected biographies.
 Done At the moment for the biographies. Now we have a link under each biography, as in Portal:Formula One. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest changing the links to display "More articles" and "More biographies". Dough4872 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me there is no problem: Just that in many FP is "Archive" (Portal:Formula One is a good example). --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Any pictures, did you know, or news that could be added to the portal? Most portals have these sections. Dough4872 02:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wouldn't insist on a "News" section these days - Wikinews is virtually dead so any section relying on importing stories from there will be horridly out of date virtually for ever, and it's asking too much to require a "news" section that requires someone to update it by hand (as I've found). n:Category:Athletics has only 10 articles from 2006 onwards! BencherliteTalk 11:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Selected picture (they'll bring 5 to 20). --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now are 20! --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Did you know (they'll bring 3 to 5). --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now are 5 = 20 informations! --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done News. At the moment I only put two news, but at least to 2012 (the newest of Wikinews is 2010). I think 5 news enough (of course then the archive will be active). --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now are 5! --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bencherlite (later "oppose", see below)
  • "Throwing" in the first sentence of the introduction links to a dab page.
 Done Error from the main article. Fixed also there. --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More about...Athletics: its Track and field, and its List of athletics events" does not make sense grammatically. As "track and field" and "list of athletics events" are both linked later in the portal, I'd remove them.
 Done --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dough4872 about the need for a selected picture section.
 Done --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done to my satisfaction - see below. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "Did you know" section is needed as well - there must have been lots of DYKs about athletes and athletics on the main page. You can use User:JL-Bot/Project content to help you find them; ask me if you need help on this.
 Done But could you explain how to use User:JL-Bot/Project content? --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done to my satisfaction - see below. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a box showing other related portals? This too is a standard portal feature
 Done In the bottom of the page (together with related wikiprojects). --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me an example of a portal that uses this function. I have not found. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Portal:Opera/Featured content for example. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered having a "selected quotation" section too?
 Not done Also this is something that no other FP I've seen, in any case, I think it's something that does not add much to the quality of the portal. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Federations" box is far too prominent - frankly who cares enough about a list of national associations for it to be right at the top?
 Done I moved down to the left. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the left-hand column is too wide and the right-hand too narrow; other portals use 55% and 44% instead of your 60% and 39%. Perhaps try that?
 Done Now we have 58% and 41% (the least to see well the table of world records). --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of Portal:Athletics/International competitions is poor: "The International Athletics Championships and Games are all those competitions for Nations of athletics, that are held periodically in the world. Can be distinguished: * Games, athletics, where the sport is one of the multi-sport event ... " Eh? I know that this has been taken directly from the list in question, but it needs putting into proper grammatical English. Also, what are the numbers "1,2,3,10,11,12,13,14,15" for? Do we need a column that tells us that the World Championships are "World championships"? Do we need a column that tells us that the European Championships are for those from Europe? Overall, I think that this is a poor choice of headline article and if you are to use it, it needs rewriting, probably putting the table into prose.
 Done I am committed to make it as clear as possible. Tell me if that's right? --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No it's not - see below. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sorry I did not know it. For article 7 I put a commons image. Now I seek something for the other two. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done not to my satisfaction, see below. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:FPO?, "Article and biography summaries should not significantly exceed 200 words in length." The article and biography summaries vary wildly in length; please standardise them.
 Done I reduced seven articles (5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 22) and seven biographies (10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20). --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done not to my satisfaction, see below. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want I haven't problem to correct, but 140px or 160px are used in many sports portal. If for you it's OK I leave that situation. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly this is the least of the portal's problems. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world records list could do with a date saying when it was last updated.
 Done --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world records list has dablinks for the 400m (M), 400m hurdles (M) and long jump (M). It also has inconsistency: "1.500" "3.000" but "5000" and "10000"
 Done the 2nd, the 1st... seems OK. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it isn't - the list shouldn't link to Michael Johnson, Kevin Young or Mike Powell; try finding the correct names on those disambiguation pages then fix the links (hint: one of them is Michael Johnson (sprinter). BencherliteTalk 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Ok, sorry, I did not realize what you were referring. Now it should be OK. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More worringly, the world records list has apparent errors. You give the marathon time as 2'03"38 and the 10000m time as 26'17"53 - I suspect that the 10000m was not run in 26 hours 17 minutes and 53 seconds but 26 minutes 17.53 seconds (26:17.53). I rather think this is because you use a variety of formats to denote hours, minutes, seconds and fractions - you would probably be better off using the format at List of world records in athletics
 Done --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's enough for now. Clearly a lot of work has gone into making this portal but it is still a long way from being of featured standard. BencherliteTalk 10:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion this portal seems to become quickly the best Athletics portal on web. I would wait last fixes to be sure, but it's on the right way. --Theirrulez (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I fixed 17 of the 20 things you asked me to do, the portal has greatly improved. I ask Bencherlite, sure as the admin knows the procedure, if this is enough to get promotion and how to proceed? --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's look at what you've done.

  • The selected picture section is very poor. The images should have proper captions, not just one word. Even if a one-word caption is appropriate, which I doubt, it ought not to have a full stop (period) after it. Where was the photo taken? Who is in the photo? You will notice that many featured portals have standard selected picture formats that give the photographer's name as a credit - any reason not to do that here? "The landing on the sand in long jump event." is poor English. "Sally Pearson and Usain Bolt, with Prince Albert of Monaco, pose with the IAAF Athlete of the Year." What?? Do you mean that the fourth person in the photo is the IAAF Athlete of the Year, and if so who is he? "The famous arrive of Dorando Pietri at the Marathon finish 1908 Summer Olympics in London." Poor English, again, and avoid POV words like "famous" in captions. "Hurdlings" is not a word. "A pole vaulter flies." No he doesn't (and who and where is he anyway?).
 Done
1) I deleted all of my "poor English" because I brought the original image description at Commons
2) I applied the Template:Selected picture as the Featured Portal Wine. Only that they only have 7 picture and are FP, we that we're not, have 21! ;)
3) I added the credits (as in the description in "source" of Commons)
1) I added a longer description of the picture (without the stop at the end). --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DYK section from looking at a random sample does not use hooks that appeared on the Main Page through DYK. I strongly recommend that you do this, because (1) it ensures that someone has checked the hook (2) it saves readers from your poor English: "that on the life of Steve Prefontaine, great promise of American middle-distance, were made ​​two movies?", "that The Grand Olympics (pictured) is the official movie put the 1960 Summer Olympics, which were held in Rome?", "that Ben Johnson won 100 metres in 1988 Summer Olympics but after he was disqualified for doping and the victory went to Carl Lewis?" to give only three examples.
 Done For now I solved the problem of my "poor English" eliminating DYK written by me (although curiosity was the most fun) and I dug DYK present in Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/DYK and I then replaced (this list Portal:Athletics/Did you know), with DYK written by people speaking English from birth. I just want to point out that some FP have a pretty poor DYK section (Tennis, Rugby union, Cricket, just three examples). In contrast is exceptional in Portal:Formula One/Did you know, to which I wanted to inspire, but you've clipped my wings. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to know how to find DYKs using the bot, look at User:Bencherlite/Law where I keep a subpage for reference when tweaking law-related portals. I didn't think the instructions at User:JL-Bot/Project content were too confusing, to be honest.
By virtue of the above determinations, I bypassed this point. However I created this page, but I have not yet applied to operationalize the bot (maybe I need a little help, why not? ;-)). --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portal:Athletics/International competitions is still poorly worded and is still a poor choice of headline article. I've done enough copy-editing on this portal, so if you want to keep it there I'm not going to rewrite it for you.
 Done I have greatly simplified the section, writing an easily understandable way. I streamlined the body of the voice, limiting it to only one table (in this way also the biographies and articles have greater visibility). It seems, however, that you're focusing on "demonizing" my "poor english" do not judge the quality of the portal, especially when compared to other FP significantly poorer than that. In Italy we say: "You stop to look at the speck and the beam is not known". ;) --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected article 21 still does not explain the ♦ symbol
 Done --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article and biography summaries still vary widely in length. I see awful prose such as "Participate in the competitions in this class, athletes who have not completed their eighteenth birthday on 31 December of the Competicion."
 Done to the articles. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The 21 articles of the Portal:Athletics/Selected article are now length "8 down mouse scroll of the page" exactly as the FP Portal:Formula One/Selected article. About 10 lines for every article (considering the 4 wikitables);
2) I removed the spaces between the lines as in Portal:Formula One/Selected article;
3) I fixed at 150px the pictures of every articles, as in Portal:Formula One/Selected article (with the exception of 3 double image);
4) I rewrote the text of the article 13: «Can participate in these competitions, the young people who have not completed 18 years at December 31».
EDIT Now is «The Competition is open to those young people under the 18 years old». --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Once again, you prove my point. That sentence is still written in very poor English. Your command of the English language, unfortunately, is not good enough to cope with the demands of creating a Featured Portal without someone else painstakingly correcting your work. Please withdraw this nomination, and find somebody prepared to help you with your use of English here. BencherliteTalk 19:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now I have completely deleted the period. Basically repeating the concept already expressed in the incipit: «Youth is a category of athletics in which athletes compete under the age of 18 years.» --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done to the biographies. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The length is about 10 lines for biography, exactly as in the FP Portal:Formula One/Selected biography;
2) I removed the spaces between the lines as in Portal:Formula One/Selected biography;
3) I fixed 120px for the vertical pictures and 150px for the orizontals, better than in Portal:Formula One/Selected biography;
  • The news section that you have added has poor English (e.g. "Elena Isinbaeva on 23 February 2012 back to beat the world record in indoor meetings in Stockholm, jumping 5.01 metres, improving the previous record of an inch more and her.") and editorialising ("This year the 100 metres will be a great challenge", "won the gold medal after three years that she could not even get on the podium.")
 Done Now: 1) «Elena Isinbaeva, on 23 February 2012 in Stockholm, beat the indoor world record, jumping 5.01 metres, improving her previous record.» 2) replaced with the phrase: «This year will compete in the 100 meters» and 3) I have simplified in «won the gold medal».
EDIT Now is «Usain Bolt (champion and world record holder and Olympic champion) will compete in the 100 meters against Asafa Powell (former world record sprint distance) and Frenchman Christophe Lemaitre.» --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is still too far from the standards of a featured portal for me to consider supporting. In fact, I must register an oppose because this is not Wikipedia's finest work and I (and other editors) shouldn't have to be making so many points particularly on basic things. I suggest you withdraw your nomination, work on it, take it to peer review again (and don't be put off if nobody reviews it for a while - portal peer review is a very much slower place than normal peer review) and try again later in the year perhaps. Sorry. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you one last chance to meet seven things are not that many. I try to make them and then redo the point. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you think that "Can participate in these competitions, the young people who have not completed 18 years at December 31" or "This year will compete in the 100 meters" demonstrate acceptable usage of the English language. You demonstrate my point - some of your "corrections" just add new errors, and the examples that I picked out are just that - examples. I looked at one of the selected articles and found basic mistakes like this. I'm not going to go through and find every piece of awful English or factual error in this portal because I have far better things to do with my time (on Wikipedia, and in real life) than act as your copyeditor and fact-checker. BencherliteTalk 17:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to message on my talk page) Please don't ask me to re-review the portal until (a) you have finished doing everything I have noted above, or alternatively explained why not, and (b) you are utterly confident that I will not find any more problems with the portal, be they problems of language or anything else, bearing in mind that the problems I listed both times I reviewed the portal are merely examples. BencherliteTalk 07:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re
Comments from Bencherlite

I'm finish (but, of course, I'm willing to integrate). The point (11 OK, 6 pending).

  1.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  2.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  3.  Done and I'm waiting for the valutation of B. (question of the selected pictures)
  4.  Done and I'm waiting for the valutation of B. (question of DYK)
  5.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  6.  Done and I'm waiting for the valutation of B. (question of the International competitions)
  7.  Not done and it is OK also for B.
  8.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  9.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  10.  Done and I'm waiting for the valutation of B. (question of Selected article 21)
  11.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  12.  Done and I'm waiting for the valutation of B. (question of the article and biography summaries)
  13.  Done and I'm waiting for the valutation of B. (question of the news section)
  14.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  15.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  16.  Done and it is OK also for B.
  17.  Done and it is OK also for B.

--Kasper2006 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • My oppose from above still stands; I don't know why Northamerica1000 collapsed the entire discussion above and temporarily hid my oppose. I have always said that the points I've raised have just been examples, and everytime I look I still see issues, some of which I've raised before. For example: Portal:Athletics/International competitions is still a dreadful way to present the information, particularly right near the start of the porta - what's wrong with having some text here rather than just a bald table? The credits for the selected picture are wrong on several occasions (e.g. Portal:Athletics/Selected picture/7, the credit shouldn't be "PD-Old"). Portal:Athletics/News is badly written (see the fifth item for something that makes absolutely no sense) and a month out of date already (which is exactly why I said that a news section shouldn't be added). We have no consistency in the portal as to whether distances are presented using a comma or a full stop as the seperator (e.g. 2.05m or 2,05m). The unexplained bold text at Portal:Athletics/Selected biography/7 violates MOS:BOLD. We still have no consistency in lengths of the selected biographies, or whether the biographies are formatted as one paragraph or more than one paragraph. The same goes for the selected articles. Portal:Athletics/Selected biography/15 has a random subheading; it's not the only one. The biographies seem just to take as many words from the lead and the start of the article as are thought to be needed to get the blurb to an appropriate length, rather than attempting to summarise the article in the available space (e.g. the Usain Bolt blurb doesn't include any material from the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead of the article, just the first two; the text about Antonietta Di Martino stops abruptly in 2008; Ed Moses has the one-para lead and the first para of the article, which is an odd combination). The blurb about Andreas Thorkildsen is out of date, since it refers to something in 2008 using the future tense. The blurb about Youth (athletics) is awful, and in fact that article is so poor that it never should have been included in the portal. Any reason not to include (to give four examples) Oscar Pistorius, Walter Dix, Dwain Chambers, 2010 IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (all Good Articles)? Etc, etc, etc. Still falls short of the featured portal criteria. BencherliteTalk 13:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I missed your oppose statement in the long comments section; it was collapsed to clean-up the page's layout because the entries were dated, and most of the matters presented had been addressed. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are all small things that can be fixed and I showed that I have the will to do it. Do not then consider the fact that many of the portals in the FP have much less of this. Seems like you do not want to appreciate my commitment and my passion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But every time I look at the portal, I find points that show that this portal is not an example of Wikipedia's finest work. This latest list is, what, the third or fourth detailed review I've left, each time finding problems, new and old? Your commitment and passion are not the test for promotion - the question is whether this portal (not other portals) meet the standard required. If you want to delist featured portals that have deteriorated since promotion, or that just do not meet modern standards, then take them to WP:FPOR. BencherliteTalk 16:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oscar Pistorius, Walter Dix, Dwain Chambers, 2010 IAAF World Half Marathon Championships are now selected biography (3) selected article (1). --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Youth (athletics) is now out of the selected article (the selected articles are still 23). --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fix the credits of Portal:Athletics/Selected picture/7. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Portal:Athletics/Selected biography/7 I removed the bold measures over 2.00m and moreover I replaced the comma with the full stop for the measures (this should be the standard). --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Portal:Athletics/Selected biography/15 Now the article starts with the "incipit" of his biography: this is what the few lines they describe. For further information see the item. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done fix the error in Portal:Athletics/Selected biography/2 (excuse me, but the error came from the "incipit" of the artcicle, evidently the simple copy/paste was not sufficient). --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done In Portal:Athletics/Selected biography/7 I uptadet the results in the "incipit" to the 2012. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Add four fresh news in Portal:Athletics/News
 Done delete the old new of Elena Isinbaeva (previous fifth item of Portal:Athletics/News), than resolve the problem tha seemed an "absolutely no sense"
(comment) When Bencherlite said «a month out of date already (which is exactly why I said that a news section shouldn't be added)». Maybe it means that you can do without the "news". No, because I am convinced of this, I thought I had been imposed, but if it is not necessary for FP, I am happy to remove it.--Kasper2006 (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now Portal:Athletics/International competitions have an "incipit"
Bencherlite now I'm finish again. Cit Olivia Newton John in Grease: «Tell me more.» --Kasper2006 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After all we've been through, do you still think that I'm going to be happy with "It's from the first edition, the 1896 Summer Olympics, Athletics has been considered the "Queen" of the Olympics. Since then there have been a series of competitions organized at world level, that at the continental level. Furthermore, the Athletics is the main sport of nearly all multi-sport events such as Universiade, Mediterranean Games or Pan American Games. The following list refers to the principal of the Athletics competitions that take place in the world." It's nothing like good English. And you haven't addressed all the points that I raised last time, or fixed all the credits of the selected photos, nor have you removed the news section (as I don't believe you're going to keep it updated. Most people call him Alberto Juantorena, by the way - didn't you spot the obvious redlink?) and if you must have a news section, at least write it in good English. Enough. Stop treating me like a peer reviewer or a co-author. I find examples, you fix some things, make others worse, and don't take on board my basic point which is that these are simply examples of problems with the portal. I'm not impressed that you blame the "incipit" of the article you're copying from - if you don't know that what you are copying isn't good enough for a featured portal, then don't copy it. BencherliteTalk 18:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done "new section" it's finally removed (Juantorena was a simple misprint). --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I fixed in a better english Portal:Athletics/International competitions, with the help of the guys of IRC wikipedia channel. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I decide if something has been "done" to my satisfaction, and Portal:Athletics/International competitions is still written in very poor English. Your IRC friends didn't help you very well. And why are there still "credits" in the "Selected picture" section such as "Credit: This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired"? This is not the only issue and I am simply not going to provide any more examples for you, as I said earlier. I still find problems every time I look at the portal, nearly three months after you nominated this. My oppose still stands, obviously. BencherliteTalk 12:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did my best, obviously not enough for you. I, however, would to wait for a final rejection, because in addition to your strong opposition, there was only one other person who has expressed, but this time in favor. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is a matter for the person who closes this discussion, but I have never seen someone find that there is consensus in favour of a promotion to featured status - not just for portals, but for any category of featured content - when (excluding the nominator) there is one supporter and one opposer. Your best bet at the moment is to hope that other people come along and disagree with me so that consensus develops in your favour. Hope you enjoy the Olympic athletics when the events get underway! BencherliteTalk 17:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with Bencherlite's position on "not giving credit for materials in public domain". Let me give you an example. Shakespeare wrote Romero & Juliet. It is 100% in public domain yet that is not a valid reason for not giving Shakespeare the credit for writing the play. Kasper2006, please credit all images (including those released to public domain). If the creator cannot be determined, use "Unknown" in the credit. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OhanaUnited, you've erroneously put words into my mouth with your quotation marks around "not giving credit for materials in public domain", which is unfortunate to say the least. I don't know why you think you disagree with me, because I haven't said that public domain material shouldn't be credited and entirely agree that all images should be credited. In fact, as long ago as May, I wrote "You will notice that many featured portals have standard selected picture formats that give the photographer's name as a credit - any reason not to do that here?". In June, I wrote " The credits for the selected picture are wrong on several occasions (e.g. Portal:Athletics/Selected picture/7, the credit shouldn't be "PD-Old")". If despite those two comments, I can revisit at the end of July and still find images which have a licence or copyright information as the credit, instead of the name or pseudonym of the photographer, then the problem does not appear to be at my end. BencherliteTalk 21:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but I'm on vacation on an island in which I have difficulty connecting. OK I will take this. But it's okay to take the credit, which is shown in the template of Commons? --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of raw !votes for Portal:Athletics

A summary of current !votes for Portal:Athletics, to clarify due to the length of this section.

  • Support: 2 (one from the nominator and one from User:Northamerica1000)
  • Oppose: 1 (from User:Bencherlite)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 11:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Failed_log/August_2012&oldid=508232981"