Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Failed log/February 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 Resident Mario 16:10, 25 February 2012 [1].

The nomination has been withdrawn for now. Northamerica1000 12:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal:Ecology[edit]

Nominating this portal for featured status, per Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria:

The shuffle option for the portal, per the "Show new selections" purge option on the page, has the following content options:

  • 24 Selected articles
  • 22 Selected pictures
  • 15 Selected biographies
  • 10 Did you know
  • 75 Selected quotes
  • 41 Selected publications

Additionally, the portal contains many useful links and is very user-friendly at this time. Disclosure: I've expanded this portal significantly. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Portal updated: Ecology News section now has automatic updates from Wikinews Environment portal. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks nice, but needs a little work. A few items I noticed... References sections aren't used on portals. Need to remove month and day from births and deaths on biographies. "More selected articles" links, here [2], are red. There's a CSD on your Wikinews page. Note: each section of the Main Page has guidelines. You can see them here: Wikipedia:Editing the main page. – Lionel (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the inclusion of references adds intellectual integrity to the information presented in the portal. Additionally, when users add new entries to the portal, they don't have to remove the references from entries, which saves time and again, increases the reliability and ability to verify the information. It seems that including references also serves to minimize the notion of information being removed for lack of having references. Not sure about removing the month and day from births and deaths on biographies, as I haven't found any specific information stating this is how the formatting should be done. I'm of the opinion that more accurate information in the encyclopedia is better than less accurate information. The red links you mentioned above here are on the Selected article subpage for the portal, and it appears that most portal subpages have this within them. Is there any way to remove them? The portal itself has no red links, as in, incomplete sections. This doesn't affect the portal itself. There is no longer a CSD tag on the news page. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a nifty bit of coding to get the references, but from looking at a snap-shot of other featured portals, I haven't seen any others show references. I think the "Portals are subject to the five pillars of Wikipedia" line should be applied as it is with Did you know hooks - in that the information displayed needs to be verified within the article, but does not need direct referencing in the hook (or in this case portal) itself. But this does look like a good portal! Zangar (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example of a portal with references in it: Portal:Nautical. Notice how the references for the selected article of the day are embedded on the page, through the transclusion of the article directly into the portal. One nice thing about portals is that various innovations such as this can occur, rather than having them all follow only one format, which stifles innovation. Hopefully the slight innovation of including a simple references section won't immediately disqualify this portal for featured status, per a comparison of other featured portals. While it's not a requirement that references be included in portals, it's also not listed anywhere that they shouldn't be. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that Nautical uses footnotes because it is transclusing the entire article using a scrollbox. Which is pretty creative. But that's not what you're doing. In any event Nautical is not a Featued portal and not the best example to bolster your position. To be honest I think that the refs are distracting, and to be frank, unnecessary. One more thing about Nautical... It appears they are using redirects for their "selected article" and have 365 redirects: one for each day of the year! That's pretty amazing. – Lionel (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – References section in this portal has been removed. All selected biography dates have been updated. Wikinews automatic updates from Wikinews Environment portal now functional.Northamerica1000(talk) 06:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few observations:
  • I noticed that there is a tab for easy access to WikiProject Ecology. As the editor who pioneered this usage on en: I approve. But what do the other reviewers think?
  • The tab is a useful addition to portals that encourages user participation in Wikiprojects, and serves to link portals and Wikiprojects in a user-friendly manner. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro and selected article 23 have a pictures which employs "thumb". Is this standard?
  •  Fixed No more caption for image in article 23. Incorporated information into text body. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "More ecology news" link goes to "Portal:Environment".
  • Some of the selected pictures do not have credits.
  • There are only 10 DYKs. Is that enough?
  • On my monitor, picture 13 infringes into the right column.
– Lionel (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portal:Ecology updated – Removed references section. Recently added a header with link between the portal and the Ecology WikiProject. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portal:Ecology updated – After consideration, reformatted birth and death dates in Selected Biographies section per suggestion above by User:Lionelt. Now just the years are listed, rather than complete dates. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that's looking better now that the references have been removed, they were a little distracting. Just a few other pointers: Some of the selected pictures still have references within their captions, which is causing a "cite error". The first two selected articles are somewhat smaller (roughly 3x) in length of prose than the rest, they could do with being expanded to ensure there's less variation (but obviously they don't have to be exactly the same length). This goes for Selected biographies 13 and 14 as well, they are quite a bit shorter than the rest. But I think we're almost there with this portal. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Selected articles are now all uniform in length. References have been removed from all entries.Northamerica1000(talk) 09:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected article lengths are good. I still see references for selected pictures 10 and 13 and the selected biographies 13 and 14 are still quite small. I realise that these biographies are both stubs and therefore don't have much in terms of content in the article. As a featured portal should "showcase the best of Wikipedia's content" I don't think stub article should be included in any of the Selected sections, therefore these 2 biographies should be removed from this section, you don't lose anything for not having them. In my mind, I would apply this criteria as meaning that only C-class articles or higher should be displayed in the portal. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments
  • The birth/death dates in the bios should be formatted per MOS.
  • Can you be more specific? I already went through all of them per your suggestion above, "Need to remove month and day from births and deaths on biographies." I'm reluctant to do the work again just to have it possibly be stated as incorrect again. There are only fifteen featured bios at this time, perhaps, if you have the time, you can edit them per how you mean for them to be done. This would be very helpful, if you have the time. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture for Hydrology infringes into the right column.
 Fixed (Should be) – resized to 375px. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently a news item from 2008 is displayed. A little old to be referred to as "news."
 Done Removed this dated entry. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes 34, 68, 74 do not have wikilinks.
  • No article for the subject of quote 34, therefore no link. No article for subject or organization in #68, therefore no link. Same for #74, no article for subject. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your DYKs have inline cites.
 Done No inline citations in the DYKs now. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noticed you expanded DYKs to 20. Good job.
  • Why do you have a category tree for Geography?
  • To list all relevant categories and enhance this section of the portal with completeness. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the recognized content? I.e. FAs, FLs, GAs, etc.
  • Not required for featured portal status, but highly recommended. Unfortunately, at this time there doesn't appear to be a great deal of featured content about Ecology-related topics. Perhaps hopeful increased visibility of this portal can help to change that. I did take significant efforts to showcase high-quality content. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following three selected articles for the portal are listed as Good articles: Nature, Climate and Sustainability. It would be nice if more articles specific to this discipline were featured, good, etc., but unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a significant number of them at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
– Lionel (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. ResMar 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The colors are gnarish, I mean really, the portal looks like a pastel board drawn on with crayons.
 – Background color updated to #cdf. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're still recycling some colors, like the black borders; this should be avoided. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps consider being bold and changing the design yourself, to improve the portal for Wikipedia users. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, concentrate on the more important things, but tacky responses are not appreciated. ResMar 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is definitely a portal that would benefit from a subpage. Rather then linking to the WikiProject, you should link to a subsection containing the lengthy material from Ecology topics down.
 –  Done. Added a "Topics and categories" section. Retained the Wikiproject link, which is useful to encourage participation in both projects and portals. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Portal   Topics and categories   WikiProject
Ecology
  • Selected article blurbs exceed recommended blurb length.
  • Why do you use "Pictured left"? What you include there should be rollover text.
 – I like the captions, because some users may not be aware of the rollover text, thus missing important information that provides context. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't =|. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is your opinion, but this doesn't confer with the criterion for featured portals. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1(b): Attractive. It displays Wikipedia's content in an aesthetically pleasing way. I 'aint aesthetically pleased. There's one bloody image, why would you need to paste LOOK HERE in our face. ResMar 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unfortunately, rollover text doesn't currently support internal links to other articles and content. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can use link= ResMar 23:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected picture squishes out of frame on small screens.
 – Is this about mobile phones and devices? I've tested the portal in various computer browsers, and haven't seen a problem with this on various PC browsers at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nvm. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does "nvm" mean? Northamerica1000(talk) 11:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Never mind." ResMar 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Padding on the selected picture should probably be less, doesn't look very frame-like.
 – Could you please be more specific. How would the padding be adjusted? What do you mean by "frame-like"? Is this about the frames around the images? Northamerica1000(talk) 02:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The frame on the selected pictures seems too wide for me. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The default frame width for the frame parameter on the template doesn't confer with a portal being a featured portal or not. How could it? Northamerica1000(talk) 11:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's meant to look like a frame, not a buffer. ResMar 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why am I seeing references in the Selected pictures?
 –  Fixed (two instances). Selected pictures do not have references now whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 1: what is "Hamois"? Do you really expect readers to notice the two or three blots of red color in picture? Better shortened to "A summer field in Belgium."
 – Added link to Hamois, which is a Walloon municipality and village located in the Belgian province of Namur. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 3: Saying "pictured" is unprofessional.
 – "Unprofessional" is ambiguous. What would be more "professional"? Northamerica1000(talk) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not "pictured". That's like saying "This article is about ecology." and you don't see that do you. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 4: A low quality animation, are there no better images of venus flytraps? If not this is better off being replaced entirely.
 – I disagree, the file size is 908 KB, and the image is clear enough. The background is blurry because the image focuses on the plant in the foreground. Using an animation is superior to show the actual actions of the Venus flytrap. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the stimuli go after probing the flytrap? How do you deal with the rampart gif color shredding in a section that's supposed to be for Featured pictures? Just, no. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 5 caption needs expansion, the image could use an imagemap.
 – Sometimes simple captions say it all. Adding an imagemap to the image would take a significant amount of time and work. I don't view the lack of an imagemap on the image as a disqualifier for featured portal status. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's just being lazy. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how does your subjective opinion about an image caption detract from a portal being featured? Perhaps you're being lazy in not changing it yourself. Under your dictation, unless the caption or image is changed per your dictate, the entire entry is somehow inferior. A very weak argument on you part here, to the point of being absolutely invalid. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ok, how about just mapping the bloody thing? You want to make improvements don't you? Add to the sum of human knowledge and all that jazz? Then make the change and stop arguing over the minimum that's required. Maybe I'm being unreasonable; maybe it would pass others' standards without it; but until it is imagemapped, it fails MY standards, and this oppose stands. You're the nominator, not me, I'm not held to do anything for you. That's your job. ResMar 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, unless the following image is imagemapped, you will always oppose this portal being featured. This is overarching the criterion for featured portal status, in my opinion. What if the image was replaced with another? Would your opinion change? Cheers. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't do it, I'll do it myself once the other issues in this nom are adressed. ResMar 01:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many diverse animal species on the planet.
  • SP 6: extirpated (exterminated) Just say exterminated.
 – Changed to "extirpated", which is definitionally slightly different from "exterminated". Northamerica1000(talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC
  • SP 7: Link the user to his name. Also you are probably better shortening the name to just clownfish, common names are better in photo captions. Shorten the credits to just the taker's name in other instances as well.
 – Updated credit link. Shortening the name contradicts what you state below in "SP 9". Northamerica1000(talk) 00:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 8: How is this related to Ecology?
 – Some volcanoes support peculiar ecosystems, based on dissolved minerals. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a strong enough justification. You see a barren volcano, do you really think "Ecology!"? ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note:  Done - this entry has been changed to Hydrothermal vents. Here's the link. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 9: "A horseshoe crab". Again, non-scientific nomenclature.
 – This contradicts what you state above in "SP 7", regarding shortening names. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: common name (scientific). ResMar 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 11: Is linking to the US Navy website really necessary?
 – The U.S. Navy is the source of the image. As such, it's credited. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why you have to link to their site instead of their Wikipedia article. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 13: I can't fathom how this is related to Ecology, the caption isn't terribly well-written and far too long as well ("seen from an airplane" is the kind of detail we don't need).
 – Mountain areas are distinct ecoregions with unique ecosystems. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tallest mountains in the world, oh yeah, totally ecology! ...not really. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, mountain ecosystems often contain unique plant and animal life not found in other ecosystems. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Search ecology on Mount Everest; how many results do you get? Trust me, I'm well aware of mountain biomes, this just does not fit the portal. I don't understand why you are being so obstinate about this. ResMar 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change/remove the entry if you'd like. I don't WP:OWN the portal; all are welcome to contribute to it. The idea is for the portal to be improved for all Wikipedia readers, not for one person to change it per another person's directive. Again, if you disagree with the entry, edit it. Peace. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. After consideration, Mt. Everest entry removed. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 14: Sunflowers is the focus of this image, not domestication.
 – The sunflower image is an example of a domesticated plant, as attributed in the caption for SP 14. The evidence thus far is that the sunflower was first domesticated in Mesoamerica, present day Mexico, by at least 2600 BC. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You see the image and you think "sweet, sunflowers!", not "sweet, domestication!". ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Users will very likely read the caption, which provides the context for the image, as most captions do. The sunflowers image is an example of plant domestication. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Users will see the image before they read the caption and be puzzled by why sunflowers isn't the main topic, domestication is. In addition domestication is the 31st word in that blurb, not the first. ResMar 01:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 15: You link the article everywhere else, why not here?
 –  Fixed. link to Carbon cycle article added. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 16: Same as 13, this is geology not ecology.
 – An example of Pangaea, upon which various ecoregions and ecosystems have developed as a result of. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already said it enough. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 17: Same as 13 and 16, you have a hard time staying on topic.
 – Study of the atmosphere and atmospheric variables that affect various ecoregions and ecosystems is a significant part of the discipline of Ecology. Not off topic whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'll let this pass. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 18: Link to the user's profile, colony should be mentioned first in the caption, not last.
 – There's no user profile, so no link. Doing so would create the following red link: User:Krokodild. Regarding the link for Colony (biology), the structure of the sentence makes the link better at the end of the sentence, in my opinion. Rewrote to: "termite colony". Northamerica1000(talk) 00:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 19: Explain what this kind of zone is.
 –  Done. Added: "A riparian zone or riparian area is the interface between land and a river or stream." Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 20: Better of explaining "The Amazon Rainforest is an area of..."
 – Or, keep the caption simple, and users can use the link to the article to learn more. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least mention the canopy; the second thing I think after "rainforest" is canopy. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 22: Expand the caption a bit, more information on the falls, it's too short as it is. In addition, standardize how you credit users, you've used a new format here, again.
 –  Done. Rewrote to: Martin St-Amant. Caption expanded. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 23: What's the main article?
 – Swarming (honey bee), the link for the bold "Read more" text. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not bolded in the caption. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SP 24: What's the main article? Is green wall a scientific term?
 –  Fixed. Added link to Biodiversity. Green wall is the title of the piece, in italics in this section. Added quotation marks. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all from just the Selected pictures; how can I assume the other sections are any better? :|
 – Most were very minor fixes that have been addressed. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The placement of Edit in the intro is awkward and unnecessary.
 – It works per the custom format of the portal, and provides a necessary edit link. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's left of the image; customary formatting has it at the top, near the title. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Did you know? facts, use actual Did you knows from the past (you can look them up at Wikipedia:Recent additions.
  • Did you know? should contain more than single fact at a time. Your topic is very wide, and they appear on the Main Page 6 at a time, so use six at a time.
  • "Pictured left" is not Did you know? formatting, nor are the lengthy hooks you use. Again, use actual DYK formatting for a DYK section, as well as actual Did you know facts that have appeared on the Main Page in the past.
  • Intro should have its own box.
  • While I respect your opinion, the intro is fine as is. I don't view this as a detractor to featured portal status. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blue overpowers the text. ResMar 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additional news highlights" is badly spaced (from 2009 to mid-2011), outdated, adds unnecessary bulk to the section, and is ultimately unnecessary.
  • For the "Read more" for selected quotes, try linking to the speaker's wikiquote article, or defaulting to wikiquote:ecology if he doesn't have one.
 – Ecology is often underreported in mass media. Comprehensive links may appeal to readers with specific interests. The "Additional news highlights" section provides more options regarding this underreported discipline. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking in quotes is discouraged.
  • Where are these quotes sourced from?
  • All sections need instructions on how to add new selections to the section, or nominate new ones if needed.
  • Selected publications: am I the only one that noticed that, in every entry, the word immediately after the journal title lacks a space?
  • For Selected biographies, is the b. blah-blah really necessary? I mean really, it sticks out, it's ugly, it's non-standard, and it should be intergrated into the actual blurbs.
 – Rewrote the born and died information, omitting it as a header. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SB 6: missing a closing para on the Russian translation of his name. I generally remove translations from blurbs, they're unneccessary bulk.
 – Translations removed from Selected biography entries. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SB 13 and SB 14 seem far too short given the length of the rest of this section's entries.
 – Hopefully their main articles will someday be expanded by Wikipedia editors. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that was sarcasm. ResMar 16:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're short articles about notable Ecologists, so the entries are short. The topic here is Ecology, and not about how you may perceive posts (e.g.-as "sarcasm") done in good faith. You seem opposed to this portal being featured regardless of what is posted here. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the actual articles aren't long enough to meet length regulations, use others. I don't care how notable they are or aren't, if the article isn't long enough for a Featured content blurb, it's not long enough, period. ResMar 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is translucated" yada yada should be removed from Things you can do. If you want to edit it directly, change the path of the edit link.
 – Difficult to remove the transcluded notification without removing it entirely from all pages. However, the "edit" link for this section has been updated to link directly to the list. Rewrote: {{/box-header|''Things you can do''|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Things you can do|edit=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ecology/to_do}}. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge server cache's location at the bottom left corner of the portal is awkward and it should be either moved or removed.
 – Good idea. Removed: {{purgepage}}. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

You should check out Portal:Biography, which is already a featured portal, and could use many more fixes compared to the Ecology portal! Perhaps you're critiquing the Ecology portal too strictly. After all, just compare this to the Biography portal, which needs much more work than the Ecology portal does! Rather than spending your time micro-critiquing based upon your opinions, perhaps consider being bold and changing the design of the Ecology portal yourself, to improve the portal for Wikipedia users. That is, unless you prefer to critique, rather than create. Most of your comments at this time, compared to the portal's existence at this time, aren't congruent with the criterion for featured portals, are overly subjective and nit-picky, and hence, aren't valid in this discussion due to this subjectivity. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 12:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Northamerica1000(talk) 11:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should check out Portal:Biography, which is already a featured portal, and could use many more fixes compared to the Ecology portal!: Because it was promoted in 2006, not 2012, when the standards were lower than they are today. It's not 2006 anymore.
  • Rather than spending your time micro-critiquing based upon your opinions, perhaps consider being bold and changing the design of the Ecology portal yourself... Caveat: the reviewer is not held to do anything. He may if he wishes too, but it is up to the nominator to fix his comments, so long as they are in bounds. That nominator is you, and I'm not asking you to move mountains, only make the necessary changes that, in my view, represent Wikipedia's best content. Otherwise that bronze star is meaningless.
  • That is, unless you prefer to critique, rather than create. Mudslinging isn't going to make my oppose go away, and I invite you to look at my credits, which are far longer than yours. If you want to talk about critiques and creates.
  • No "mudslinging" intended, many users don't create many articles, improve content much, etc., and instead focus their efforts on discussions. How does the number of your contributions equate to the featured portal criterion? Best. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of your comments at this time, compared to the portal's existence at this time, aren't congruent with the criterion for featured portals... Please, point to and explain to me which one of my queries it is that asks too much.
  • aren't valid in this discussion due to this subjectivity Rather then personal impressions I've backed up my review with quite a few external facts. ResMar 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense intended whatsoever, but it appears that you may not have a significant understanding about Ecology and the types of topics it covers. For example, above you state that images of mountains are not appropriate, despite mountain areas being very unique and distinct ecoregions with unique ecosystems. Then you just stated "The tallest mountains in the world, oh yeah, totally ecology!", without addressing the actual comment about mountain ecoregions and ecosystems. Additionally, mountain ecosystems often contain unique plant and animal life not found in other ecosystems. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know plenty about montane ecology: 1, 2, 3, 4. I'm well aware of ecology, and I don't find a picture of the tallest mountains in the world, weather-beaten, snow-capped, freezing, imposing peaks of white, particularly, how to say it, green? If you were to include a picture of a mountain goat, for instance, fantastic! Instead, point me to one speck of green, one miserable animal, one living anything in that photo. ResMar 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to make any changes to the portal that you think would improve it for all Wikipedia readers, which is the goal. It's easier this way, and more collaborative compared to one user making changes per other users' directives. Why not correct the things you found, rather than researching them and then reposting them here? Better just to correct any deficiencies on the spot, per Wikipedia's editing policies (See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). I understand that this is a nomination, and you've commented per that nomination; but also feel free to take an extra few moments in the process to improve the portal, if you'd like. If you're not interested, then that's all right too. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 11:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn for now. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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/February_2012&oldid=478807869"