Nominating Portal:American Civil War. I had been updating this manually last year, before another user stepped in and automated it. Previous portal peer review is located here. I think it exceeds all of the featured portal criteria. It does not self-reference, it is ergonomic, it includes several self-updating sections all of which are informative, stylish, and examples of some of the best work I've seen here on Wikipedia. I only recently realized that portals could become featured, and I was surprised to learn that ACW had not yet achieved that status. MrPrada (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like things have been randomized/formatted a bit - but the footers at the bottom of selected sections still lead to old versions of "Archives" - instead of lists of the randomized content and an instructions page on how to add more. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a maintainer, I should point out that this portal uses a dynamic queue instead of randomized content. I agree some easier way might be provided to allow direct contributions to the queue. BusterD (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the subpage where all the upcoming articles for the dynamic queue are listed, with instructions for other editors as to how to contribute new articles? Cirt (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been corrected. Where there used to exist a "Suggest" link, in most cases I've replaced this with a "Create" link which leads to the instruction pages, based on those used at Portal:Norway. I've been slapping and banging everything into the handy layout templates, and I'm not done with all that stuff yet. I've held off on the instructions for the DYK and This week sections, mostly because of needing to work with the layout template a bit. Another day or two and I'll have all your concerns addressed. This has been an exhausting but fun changeover. I know lots about how I want to setup another portal now, but still need some new ideas. BusterD (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I had to adjust the instructions a bit to fit the circumstances of two subpages, but all the instruction pages are linked on the main page now. I've also included to do lists on those instruction pages. I'm planning to use the to do lists to keep tasks available to newcomers to the portal. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dynamic is just fine (random is a tool and not an end all). Good work. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love the basic colors. But they're my choices, so I'm biased. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome portal. I really appericiate the good work. Shyam(T/C) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything looks good and up to snuff to me. Cromdog (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Still some issues with the footer tabs at the bottom of the Selected sections. The "archive" leads to a page which looks like this Portal:American Civil War/Featured article/Archive1, which isn't very helpful to the visitor. The "create" link leads to this - Portal:American Civil War/Featured article - where selections 1 and 2 are missing? Also, the "Featured article" section should be moved to "Selected article" - unless all of the articles areFeatured articles. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "Featured articles" are featured (or were at time of display), as explained at the "talk" link appropriate to the section. The red links are places for new FAs when they are promoted. Including archives, I've listed 15 FAs. I've explained each archive page a bit better. Do you have another suggestion as where to keep archives? I'm way open to ideas. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is another concept which is covered in the instructions page, perhaps inadequately. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit easier to understand? BusterD (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was something that is not that easy to understand at the outset - somehow those article titles should be wikilinked and bolded within each blurb. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Intro section could also use a highlighted image, perhaps in the upper left corner, that is indicative of the portal's topic. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Images rotate hourly, but I'm planning a rotation every minute, once I fill the queue. BusterD (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under 'Things you can do - the "Requested articles" list is a bit large, the amount of redlinks looks unseemly, would look better if it were reduced to 3-5 redlinks, and then a referral to a list of additional requested articles at a subpage of a WikiProject. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The request articles list comes from the WikiProject and not the portal itself. MrPrada (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You kind of have me here, Cirt. The portal is based around the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history American Civil War task force, and its "to do" list is an integral part of this portal, featured or not. If that's a deal-breaker, then we should probably withdraw this portal from any future FP consideration until the project has few requests (meaning never). BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying it is a lot of redlinks for a portal main page - if it is drawn from a WikiProject subpage, why not feature a few that are really requested, and have some others of less priority at a subpage of the WikiProject, and then refer to those in a link within that subsection of the portal? Cirt (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articleandSelected article subsections? That seems redundant. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a few featured ACW articles. However there are numerous A-class and GA-class articles which would be candidates for "Selected Article" (see: Portal:Ohio). I don't think thats actionable for preventing Featured status. MrPrada (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no main difference in the intent of the "Featured article" and "Selected article" section (i.e. bios, or your Portal:American Civil War/Grand Parade of the States subsections) then I think this is simply a redundant subsection, and is confusing, especially since you already have a "Featured article" section at the top. In effect, the "Featured article" section functions as the "Selected article" section, just that all articles in rotation are featured. Yes, having both seems redundant and inappropriate for a featured portal - I don't know of any WP:FPORTs that have both. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my interest to present material which was not strictly battles and leaders, I originally had designed quite a lot of arcana into the portal (Selected artist's rendering, Selected photograph, Selected weapon, Selected map). Most of this was not that good, but GPotS had a resonance, perhaps a martial quality, which was commented upon positively, so I kept that. When I realized I had a number of FAs, I wanted to showcase those quarterly, but now with this rate of FA production, it's monthly, and I may never repeat an FA. I have no particular attachment to the SA subpage, but IMHO, it presents important and nuanced material which may never appear on the FA list. That's why the large number of subpages. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with BusterD here. Simply because no featured portal has ever had both "Featured Article" and "Selected Article" does not mean its exclusionary criteria. There are a number of articles which would otherwise never be featured, this at least allows users to suggest ones that can be selected from A-class, GA-class, etc. MrPrada (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Na, they are redundant. It only confuses people. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am sorry, but they are not redundant. The 'Featured Article' selection at the top is for featured articles, and rotates quarterly. There are only nine FAs, so this makes sense to me. The Selected Article/Event/Topic section was for everything else (the 112 articles that are not FAs), to be rotated weekly. Let's have a look at some of the titles of those articles: Signal Corps in the American Civil War, Battle of Fort Donelson, Civil War tokens, Battle of Chancellorsville, H.L. Hunley, Fort Corcoran, Battle of Gettysburg, Fifteenth Amendment, Coal torpedo, Richmond and Danville Railroad, Great Locomotive Chase, andSultana (steamboat). Again, none of these are featured. Most of them will probably never be. Should they be excluded from the portal? I say no. Should the featured articles be given a quicker rotation to allow these? I also say no. Featured articles are examples of our best work, and should be given a longer display period at the very top of the portal. Its a big part of why I prefer the queue style to randomization. I think most other editors would agree with me that there has to be some remedy where we can return this section and still become a featured portal. MrPrada (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We might remove this section, but looking at the newly fortified "Selected article" queue (Thanks MrPrada!), I suggest we change the subsection to "Selected event". Most of the entries listed can be tied to a date range, so with some minor changes and explanation in queue talk, this could reference some battle or significant non-battle action, like a balloon ascent or steamboat explosion. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Still some cleaning to do, shifting two objects to events, but the basic visible work is done. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - This subsection still has selections which have nothing to do with "events", and I think that this subsection is subsumed by the "Featured article" subsection at the top of the portal, and thus redundant and should be removed. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with removing this section. This portal had six votes support votes, plus the nomination, "as-is", prior to this comment. There is nothing in the FP criteria list that would preclude this, and we're inhibiting every Civil War related article that is not a FA, Biography, or <State> in the American Civil War from displaying at the portal. I think it should be returned as "Selected Topic". The consensus above clearly supported the portal with both sections. It also makes the portal unique from other portals, which should be another part of being featured. Are we really not going to have any Battles, units, technology, etc., on the front page, even if they're GA-class or above? That is a little silly. MrPrada (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When do we start counting !votes in featured portal nominations? And even if so, "comments" is a nicer way than saying "oppose" because it is not directed towards the nomination, but the portal itself. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not implying that we count votes, rather I intended to convey that there was consensus when both sections were featured. Personally, I would have asked Buster to create a section to include non-FA battles, etc., prior to nominating the portal, if it had not existed at the outset. MrPrada (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not overly wedded to SA myself, though I do agree with some of MrPrada's comments above. It's possible the portal had too many ingredients, and it's entirely possible to highlight many of the SA-type stuff in Did you know or This week entries. I could always put it back in, but I also highly value the opinions of those who've been through this process multiple times. BusterD public (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17 archived selected pictures, 14 31 complete so far this year, and more several months away from display already posted, and wanting formatting. This is a listed task on the to do list for "Selected pictures." I can either fill every slot, in which case there's no work for newcomer to jump into, or leave some future slots as incomplete and unfilled so as to demonstrate the need for entries (making some reviewers uncomfortable). Still not sure how to fit my square (time dynamic) portal through a round (random dynamic) filter. If you provide me a done/undone metric, I'll plug any hole still desiring filling. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue here, is that perhaps I am not understanding the way you have the dynamic queue set up for the portal - I tend to use a purely randomized method for selections, without regard for dates, etc. But if the way you have it is okay, and the redlinks/empty selections won't accidentally pop in the portal's main page, then okay. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easiest way to visualize the dynamic queue is to look at the queue itself. Because it reveals no content, the skeleton of the portal and its mechanisms can be better understood. For the record, I thought all this dynamic queue stuff was the way all portals were run. Foolish me. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already stated, I came to the already assembled portal with little understanding of its mechanics or design; if I had to do it all over again (and I'm about to do so with Portal:Civil war), I would choose a much more elegant and modern style. But this portal is an antique, and I'll still polish it as is. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs - The blurb text for Featured article, Grand Parade of the States, and Selected biography all seem to be a bit too long - each could be cut down to about a third of current length. Think WP:TFA size. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been wrestling with this because of the enormous variablility of the This week section (which is the section which requires the most effort to fortify, each subarticle taking several hours to create and edit). Eventually this will be a much shorter "This day" but it takes a long time to gather that many anniversary entries in a content area. This month of April, being the starting and ending month of the subject war, a lot of entries are inescapable, but in some weeks, finding entries is a difficult task. This weeks' and month's FA, GPotS and SB entries are actually intentionally puffed up to match the This week list. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't come across any WP:FPORTs with blurbs this long, I really think that the blurb text for these selected sections needs to be cut down drastically across the board. Cirt (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeCommentSupport I like the portal but I can’t support it unless the photos are organized and become "Ergonomic" as per Wikipedia’s featured portal criteria. If it gets fixed I would love to change my vote.--CPacker (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your critique. Selected pictures are formatted precisely like those of Portal:Norway, which is not getting this feedback. BusterD (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be confusing, I find the way it is archived very confusing because the photos are on different sides, if you could organize them one after the other it would make it much easier to see which photos go with each date. Example
Done Applied the same layout style to the older stuff in the 2007 archives. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Done I had to adjust the instructions a bit to fit the circumstances of two subpages, but all the instruction pages are linked on the main page now. I've also included to do lists on those instruction pages. I'm planning to use the to do lists to keep tasks available to newcomers to the portal. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not done - This subsection still has selections which have nothing to do with "events", and I think that this subsection is subsumed by the "Featured article" subsection at the top of the portal, and thus redundant and should be removed. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Done Applied the same layout style to the older stuff in the 2007 archives. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
