Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Anglicanism/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates‎ | Portal:Anglicanism
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 05:55, 13 April 2008.

Portal:Anglicanism edit

Stats: (7) Selected articles, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (12) Selected biographies, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (7) Selected pictures, all save one are Featured Pictures and all are free-use images, (20) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time, all of which appeared on the main page in the past. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. New material is added from the Wikiproject:Anglicanism. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. -- Secisek (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need more than just 7 articles and 7 pictures. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typicaly, perhaps, but I have not seen any number cited as a requirement, having read over the guidelines several times. I saw in another review someone pulled the number 10 out of nowhere, but this was an editor's opinion, not a requirement. In both cases the numbers are just a bit lower than would normaly be seen due to the superior quality of the material included. Articles, pictures, bios and DYKs are regularly added to the portal as they pass through the GA process or featured processes. There is no content that has not been through a GA or featured review. I could gin up the numbers of both by including what I consider content of a lesser quality, but that hardly seems the point of this review. This is an ample sellection of the best the subject has to offer and I ask you to support the nom. -- Secisek (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion I agree with Ohana. More than seven articles are required to give an in-depth cross section of the topic, the same goes for the selected pictures and biographies. For that reason and that reason alone (the rest of the portal lookwise is excellent), I have to Oppose the nom. Sorry. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that doesn't seem to hold water. Featured Portal Hinduism has a total of 22 bios and articles. Featured Portal Scientology has 20. We have 19. Featured Portal Christianity still uses archive-format (I have suggested changing it to no avail.) If there is a minimum number, what is it? I still would rather have 20 GA & FA articles rather than 30 B and 10 Start articles, but in the intrest of passing I'll play ball. If I add 4 articles we would in fact have more than any every other Featured Portal in the Religion category save Religion itself. Is there anything else wrong?

Updated stats: (9) Selected articles, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (13) Selected biographies, all of "GA" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (8) Selected pictures, all save one are Featured Pictures and all are free-use images, (21) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time, all of which appeared on the main page in the past. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. New material is added from the Wikiproject:Anglicanism. I STILL believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. With the additions, we have two more (bio+articles) in total than Featured Portal Scientology and the same amount as Featured Portal Hinduism. Number should no longer be a problem as this is one of the more content-heavy portals in the category. -- Secisek (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more lenient on selected pictures so you can choose whatever you like as long as it is related to the portal's topic. And I don't mind seeing selected articles that are not FA or GA. Why? It's a lame reason to oppose a portal to become featured simply because there're not enough FA or GA articles in that topic. I'm happy on anything articles that are B class or above, just no stub or start-class. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many of each though? I nominated this before and withdrew it because I felt the goal posts kept moving. -- Secisek (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Nice balance of choices for what to and what not to present so the reader is guided to information rather than overwhelmed. The intro text is quite long, maybe too long, if it is static but in this case overall more text rather than more sections seems to work out beautifully. Well done. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per FPC 1 & 3.2. There are some comments to improve the portal:
    1. Summarise selected article and selected biograpies. They are too lengthy.
    2. Selected holy days section has lack of information. That do not provide the time period. That do not provide, why that day is special.

Need some more time to improve the portal to get the Featured status. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this new opposition is not being made on solid ground. Selected holy days is identical in everyway to the section found on Featured Portal Hiduism - I added it yesterday to raise the value of the portal and now an editor feels more content somehow lowers the quality of the portal. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I welcome any suggestions to improve the portal, but the purpose of this review is to determine if this portal passes the stated criteria or not. These article summaries pass criteria 1 because each one "exemplifies our very best work." They are all GA or better. There is NOTHING in the criteria about length, you just made that up and another editor can - and likely will - come along and oppose unless we lengthen the shortened summaries.

Moving on, criteria 3.2 states that the portal must "display Wikipedia's content in an aesthetically pleasing way. The colours are coherent and complementary, and do not detract from the content. Featured portals have no formatting issues. Red links are limited in number and restricted to aspects that encourage contribution." The colors are coherent, there are no formating issues and no red links except in the project section. The portal passes. Again, there is no mention of length of articles or detials to be included in the calendar.

This is exactly why I pulled the nomination last time - the goal posts kept moving. For example, The intro section has been lengthened since the last nom as someone opposed because the intro was too short. The supporter above now felt the intro was too long and so we shortened it again. This process is flawed, I hope it isn't broken. The question is: does the portal meet the criteria as stated or not? Clearly it does, or else Scientology and Hinduism - which are already Featured Portals - don't. What has to be done to get this to pass? I don't want anybody's opinon on that subject, I want a factual check list like we have for GA or FA that includes all the criteria. Respectfully, -- Secisek (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentOppose. Your pictures are of mostly of exceptionally high quality and, with your colour choices, make a visually attractive portal. I think, however, that the lead text is still too long; on my (reasonably high-res) monitor, the introductory material plus the lead take up fully 80% of the depth. Also five lines in the legend to the map seems a little long -- could this be condensed somehow? (Or even for simplicity just use a map with only the Anglican communion and not the associated ones, if this would be appropriate.) I agree that many of the text boxes are too long and wordy. A concise summary of the content is more useful in guiding people to articles of interest. Some minor issues. Some of the headings are italicised, while others are not. You use both "Archive/nominations" & "Archive/noms"; also both "More..." and "Read more...". You might like to update the picture in the blurb on St Mary's, Acton to one of the ones currently in the article. Hope this is helpful -- the content here is of excellent quality, there just seem a few presentational issues remaining. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your minor issues have all been addressed, but right here somebody opposed the previous nom saying the intro needed to be EXPANDED. This process needs to be fixed! Again, can you point me to the guide lines for article length? Where are you getting that from? This is very frustrating for me. I also find it humorous that you feel that the pictures are "mostly of exceptionally high quality" when every selected picture save one is Featured. Please, does this pass the given criteria or not? -- Secisek (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm referring to the length of the blurb in your text boxes, not to the length of the articles that are pointed at. It's my opinion that, owing to the lengthy intro and blurbs, the portal fails to meet featured criteria 2 & 3, because it makes the portal less attractive to look at and harder to use. Others may undoubtedly differ, but that's just a quirk of any peer review system. As to my high-quality pictures comment, I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I was actually meaning to compliment all the pictures in the portal, not just the Selected Picture. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should be of good quality. There are some articles, which do not qualify to be selected, like, Old St Paul's Cathedral, St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford. There are some lists, which are not qualified as selected articles, like List of Archbishops of Canterbury and List of Church of England dioceses. You may use a sepearte section for lists, like, selected list, if you have good number of them. Other than this, you are using very long summary for most of the articles and biographies. That's why this portal requires a good amount of work. You may take some time to review and come after to get the portal well-improved. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all GA are better, how do they not qualify to be selected - esp. in light of the above comments that B class is all that is needed? How long do they need to be? How many times do I have to ask what the requirements are here? Somebody above just said "the content here is of excellent quality". You all need to settle on a single standard. This is a joke as is. -- Secisek (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link in case you need to review what a GA is:Wikipedia:Good articles. To make it easy here are the first words on that page: "Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality..."

Again, both those articles are GA. If length is an issue, somebody needs to tell me what the accepted length is. -- Secisek (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secisek, my apologies. If they are Good articles. They can be selected articles. Length of the articles is not an issue to be selected articles. Listed featured lists will not be acceptable here. The length in the summary section of most of the selected articles is an issue. You may write better summaries for each of the selected articles. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Shyam. Selected article and biographies are way too long. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand 'way too long'. I just did a word count of today's article summary (424 words) on the Portal:Anglicanism which is shorter than the summary of today's article (562) on the Featured Portal Portal:Christianity. The two biography summaries are the same length - 307 words and 303 words, respectively - on the two portals. I think 'way too long' is either hyperbole or obstructionism. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the blurbs in Portal:Christianity are far too long, as well. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long should they be!? I am in disbelief at what is happening here. -- Secisek (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It showcases a good number of GA class and higher articles and pictures. Pass.
2. The articles and pictures are all Anglican related. Pass.
3.1 The portal is useful in that it covers a core topic and provides interesting examples of the topic. Pass.
3.2 To my eye the format is attractive. There are no formatting problems. Pass.
3.3 The portal follows a format found at other portals thus will be familiar to readers. Pass.
3.4 The portal is well-maintained. There is an active wiki project behind it. The project - Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism - is highlighted in the project box. Pass.
4. The are no outstanding MoS issues including those found at Wikipedia:Portal and Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. Pass.
5. The images are appropriate; virtually all pictures are Featured and no obvious copyright problems. Pass.
6. The portal is not self-referential. Pass.

I see no impediment in supporting this portal to Featured status. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole or obstructionism
This is the fourth time I am asking in as many posts: what are the requirements on length for each summary? If people continue to oppose with out being able to answer this question, I will be forced to get the wider community involved because, yes, a quick read over the previous nomination and this one so far does make it seem like hyperbole and/or obstructionism is winning the day here. Now, where is the requirement on length?

What is more, I would like to know why the above editor felt that two GA articles did "not qualify to be selected". Hyperbole or obstructionism, indeed... -- Secisek (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Word length of blurbs / summary

I can see why Secisek is frustrated. See Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates, those against must supply an actionable reason - a specific rationale that can be addressed - and if nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Simply saying that the summaries are too long and giving neither policy, guideline or word length to frame the debate is bordering on bad faith. Secisek even points to his previous nom where the objection was that the summaries were 'too short'. Any fool can shorten the summaries if need be but only a fool would cut before having the specifications in hand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've come up with a proposed word count:
N = most recent Featured Portal promotions Median word count of summary Range of word count
13 portals 202 words 104 to 244 words
Is this what is expected? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least somebody understands. Shortening any given summary is easy and we are not opposed to doing so, but we need to know what the guideline or policy is. It needs to be written in to the requirements. If we shorten them, any other editor can oppose on the ground they aren't long enough. What is the standard? Let's make it official. This whole process is clearly at the mercy of any given editor's personal, and often contradictory, whimsy.

Above I was told that portals "Need more than just 7 articles" - yet during the first nomination, the very same editor told me - and I quote - "You just need to pick 6 articles, put them in, and you come back 6 months later and put up new ones." Perhaps the standard has evolved since the first nom, but there is no way of knowing as this critical criteria is not included in the official requirements. How many times must I ask what the requirement is? Does anybody here know? If I were to go and ammend the criteria based off this discussion it would now read:

Can we all be serious for a moment and decide what length these need to be? -- Secisek (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think prescribing a specific length for article blurbs is a good idea, as the amount of text that works depends greatly on other factors such as column width and associated picture size. For readability, I think it would be good to aim for the complete blurb (including the image), at a normal screen width and resolution to take up no more than a maximum of 2/3 of the screen height, and preferably closer to 60%. For an average-sized picture on my monitor set up, that would equate to something in the region of a maximum of 225 words, but I don't know how it would work on a lower-resolution monitor. For what it's worth, summaries of printed articles usually fall in the range 50 to 250 words. Hope this is helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone and counted ten featured portals picked at random across the range of topics, and got a median of 165 words (range: 105–316) for the Selected article blurb; the Selected biography blurb is often shorter. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone trying to use straw man argument on me? In the last nomination, I explicitly said the portal should use randomized format rather than monthly archive. Now that you switched to randomized format, you can't just keep the number of articles in rotation the same as the monthly archive method. We are not involved in any so-called obstructionism (at least not to the level in FA). Going back to the discussion regarding # of words in each section of the portal. I'm not a big fan on counting number of words because it is highly dependent on what subject the portal is about. But clearly this portal is way outside of the normal distribution. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you will not give a hard suggestion, but you still oppose? I am going to disregard your opposition if you will not offer a constructive suggestion of article length. It looks to me (and now to others, too) that you are indeed, engaging in obstruction. You claim a strawman arguement against you? The comment you refer is not an arguement against anything, but was only mentioned to point out the lack of any clear standards in this process.
Your first complaint (the response to which you are crying strawman over) was that there were not enough articles in the portal. Since then several have been added - although we still have not determined how many would be "enough" because the process has no clear standards. Your opposition is now based on article length, correct? Again, we will disregard your opposition if you do not give us "actionable" suggestions. "Too long" and "way outside of the normal distribution" does not cut it. See the suggestion below. -- Secisek (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say that most summaries should be between 100-350 words? Most leaves some room for exceptions, but gives editors some idea of what is expected. Is there support for adding this guideline to the requirements? If there is, I will adopt these guidelines for the portal. -- Secisek (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • New FA

The project had another FA promoted to the portal: Augustine of Canterbury! -- Secisek (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • New GA

The project had another GA promoted to the portal: Chester Cathedral! -- Secisek (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • New GA

The project had another GA promoted to the portal: William Wilberforce! -- Secisek (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • New Featured Picture
The project had another Featured Picture promoted to the portal (at right).
-- Secisek (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The blurbs are far too long. Take a look at WP:TFA - they should be similar to that. If you want to use multiple paragraphs (I do on mine), you should have no more than 3 paragraphs of medium length (2 if you're using an image is what I find). Same for selected biography and selected article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. There is no consensus on whether this portal should be promoted to featured status. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:54, 13 April 2008 (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/Portal:Anglicanism/archive2&oldid=1138147597"