Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Cricket/archive2

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

The result of this discussion was Kept. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cricket (DELISTING)

This is a Featured Portal delisting review. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not the portal meets the Featured Portal criteria. If the determination is made that it does not meet those criteria by the end of the delisting review period (one month), it will have it's status as a Featured Portal revoked. Improvements can be made during this procedure, and indeed are encouraged, however because many improvements are promised but never delivered, a commitment to improve the portal in the future is not a valid rationale for keeping the portal at Featured status.

Rationale: I have nominated this for delisting because it has only one selected image, one selected list, eleven selected articles, and thirteen DYKs, all well below what I would expect to see for a portal with a scope of this size. Additionally, the DYK section appears to be static, meaning that only four of them are actually used. According to the count at WikiProject Cricket, there are 78 FA class cricket articles (most of which are biographies; there is likely not enough to split into selected articles and a separate selected biographies). There are dozens of Cricket-related Featured Lists, certainly enough to populate the section with 20 entries. I haven't done a count, because there's no real easy way to do one, but there has to be more than just 13 cricket DYKs to choose from. I'm not sure if there are 20 FP quality Cricket images, but between Commons' valued and FP pictures and this project's FPs, we should be able to field a decent selection. Simply put, this portal is underpopulated. As it is, it does not meet criteria 1(a) and 1(d). Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame, this was one of the very first featured portals (and maybe one of the first portals all together). I'm working on improving it to hopefully avoid a delisting. So far I've added 13 selected articles, bringing the total to 24, and will work on the other sections over the weekend and into next week. the wub "?!" 00:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I seriously doubt that anyone else is going to show up and comment here unless one of the two of us grabs them and asks, so take your time. It'll be a solid two/three weeks before I even remember to check back on this, so there's not that much of a rush. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - I've moved this to Wikipedia:Featured portal review, which is the correct venue for delisting nominations. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My thanks to the wub (talk · contribs) for taking this on. Good luck with the attempt at a save here, — Cirt (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure where this was initially posted, but this is the page that I am watchlisting for this purpose. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The oft neglected Wikipedia:Portal peer review. I forgot this page existed and put it there. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've left the wub a query regarding getting an update on status of progress here. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I did quite a bit of editing on this and then forgot to post here having been distracted by work. There are now 24 featured article selections, 10 featured lists, 6 selected pictures (was really struggling to find these) and 12 batches of four/five DYKs. True, there are many more cricket-related featured articles and lists, but I've tried to select a variety (so it's not just lists of centuries and five-wicket hauls popping up all the time) and also steer away from currently active players/teams where the blurbs will quickly go out of date. Hopefully this is acceptable.
I also spruced up the styling a bit, and changed the featured material section to transclude WikiProject Cricket's page, which is actually kept up to date. the wub "?!" 14:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sven Manguard and Cirt: Any thoughts? the wub "?!" 22:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my attention has been on Commons for the last few days. It's very nice. I don't think that it has enough content to be featured on the main page, should Featured Portals ever reach that point, but it's no longer in embarrassing shape. It's not in immediate delisting territory right now anymore, in my opinion. I actually really like the formatting you've done. It's lighter and airier, and that makes it more appealing. I may have to casually steal it in the near future. Thank you very much for doing this, the wub. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as issues have been addressed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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