Wikipedia:Portal peer review/World War I/archive1

World War I

Although this portal was initially constructed as a means of reducing the use of the massive World War I template, I am now trying to bring it up to featured status. All comments are welcome (but please note that there are limits to me technical know-how). Carom 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to list some certain issues which could be needed some work before going for candidacy.

Intro section has a large amount of bolded words. Please bold only World War I. Consider summarizing the section.
Selected event archives lack of an image in every events. They vary from 4 lines intoduction to 16 lines introduction. Having less variation could be appericiated. Introduction could be between 8 and 12 lines. Consider boldening only main article. You can add nomination procedure as well.
Selected equipment archives also lack of an image in every equipments. Consider boldening single main article and removing internal red links. You can add nomination procedure as well.
Selected picture archives lack of image credits corresponding to every pictures. You can add nomination procedure as well.
Selected biography archive can have a nomination procedure. Consider de-linking one internal red-link.
Consider special search bar box for Wikimedia-sister projects from Topics section.
Consider removing the entries from Associated Wikimedia which do not exist or can not be created. I do not expect a wikinews link in the portal.
Featurd articles section do not need seperate FA-star images for every article. One of the similar kind of images could be used in the section. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! As far as the selected pictures are concerned, it was not possible to determine the photographer for many of the images. Do you believe I should simpy credit the online archive from which they were uploaded to WikiMedia? Carom 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preferbaly do not use external links. Find an internal link corresponding to them. You can see this example for photo credit, how they are credited in the lack of author. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see what I can do. Carom 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have taken care of most of your concerns, with a couple of exceptions. I have left the FA stars in, as I think they add to the visual appeal of the portal (and a couple other featured portals use them). for the selected pictures, I have added the original source of the image, where available. In some cases, this has not been possible, and I have added text indicating the most specific source I could identify. I think I have addressed most of the points you raised, please let me know if you have any further problems. Carom 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things off hand as for the nominations I created a newer version of the random portal component a while back that automaticly sets the sections you want to have suggest boxes you can add this to your page by changing the string {{Random portal component|max=10|header=Selected whatever|footer=More whatever...|subpage=Selected whatever}} to {{Random portal component with nominate|max=10|header=Selected whatever|footer=More selected whatever...|subpage=Selected whatever}} for the sections you want to have a suggest box and then create the suggest page that shows up in red in the section.
the Associated Wikimedia is aligning right it should either be centered or justified.
For the selected bio you need to make the persons name a bold link to their article not just bold. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll look into changing the string - but a question: does anyone actually suggest articles? I've seen a few portals with the suggest function, but they seem to be unused. Do you know of a portal where the function is actually being utilized? On your second point, I'm not having that problem - not sure why it's happening for you, but I'll check it out. And the last point, I had added the "Read more..." links to link directly to the main article, but you're the third person to suggest linking from the intro itself, so I'll go ahead and change it. Carom 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually seen a few different popular portals that utilized the suggest feature.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I have taken care of mose of your suggestions - I changed the string to have suggestion pages - do you feel the setup of the suggestion page works? I cribbed most of it from Portal:Medicine, and changed things around a bit. I also fixed the alignment of the Associated Wikimedia and linked all the article titles. Thanks again for your suggestions! Carom 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, great work I think all of my issues have been resolved. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems FL worthy right now. Suggestions:

Reduce the size of the introduction a little to conform the portal standards, merging stubbish paragraphs can be helpful. Remove linking of years alone.
At the selected picture section: "Photograph by" > "Credit:", and place it right below the picture, creating an extra space between it and the description. Also format the full dates properly per WP:DATE. You might want to expand some of the descriptions a little.
"Selected event", "Selected equipment", "Selected biography" sections - Make the "Read more..." link bold and place it in the bottom-right point of the section, while putting "...Suggest • More selected X" at the bottom-left.
"Featured articles" > "Featured content". I prefer not to make a limit, non-article additions can go in subheaders though.
"Related content" > "Related portals".
Can you explain the black links at the "Associated Wikimedia" section? It seems confusing to me. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The black links in the Associated Wikimedia are due to using the same formatting as Portal:War - I have no real preference, though, and if blue links are preferred, it is easy enough to change them. I'll look into your other points. Carom 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]