Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Portal:War

I've been working on this portal for several months now. It underwent a peer review, which resulted in a number of structural improvements. There is anywhere from a month to a year of future content scheduled, depending on the exact type; the only manual maintenance needed is to the DYK section. As far as I can tell, this is basically complete; I look forward to any comments. —Kirill Lokshin 01:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Support: Tightly written page, well designed and easy to use. TomStar81 02:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Unless the articles and images in the Featured article and Featured image section are actually featured content, the section title needs to be changed to something else, such as Selected foo. See Wikipedia talk:Portal#Overloading "featured" terminology for more discussion. Slambo (Speak) 17:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  I actually asked Raul654 about that. The content is all actually featured; and he said it's fine to retain the featured labels on it in that case. —Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above - I'd inadvertantly done that at Portal:London but it can be easily resolved by changing it to "Showcase blah" or "Selected blah". Also, I'd like to see {{portals}} stuck at the bottom of the page. It is only a single bar and it should really be on all portals. Deano (Talk) 18:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it momentarily! —Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added it at the bottom. Is that fine, or should it get its own box? —Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's perfect - definitely not in its own box. As it is does the job. A resolution to the "featured" issue and this'll have my support. Deano (Talk) 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As far as I can tell, though, the "featured" issue isn't really an issue in this case—see this comment. —Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - my bad. I assumed the above comments were referring to a present issue, but clearly your article/picture is in fact a Wiki Featured blah. On that basis:-

• Support - as above. Deano (Talk) 18:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Intuitive and really well designed. SoLando (Talk) 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very lovely. You should add some of this structural flair to other portals, too.--ragesoss 20:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Tobyk777 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Great portal, but a few issues prevent me from supporting. Firstly, there is far too much empty space at the top. The purge link could probably be shifted to the bottom right corner, and extraneous spaces could be removed. Secondly, the thumb markup needs to be removed from the images in the introduction as they conflict with the box background colour. Thirdly, the edit link to the featured article is broken. --cj | talk 15:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• The second and third issues have been fixed. I've also moved the purge link to the bottom and tried to eliminate as much spacing as possible; is that any better? —Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Much better, thanks. I now support. Although I might add that left column is significantly shorter than the right; it may just be the present featured picture, but if not, you might consider adding another box, such as related portals (history?). Great work, --cj | talk 02:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's just the combination of a (vertically) large picture and a long task list with a small FA blurb and a short list of anniversaries. The heights do vary somewhat, but they're generally fairly close. —Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support, great stuff. the wub "?!" 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)