The best road to progress is freedom's road. - JFK
Texas
Featured Portals in Wikipedia
A featured portal is a portal which is regarded by the community as being an example of Wikipedia's finest work. This page is where featured portal candidates are considered by the community against the featured portal criteria.
Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. A portal should not be a featured portal candidate and at the same time be listed at portal peer review. Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed. Do not split a nomination page into subsections, which will cause problems in its archiving (if necessary, use bolded headings). Please respond positively to constructive criticism.
For a nomination to be promoted to featured portal status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. Consensus may be determined by any editor in good standing who is not materially involved in the portal's development or maintenance, or in any related WikiProjects. The process is overseen by the Featured Portal directors Cirt and OhanaUnited.
A bot will update the portal talk page after the portal is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FPOC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.
At present, there are 170featured portals, of a total of 1455 portals on Wikipedia.
Before nominating a portal for featured portal status on this page, compare it against the featured portal criteria and ensure that it meets all criteria before nominating.
It is strongly recommended that you use the portal peer review process before nominating the portal. Peer reviews help to identify and fix basic improvement needs before they might be used as the basis for opposing a nomination.
You may also wish to observe other featured portals in the same topic to get ideas on how to further improve your portal before nomination.
Place {{FPOC}} on the talk page of the nominated portal, and click the "initiate nomination" link – This will allow you to initiate the nomination in the correct format.
Note: If you are resubmitting the portal after a previously failed nomination, it is important that you follow the following instructions correctly:
Use the move tab to rename the previous nomination to a new title:
example: move Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example/Archive 1
Go back to the template you left on the talk page of the nominated portal, and replace the code {{FPOC}} with {{FPOC|Archive 1}}. Save the page and re-click the "initiate nomination" link to start the nomination again. These instructions do not work; They presume no redirect will be left behind - only a possibility for admins. Please update with correct instructions.
Fill in the blanks of the page, including why you are nominating the portal and other necessary details about the portal that need to be covered.
and place the following code {{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example}} (replacing Example with the name of your portal) directly under the header, and above all previous nominations. This will transclude the nomination subpage you created for your nominated portal to be seen on the main candidacy page. Be sure to include an edit summary that clearly states which portal you are nominating: e.g., nominating Portal:Example.
Nominator is strongly encouraged to watchlist the nomination page.
Please read nominated portals fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the portal nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
If you approve of a portal, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to a portal's suitability for the Wikipedia.
To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Any registered editor may express an opinion. "Supports" and "opposes" from IP editors will be crossed out, but their comments on portal content should be considered.
To archive a nomination
Any editor in good standing is welcome to analyse consensus in a nomination, and close it accordingly. There are featured portal directors who are trusted and willing to close difficult or contentious nominations in which they haven't expressed an opinion. If you would like to ask that a nomination be closed, have concerns over a closure, or seek clarification in any regard, please ask at the talk page.
Remove the transcluded discussion from this page (click ). While removing it, mention the name of the portal in the edit summary.
If the article was not promoted, remove the {{FPOC}} template and update the {{article history}} template.
If the article was listed at featured portals, it has been promoted and you can add the star to the portal, by adding {{featured portal}} to the bottom of the portal page. You will also need to upgrade Project assessments, close the FPOC, remove the {{FPOC}} template, and update ArticleHistory.
For successful nominations:
Add the portal to Portal:Featured portals, and remember to update the subtotal in the section heading.
Add <sup>[[File:Cscr-featured.svg|11px]]</sup> to the portal's listing on Portal:Contents/Portals.
Bristol is a large city in the south west of England. I have recently updated this portal to randomly display content (45 selected article, 20 selected picture, 18 selected biography), added the recognised content from WikiProject Bristol and automated the category display. User:John of Reading has been very helpful in customising the layout (particularly the options at the bottom of each section). I now feel it meets the featured portal criteria and would appreciate any comments.— Rodtalk 18:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias
All 45 selected articles are of Good or Featured quality, though only 8 of the selected biographies. Oddly, a few of the selected articles are in fact biographies: is there any reason for them being in the article, rather than biography section?
I have moved Blackbeard to biography (19). The only other one I can see is Murder of Joanna Yeates which is not really a biography it is an article about the murder investigation and its consequences. This leaves 2 copies of the info re Blackbeard. I tried to move Portal:Bristol/Selected article/45 to Portal:Bristol/Selected article/2 to fill the gap and stop the duplicate, however only an admin can do this as there is already an existing article - are you able to do this? If you can we will also need to change "Random portal component|max=45|header=Selected article| subpage=Selected article" to "Random portal component|max=44|header=Selected article| subpage=Selected article" in the main portal template to take account of there being one less article in this section.— Rodtalk 17:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Done and done. Harriastalk 17:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be a link to a Portal:South West England which doesn't exist, which doesn't look great, and given its lack of existence, labelling it a "parent portal" seems odd.
I've switched this to "Related Portals" & switched SW England -> Somerset.— Rodtalk 13:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The images are all relevant, of decent quality, and reasonably striking, with the possible exceptions of #18 (the tomb isn't as striking in this image as it probably really is and should be, it blends in a bit too much) and #19 (the building is cropped a bit too heavily, and is not level.)
The vastly varying lengths of the blurbs can cause some quite extreme imbalances between the two columns: could the blurbs lengths be made a more consistent length?
I have shortened some and lengthened others to try to resolve this, however the differences between the two columns do seem to vary slightly depending on screen resolution and size.— Rodtalk 19:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there will always be some fluctuation; as long as generally they're pretty close it's no problem. Harriastalk 19:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It is affected by those which don't have photos, but some have been removed because "fair use" images can't be used in portals.— Rodtalk 20:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The blurb for Jennison Myrie-Williams needs updating, as he is apparently now "attached" (which is pretty odd ambiguous wording anyway).
The St Mary Redcliffe quotes need a closing speech mark. Harriastalk 13:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing this issue, although I have removed a stray apostrophe.— Rodtalk 13:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
as "the fairest, goodliest, and most famous parish church in England. There is a speech mark at the start, but not the end. Harriastalk 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
On my screen I see "the fairest, goodliest, and most famous parish church in England." with the closing speech mark.— Rodtalk 15:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
How odd. I've just edited the page to add one, does yours now show two? Harriastalk 15:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks we were looking at different sections. I will try to get to the other issues identified above asap.— Rodtalk 15:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope I have addressed the issues you raised. If you (or anyone else) have further comments I will try to address them.— Rodtalk 19:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rod, this looks like great work to me, but I hope you won't mind if I wait for another set of eyes before confirming my support, as I don't have much previous experience reviewing Portals. Harriastalk 18:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Have you posted neutrally worded notices to the talk pages of all WikiProjects that are relevant to this topic? — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I put Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol#Portal:Bristol when I started cleaning it up, and will put another note up today. I am not aware of any other projects this would be relevant to.— Rodtalk 07:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
OK I have added a request for people to comment on those projects - I suppose because they weren't listed on the Portal talk page I didn't think to include them. I have combined it with a request about the Bristol article which is currently at FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive2).— Rodtalk 09:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You might try posting neutrally-worded-matter-of-fact-notices at article talk pages, as well, for instance, like Talk:Bristol, etc. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)