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 promoted by OhanaUnited 15:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Portal:New York City[edit]

The city so nice they named it twice. I'm nominating this portal for FPO status.

The articles, biographies, lists, anniversaries, and did you knows are varied in their scope, from pre-Revolutionary facts to biographies of present-day celebrities, and with many items in between. As of this moment, there are...

As I await comments, I will now notify related WikiProjects. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, thank you for this nomination and quality improvement effort. Please note here on this subpage talk pages and WikiProject discussion pages where you have left notices about this ongoing discussion. — Cirt (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notified WP:NYC here, WP:USA here, WP:NY here, WP:CITIES here, and left a notice on the talk page of Portal:Chicago here. No responses to any of those. I'll post on those threads again, and at WT:Chicago, as well as some other specific city projects. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Sven Manguard

Sigh... I ought to just change the nomination procedure to say "when you file an FPOC, go tell Sven". It's a shame that it took me this long to notice that this was here. Anyways, overall this is in really great shape, and I'm impressed. Here are my nitpicky changes:

Let me know when you've addressed these points Muboshgu. Also, since you're in the CUP, you might want to list this here. I'd appreciate you reviewing my FPOC as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've been busy with things in real life and I'm patient with this. This is my first time here, and I gathered that there are fewer reviewers than at GA or other featured statuses. I'll work on this tomorrow, and lend my eyes on other nominations. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Sven Manguard, I believe I have fixed those issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu - Sorry about this, but while you were fixing those, I found one more thing that needs fixing; there are no bold links on selected lists 5-9 (but there are on 1-4). Other than that, I am fully prepared to support this. Unless my nomination clears up and we both get promoted at once, it looks like you'll be scoring the first FPO points for this year's cup. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've added bold links, though not all in the first paragraph. I'm not sure the exact location of the bold link is regulated by any rule or guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Espresso Addict

Appearance generally clean & neat; I like the red border. The intro blurb is perhaps a little long and felt a bit like a tourist brochure to me. Good number and variety of articles/biographies. Pictures of reasonable quality, though a little sparse for such a heavily photographed city; is it worth broadening to a few more non-featured pictures? As long as the photograph looks strong at the chosen size I'm not sure how much it matters whether or not it is featured, though Sven might disagree. DYKs also a little sparse, perhaps -- was this all there were? Appreciate the variety in Selected lists; was pleasantly surprised to find it wasn't all sport.

Otherwise looking good. Please ping me when you've addressed my comments (I've given up using watchlist). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Have you been addressing these comments by Espresso Addict? — Cirt (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't aware that these comments were made. Thanks for pinging me. I'll work on them in the next day or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to respond...

I don't know what to do about your comment about the selected picture. It doesn't "poke out of the box" on my home or work monitors. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu This is what the portal looks like on a 1280x800 screen. That's about the minimum size I worry about for portals, as only 7% of screens are smaller than that. 15% of screens are at 1280 width, however. While the current layout looks fine at 1366 width, it should also look fine at 1280. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is showing up for me (probably my computer, Buzzfeed pages and other websites don't load right on this computer for some reason). I presume the notion here is that the images should be made a little smaller. Can you tell from that what the proper pixelation should be? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that four synagogues is too much. As an explanation (not an excuse), I didn't add any of the four. I will either add churches or delete synagogues. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Selected list" is now singular, italics removed from DYK and Associated Wikimedia, colon removed from borough box, topics decapitalized. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found two missing full stops in the anniversaries, one in November and one in December. I also hadn't bolded the November entries. These are fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 5 May 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.