Portal:Politics

Previous objections to this nomination have been met, in that news and current affairs section is now maintained, and the portal is in all other regards one of the strongest on Wikipedia. --Wisden17 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object:
  • Introduction is too short and too self-referential; it should be a few paragraphs about politics, not a few sentences about the portal.
  • Archives for the selected articles and selected biographies are inadequate, since they don't include the summary blurb used on the portal during the time the article was present. The selected picture section doesn't have an archive at all.
  • The category box is useless with its current contents; ditto the WikiProject box.
  • The links to the FA sections in the selected article/biography boxes are redundant with the same links in the "Featured content" box.
  • The "Useful links" box is redundant with just about everything. The editor-oriented links (the WikiProjects) should be moved to the actual WikiProjects box, and the related portals should be split out into their own box. The inclusion of external links—particularly given the contentious nature of the topic—is probably ill-advised in a number of cases.
  • The "Comprehensive overview of politics coverage" is too big; at least shrink the font somewhat.
  • Finally, the portal hasn't been updated in nearly three weeks. What's the content rotation schedule here? Kirill Lokshin 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirill Lokshin:

• Introduction is revised.
• Selected articles and biography archives now include blurbs; Selected picture archive is created.
• Category and WikiProject boxes are revised.
• Useful links box is gone, replaced with "related portals".
• The "Comprehensive overview" - I somewhat disagree on it being "too big", since it's intended to be "comprehensive"; it provides organization of article links that some find useful; Also, located at the bottom of the page, it's optional for people (they can stop scrolling). But, perhaps the layout and format could be improved and maybe shortened slightly. Reducing font-size is not the best idea (this has been debated with many objections, in regards to references sizes [1] across Wikipedia).
• Content rotation:
  • The Selected picture is on a monthly schedule.
  • Yesterday, I updated the Selected article and biography (unknowing that the portal was nominated here), and have now put the selected article on a weekly schedule. See also Portal_talk:Politics#Feature_management.
  • The selected biography is on a more irregular schedule, updated a few times a month. There are enough featured biography articles (see Portal:Politics/Featured articles) for them to be updated more often than monthly, but not enough for them to be weekly right now.
  • The news is updated almost daily.

--Aude (talk | contribs) 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! I see no reason why font shrinking wouldn't work here, as this isn't an article, and a number of other featured portals do it; but it's a rather minor issue. Support from me now. Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "div references-small" tag, which is used for references. With this, people can override these settings in their monobook.css, if they wish. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  • Archives are over-rated and unnecessary, especially for a portal such as this where you a) have a multitude of articles to showcase, and b) pictures are of minor importance to the portal as a whole. Archives are not necessary - they are just a convention (started by myself I do believe - and I never intended it to be compulsory). They serve no real purpose for a portal, and are not the be-all and end-all.
  • Introduction is brief which, in this example, is good. Politics is far to specific to its individual areas to justify a general blurb that is any longer than what is there already - this provides a simple intro with links to topic areas. The "several paragraphs about the subject" is again convention, not gospel. This is different, which is good.
  • "Comprehensive overview of politics coverage" is rather large, but as far as I can see it does exactly what it says on the tin - a comprehensive overview. But, take a look at Template:London topics as guide for a format that consumes less space.

BUT

• • I agree that the WikiProject box is currently pretty useless. Move the WikiProject links from "Useful links" to the WikiProject Box, and remove the external links. This is a portal for Wikipedia, not a portal for the internet.
  • Regular updates are essential - politics is constantly changing and this will shift from being a good portal to a dated one very quickly. New articles are created all the time - it is important that the portal stays on top of it.

As I have said above, I feel that conventions are beginning to take to prominent role in these Portal nominations. I must urge users to read the featured portal criteria and not assume anything is in it that is not. Particularly regarding picture archives, I really doubt how important they are to the portal, and I seriously doubt how useful they are to Wikipedia. DJR (Talk) 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, how about criterion #1? Not being up to par with the other featured portals—whether due to formal requirements or informal conventions—is a perfectly good reason to deny promotion. Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #1 reads "It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet". I'm not entirely sure how this portal cannot qualify within the criteria - it has many featured articles, a clean interface and provides links to all sorts of articles, categories and contributory aspects. As for "not being up to par with the other featured portals" - I'm again not sure how you are basing this. If you are suggesting that conventions form a "par", then I'm afraid we fundementally disagree on principle. Conventions are there to be broken - formal requirements are the only thing that this portal should be judged by. As so long as my "BUTs" are addressed from above, I cannot see how this fails in any of the formal requirements. DJR (Talk) 09:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conventions are there to be broken for good reasons, no? Not merely because the portal maintainer is unwilling to do the necessary work? I cannot, quite honestly, see what profound design decision would dictate omitting something so basic as a usable archive page. Kirill Lokshin 11:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, archives are now in much better order. There is now the text that appeared on the portal on the archive page, and there is a picture archive as well, although it currently only has one entry. Content has been rotated today, not by myself I should add. External links have been removed, and the Wikiproject box improved. Hope this addresses the majority of your concerns. --Wisden17 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wisden17 for your work on the archives. If for no other reason, the archives are useful to keep track of what's already been featured on the portal, so we don't mistakenly feature the same article twice. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support

This politics portal is very pleasing to the eye and well layed out. The content is presented in a clear manner and is relevant to the topic. I would disagree with the comments about the links since the links are to web sites of well known news agencies and therefore are in my opinion cannot be contentious.

--Newton2 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could make an argument regarding which "well known news agencies" were selected ;-)

More troubling, though, is the fact that we're linking to a blog—and a fairly partisan one; that, at least, needs to be removed. Kirill Lokshin 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This portal has recently undergone major improvements, including putting the selected picture and article on regular rotation schedules. The portal has a number of regular maintainers, who see to it that the news is kept updated (super important). The comprehensive overview is also useful to readers. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rlevse 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]