Self-nomination. See archived peer review. Stats: An Intro section which rotates through (3) main images, (10) Selected articles, all of "B" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (11) Selected biographies, all of "B" class or higher and all have an associated free-use image, (22) Selected pictures, all are free-use images, (12) Selected quotes, all have links to notable individuals with articles on Wikipedia, and all have associated free-use images, (19) Did you know entries, showing 3 at a time, (12) Selected panorama images. All of the above sections are randomized and display new content when the portal is purged. News updates automatically from Wikinews, using Wikinews Importer Bot. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Quick side-note, thanks to recommendation from RichardF (talk·contribs) at WP:PPREV regarding the Selected panorama section, it looks much better with the larger, scrolling format. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (erm, I'm assuming you can do this on FPOCs.) Anyway, this is a great portal and very attractive, but it would be nice to see more selected articles and biographies. Other than that, its fine. Once this issue has been addressed, I'm willing to support. Qst (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of adding more articles into rotation, but it should be noted, however, that the general standard in the past has been 10 selected articles (which this portal currently has, and more for Selected bio and other subsections) and many other portals have been successfully promoted with that number in selection. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Okay then, if, as Cirt says, that ten selected articles is normal for lots of portals that pass FPOC, then this one should be okay. Great work, and feel free to archive/move my above comment however you see fit. Qst (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Support. I'll still add a few more articles into rotation, as per your above suggestion, never can hurt to have increased dynamism. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Though generally I have found it the norm for other WP:FPORTs to have the other sections' titles italicized, and the only section not italicized, maybe to highlight the title, is the title in the Intro section. Cirt (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Firefox Mac at wide window widths and at small font sizes, "More about Norway..." floats up over the intro image. Maybe "clear:both" in the style for that table will fix this. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a clear below that spot in the Intro subsection. Looks okay either way in Internet Explorer and Firefox on a PC. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport I would like to see the map of Norway as a permanent part of the intro not just part of the rotation. If it’s worked in ill be happy to give support.CPacker (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt asked me to comment on this. No featured portal criterion makes a statement one way or another about the placement of any specific images anywhere on the portal. Current featured state portals have no consistent pattern of placing maps. In fact Portal:Texas only has one stylized map midway down the page. Clearly, a map in the intro, rotated or not, is not a requirement but simply a stylistic preference. RichardF (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did'nt say that it was a requirement nor do I think it is, but Wikipedia is international and not everyone knows where Norway is. I just belive that a map would help users know what they are reading about, such as featured portals Minnesota, Germany, and Spain.CPacker (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Portal is good and qualifies to be a featured one. But, change anniveraries section name from March selected anniversaries to something grammatical correct one, like On this month or something else. Shyam(T/C)10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making changes. For that portal, someone may not have noticed. But, IMO, this is grammatically incorrect. We may ask that portal's maintainer to make changes. Speak soon, Shyam(T/C)13:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main thing I wondered about is that there are a lot of articles on weapons; I was a bit disconcerted to get three in a row on pressing refresh a few times, but perhaps I was just unlucky! The only other thing I felt might be improved is that the top caption for the pictures in the lead was a bit untidy, and didn't seem necessary to comprehension. Otherwise, great job. I particularly like your gorgeous panoramas. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Nominating Portal:American Civil War. I had been updating this manually last year, before another user stepped in and automated it. Previous portal peer review is located here. I think it exceeds all of the featured portal criteria. It does not self-reference, it is ergonomic, it includes several self-updating sections all of which are informative, stylish, and examples of some of the best work I've seen here on Wikipedia. I only recently realized that portals could become featured, and I was surprised to learn that ACW had not yet achieved that status. MrPrada (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like things have been randomized/formatted a bit - but the footers at the bottom of selected sections still lead to old versions of "Archives" - instead of lists of the randomized content and an instructions page on how to add more. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a maintainer, I should point out that this portal uses a dynamic queue instead of randomized content. I agree some easier way might be provided to allow direct contributions to the queue. BusterD (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the subpage where all the upcoming articles for the dynamic queue are listed, with instructions for other editors as to how to contribute new articles? Cirt (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been corrected. Where there used to exist a "Suggest" link, in most cases I've replaced this with a "Create" link which leads to the instruction pages, based on those used at Portal:Norway. I've been slapping and banging everything into the handy layout templates, and I'm not done with all that stuff yet. I've held off on the instructions for the DYK and This week sections, mostly because of needing to work with the layout template a bit. Another day or two and I'll have all your concerns addressed. This has been an exhausting but fun changeover. I know lots about how I want to setup another portal now, but still need some new ideas. BusterD (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I had to adjust the instructions a bit to fit the circumstances of two subpages, but all the instruction pages are linked on the main page now. I've also included to do lists on those instruction pages. I'm planning to use the to do lists to keep tasks available to newcomers to the portal. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "Featured articles" are featured (or were at time of display), as explained at the "talk" link appropriate to the section. The red links are places for new FAs when they are promoted. Including archives, I've listed 15 FAs. I've explained each archive page a bit better. Do you have another suggestion as where to keep archives? I'm way open to ideas. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was something that is not that easy to understand at the outset - somehow those article titles should be wikilinked and bolded within each blurb. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Intro section could also use a highlighted image, perhaps in the upper left corner, that is indicative of the portal's topic. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under 'Things you can do - the "Requested articles" list is a bit large, the amount of redlinks looks unseemly, would look better if it were reduced to 3-5 redlinks, and then a referral to a list of additional requested articles at a subpage of a WikiProject. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You kind of have me here, Cirt. The portal is based around the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history American Civil War task force, and its "to do" list is an integral part of this portal, featured or not. If that's a deal-breaker, then we should probably withdraw this portal from any future FP consideration until the project has few requests (meaning never). BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying it is a lot of redlinks for a portal main page - if it is drawn from a WikiProject subpage, why not feature a few that are really requested, and have some others of less priority at a subpage of the WikiProject, and then refer to those in a link within that subsection of the portal? Cirt (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a few featured ACW articles. However there are numerous A-class and GA-class articles which would be candidates for "Selected Article" (see: Portal:Ohio). I don't think thats actionable for preventing Featured status. MrPrada (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no main difference in the intent of the "Featured article" and "Selected article" section (i.e. bios, or your Portal:American Civil War/Grand Parade of the States subsections) then I think this is simply a redundant subsection, and is confusing, especially since you already have a "Featured article" section at the top. In effect, the "Featured article" section functions as the "Selected article" section, just that all articles in rotation are featured. Yes, having both seems redundant and inappropriate for a featured portal - I don't know of any WP:FPORTs that have both. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my interest to present material which was not strictly battles and leaders, I originally had designed quite a lot of arcana into the portal (Selected artist's rendering, Selected photograph, Selected weapon, Selected map). Most of this was not that good, but GPotS had a resonance, perhaps a martial quality, which was commented upon positively, so I kept that. When I realized I had a number of FAs, I wanted to showcase those quarterly, but now with this rate of FA production, it's monthly, and I may never repeat an FA. I have no particular attachment to the SA subpage, but IMHO, it presents important and nuanced material which may never appear on the FA list. That's why the large number of subpages. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with BusterD here. Simply because no featured portal has ever had both "Featured Article" and "Selected Article" does not mean its exclusionary criteria. There are a number of articles which would otherwise never be featured, this at least allows users to suggest ones that can be selected from A-class, GA-class, etc. MrPrada (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am sorry, but they are not redundant. The 'Featured Article' selection at the top is for featured articles, and rotates quarterly. There are only nine FAs, so this makes sense to me. The Selected Article/Event/Topic section was for everything else (the 112 articles that are not FAs), to be rotated weekly. Let's have a look at some of the titles of those articles: Signal Corps in the American Civil War, Battle of Fort Donelson, Civil War tokens, Battle of Chancellorsville, H.L. Hunley, Fort Corcoran, Battle of Gettysburg, Fifteenth Amendment, Coal torpedo, Richmond and Danville Railroad, Great Locomotive Chase, andSultana (steamboat). Again, none of these are featured. Most of them will probably never be. Should they be excluded from the portal? I say no. Should the featured articles be given a quicker rotation to allow these? I also say no. Featured articles are examples of our best work, and should be given a longer display period at the very top of the portal. Its a big part of why I prefer the queue style to randomization. I think most other editors would agree with me that there has to be some remedy where we can return this section and still become a featured portal. MrPrada (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We might remove this section, but looking at the newly fortified "Selected article" queue (Thanks MrPrada!), I suggest we change the subsection to "Selected event". Most of the entries listed can be tied to a date range, so with some minor changes and explanation in queue talk, this could reference some battle or significant non-battle action, like a balloon ascent or steamboat explosion. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - This subsection still has selections which have nothing to do with "events", and I think that this subsection is subsumed by the "Featured article" subsection at the top of the portal, and thus redundant and should be removed. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with removing this section. This portal had six votes support votes, plus the nomination, "as-is", prior to this comment. There is nothing in the FP criteria list that would preclude this, and we're inhibiting every Civil War related article that is not a FA, Biography, or <State> in the American Civil War from displaying at the portal. I think it should be returned as "Selected Topic". The consensus above clearly supported the portal with both sections. It also makes the portal unique from other portals, which should be another part of being featured. Are we really not going to have any Battles, units, technology, etc., on the front page, even if they're GA-class or above? That is a little silly. MrPrada (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When do we start counting !votes in featured portal nominations? And even if so, "comments" is a nicer way than saying "oppose" because it is not directed towards the nomination, but the portal itself. OhanaUnitedTalk page15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not implying that we count votes, rather I intended to convey that there was consensus when both sections were featured. Personally, I would have asked Buster to create a section to include non-FA battles, etc., prior to nominating the portal, if it had not existed at the outset. MrPrada (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not overly wedded to SA myself, though I do agree with some of MrPrada's comments above. It's possible the portal had too many ingredients, and it's entirely possible to highlight many of the SA-type stuff in Did you know or This week entries. I could always put it back in, but I also highly value the opinions of those who've been through this process multiple times. BusterD public (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17 archived selected pictures, 14 31 complete so far this year, and more several months away from display already posted, and wanting formatting. This is a listed task on the to do list for "Selected pictures." I can either fill every slot, in which case there's no work for newcomer to jump into, or leave some future slots as incomplete and unfilled so as to demonstrate the need for entries (making some reviewers uncomfortable). Still not sure how to fit my square (time dynamic) portal through a round (random dynamic) filter. If you provide me a done/undone metric, I'll plug any hole still desiring filling. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue here, is that perhaps I am not understanding the way you have the dynamic queue set up for the portal - I tend to use a purely randomized method for selections, without regard for dates, etc. But if the way you have it is okay, and the redlinks/empty selections won't accidentally pop in the portal's main page, then okay. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easiest way to visualize the dynamic queue is to look at the queue itself. Because it reveals no content, the skeleton of the portal and its mechanisms can be better understood. For the record, I thought all this dynamic queue stuff was the way all portals were run. Foolish me. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already stated, I came to the already assembled portal with little understanding of its mechanics or design; if I had to do it all over again (and I'm about to do so with Portal:Civil war), I would choose a much more elegant and modern style. But this portal is an antique, and I'll still polish it as is. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs - The blurb text for Featured article, Grand Parade of the States, and Selected biography all seem to be a bit too long - each could be cut down to about a third of current length. Think WP:TFA size. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been wrestling with this because of the enormous variablility of the This week section (which is the section which requires the most effort to fortify, each subarticle taking several hours to create and edit). Eventually this will be a much shorter "This day" but it takes a long time to gather that many anniversary entries in a content area. This month of April, being the starting and ending month of the subject war, a lot of entries are inescapable, but in some weeks, finding entries is a difficult task. This weeks' and month's FA, GPotS and SB entries are actually intentionally puffed up to match the This week list. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't come across any WP:FPORTs with blurbs this long, I really think that the blurb text for these selected sections needs to be cut down drastically across the board. Cirt (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeCommentSupport I like the portal but I can’t support it unless the photos are organized and become "Ergonomic" as per Wikipedia’s featured portal criteria. If it gets fixed I would love to change my vote.--CPacker (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be confusing, I find the way it is archived very confusing because the photos are on different sides, if you could organize them one after the other it would make it much easier to see which photos go with each date. Example
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Self-nomination. See most recent archived peer review. Stats: (17) Selected articles, all with an associated free-use image, all of "B" class or higher, (10) Selected bios, all with an associated free-use image, all of "B" class or higher, (30) Selected pictures, (11) sets of 3 WP:DYK hooks, each with one free-use image per subpage, (25) Selected quotes. All of these subsections are randomized. The portal also has (10) Featured Pictures, which are displayed in the featured content section and the Selected pictures section. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Cirt (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment. A good-looking portal, with an excellent complementary colour scheme, a functional layout and lots of good content. I have a few comments and queries. For an industry that has traditionally been performed by women in many cultures, the selected biographies seem light on women (2/9), but presumably this reflects articles available? The selected pictures in the current gallery format is spacy and the white/grey boxes spoil the colour scheme -- could another format be used? The two columns are significantly unbalanced under many random selections -- more consistency in length of blurbs to minimise this would be useful. The image in the selected article could be enlarged somewhat throughout; it needs to be larger for comprehension in some cases, eg weaving, goldwork, Silk Road; also Emil Rieve (selected biographies). My other concerns are extremely minor nitpicks. Consistency over full stops and bolding to legends in the gallery of featured pictures is needed. The "Featured and Good quality content" heading reads a little awkwardly, and could probably do without the capital for "Good". "More..." vs "Read more..." needs standardisation. That's all I could see -- hope this is helpful! Espresso Addict (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All these examples have either a white textbox background or a colour such as pale blue that harmonises well with white/grey. Only Oregon has anything like the number of featured pictures, and personally I think that looks a little messy. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally no one else as far as I can remember has ever had an issue with this before, and I do not feel that this should hold up the portal's promotion to WP:FPORT, particularly as the exact same formatting is used in lots of other WP:FPORTs. But RichardF (talk·contribs) has been at this longer than me and is also pretty knowledgeable about color-formatting in portals, and I have asked for his input here. Cirt (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Well, I finally managed to track down the "undocumented" gallery parameter options at b:Editing Wikitext/Pictures/Images in Containers#The Image Gallery! >;) For example, "...many other font and formatting options have been added. These formats use style-sheet rules. (See CSS2 Properties Reference for more). All of the font family, style, color, ect, can be adjusted, as well as the text padding. Some properties remain obstinate; the notion of background color does not extend to the off-white photo mask, but works on the space between the border and the mask." I made the changeable portion of the background "transparent." RichardF (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created a few different versions of gallery formatting that can be seen in the difs. Pick one or try something else. :-) RichardF (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the progression from the dark brown frame to the off-white photo mask. I definitely wouldn't try to reformat the pics using a table. RichardF (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried purging the portal to look at 10 different randomized versions and the columns do not appear significantly unbalanced to me. Lengths of the blurbs in the selected sections are purposefully uniform throughout. Cirt (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great portal, great work. I was worried at first about the small number of selected biographies, but seeing as this seems like a problem which is out of Cirt, Durova or KPM's hands, I'm willing to let it drop. Qst (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow. The featured pictures are wonderful. Layout looks perfect. Colors are very good contrast with blue links. Beautiful job. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Support as a nominator -the portal has a potential of being featured and it also has a huge coverage. random portal component is being used in the portal. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DoneComments. Looks good. Two things. If you are investing in random content, would it be possible to change the image in the intro section too? Or make a group of several? Probably no one mammal says it all. Also, could the purge link at the bottom be removed, as there is a "Show new selections" link? Nice work and I wish you luck with it. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for the very quick changes. You could move related portals down to just above the 'portals' footer (just an opinion as I couldn't find a written rule saying that). Attractive and a great subject. Well done. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment. It's an interesting, clean layout,
Done but the box headers without borders look rather "spotty" to me.
Done The columns in the layout are unbalanced at my screen resolution (consistently longer on the left), perhaps it would work better with the DYKs running two columns? Agree with above that the introductory image needs thought, as a single mammal cannot be representative -- possibly several images of very different mammals, either rotating or simultaneously?
Done A diagram showing the relationships of the major modern classes would also be interesting. The introductory text has around the right length and level of detail, but might benefit from splitting into paragraphs to increase readability.
instead of image for the classification i have introduced a textual context. **Introduction has been splitted into paragraphs. thank-you for your opinion. i do appreciate your efforts. Sushant gupta (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done As there's only one Selected Article (and not a Selected Article plus Selected Biography, as per many portals), perhaps 11 articles is a little slim?
Done One of the selected articles (Homo floresiensis) lacks an image and contains a red link.
sorry we don't have images for Homo floresiensis! i have removed the red link as you mentioned. i have also changed the box- header layout. maybe now you are able to view the portal properly. Sushant gupta (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Some of the "Things to do" bullets read a little oddly in the context of a portal and perhaps could be reserved for the Wikiproject (and should bullets 3 & 4 be indented?). Hope this is of use, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for working on these, I think the layout is easier to understand with the box headers. I'm not sure that the new box with the classification works so well immediately under the introduction; it might be better placed towards the bottom of the portal with the other two-column boxes. The * and † symbols need to be explained. I still think the text in the "Things to do" box, which appears to be cut & pasted from the Wikiproject, is inappropriate in both tone and content for the different audience of the portal, but perhaps others disagree. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ok, I cleaned up a bit more. For example, Mammals are actuallY "Mammalia" in scientific terms. So I changed Mammals into Mammalia for Wikispecies. But a few problems need to be addressed. Too little selected articles and pictures (especially in a broad subject like Mammals). And move the categories to the right panel so that there's no big gap on the right. Same goes to the gap just above "Related portals". OhanaUnitedTalk page16:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Layout looks much better now. But I'm aiming for at least 20 articles and 20 pictures because this topic is very easy. Here's some advice to help you find pictures that will "awe" people. Go to here and here to find nice images. OhanaUnitedTalk page16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
I've been working steadily on this portal for a few weeks now, and finished it off earlier today. All articles and biographies used by this portal are of B-class or higher. Anyways, the portal currently has 20 selected articles, 17 selected biographies, 16 selected pictures, 21 selected quotes, 10 selected panoramic images and 10 did you know entries, each one displaying three facts at a time and a 'selected anniversaries' section, automatically updated for each month using {{Currentmonth}}. Much of this portal is based off Portal:Norway, which recently passed featured portal candidates. The news section is updated by Wikinews Importer Bot; thats all there is to say, really. Qst (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Attractive functional layout, with lots of good content. A map somewhere in the introduction would be useful, and some of the Selected biographies lack images. Other than that, I have only a few extremely minor nitpicks. There are several redlinks in the selected article blurbs, and a few could also do with very minor copy edits. (I'd do it myself but there's no easy edit link in the list of articles.) Topics has centred dots separating some items and commas separating others -- should be standardised, as should whether the colon is bolded or not. I'd probably move "Things you can do" down to closer to the end, and I'm not sure why one of the bullet points has bold text, while the others don't. The "Featured and good content" headers should probably either use "content" or "articles", not both. Prospect Park Selected panorama had an external link in the description. That's all I could see! Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll give the articles a light copyedit soon. As for a couple of the selected biographies not having images, well that is because they don't have free images available. I looked on Flickr to see if I could suitable images to accompany these articles, but I couldn't find anything which met the requirement for uploading on Commons. So, to keep the selected biography number at a decent level, I had to leave a couple without a free image, but I'm sure you can understand this. Other than that, I think that is everything! :) Qst (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've copyedited a couple of the selected articles. If there are others you would like me to do, leave a note, and I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, that is all your issues addressed. Qst (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I've done some minor copy edits to the Selected Articles & Biographies blurbs. There are a few that seemed to me to need a more expert eye -- I'll note them on the Portal talk page, to avoid cluttering this discussion with content issues. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, but I've intentionally left these out. This is because in last FPOC, it seems consensus was in favour of only linking to the sister projects that actually have a page on the portal subject. I'm open to discussion on this matter, but it was my belief that this is how consensus seems to go now. Qst (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please exchange the position of selected quote and featured and good articles section. rest the whole portal looks nice. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the featured and good content box to the full width boxes of the portal, but I've left the selected quote box at the bottom, as some of them are quite long, and it would disrupt the balance between the boxes on the left and right. Qst (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "read more" link of the selected quotes section points to the main page of Wikiquote. Please link it to somewhere more appropriate (ie. a New York category there, or something like that). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Douglas Adams quote here appeared in one of his books (I think it was So Long and Thanks for all the Fish, but I'm not sure) - it seems you're citing on that page where the quote comes from - please try and do it in all cases. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay dokey, I've adjusted the "Read more..." link to point to New York on Wikiquote, as that was my source along with an external website. As for the detail of where the quotes originate from, I've removed that parameter from Portal:New York/Selected quote/Layout after our IRC chat. If there is anything else I can do for you, leave me a note, but otherwise, thats everything. :-) Qst (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice job. Two little things: you could deepen the header box blue because white on light blue is ultra low contrast and a little hard on people with less than perfect vision. Also the map of New York in the intro is very faint on my screen. I wonder if the commons has a brighter/darker map. Otherwise clean and easy to follow. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Done I had to adjust the instructions a bit to fit the circumstances of two subpages, but all the instruction pages are linked on the main page now. I've also included to do lists on those instruction pages. I'm planning to use the to do lists to keep tasks available to newcomers to the portal. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not done - This subsection still has selections which have nothing to do with "events", and I think that this subsection is subsumed by the "Featured article" subsection at the top of the portal, and thus redundant and should be removed. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Done Applied the same layout style to the older stuff in the 2007 archives. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)