Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Submarine/archive1

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 not promoted by Cirt 03:43, 11 February 2011 [1].

This is a portal with such a wide scope that I'm intruiged that it hasn't been created before me. I'm nominating this portal because I believe that it meets all the citeria for Featured Portal status. I hope all of you have the same view. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 02:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place I think. Portal:Submarine isn't already a featured portal so this nomination should be at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates. NtheP (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I'm reluctant to criticize you, WikiCopter, but since you did turn your focus away from OMT for this, I don't feel as bad. :P On the criteria:
  • 1A: there are very few features, and while most are GA or higher, I think you would want to start a portal when you've got a goodly number of FAs, say a dozen total and a few for each type of feature. I'm sure you can find some featured images as well.
    • Sorry, I never really thought about FPs before. I only picked some interesting images. I will try to find some featured images with CatScan if you insist. There are no sub FAs at the moment.
      • Actually, there is one FA (not counting ships destroyed/sunk by subs (battleships seem to be a great victim of subs )) but no FPs. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 15:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you've added a few more, but still severely lacking. Like I said, I think you need about a good dozen features before you can pass this criterion. Maybe you should look for a few high-quality article sin related topics, like sub tenders or media. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1B: I don't think the earthtone color scheme works for submarines. You'll probably want to experiment with blues and greens to evoke a deep sea feel, maybe some dark grey and black. Also, you have an excess of blank space on many resolutions, especially the broken "things you can do" box.
    • I'm not sure which resolutions you are talking about. On both my computers they show up fine. The things to do box was fixed, I wonder why the deleting admin didn't fix the links.
      • Ouch. The new blue scheme is too bright, and is painful to look at, as well as obscuring the links. You'll have to keep tweaking it to get something a bit more subtle and complementary (try looking at web colors#X11 color names). Regarding the blank spaces, fixing the "Things you can do" box helped, but it's still prevalant to a lesser degree at 1280x960 and gets worse as you shrink further. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Poor bahamut. I tweaked the color, check again. P.S. Your sig has a earthtone color =)
          • Much better, it's aesthetically pleasing and doesn't burn my retinas. I'm not sure, but I think the blue links at the top might be an accessibility issue for people with colorblindness, but I'm not an expert on such things. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1C is good, though that "Topics" box seems out of place and unnecesary. You can combine those core articles into the intro, which needs to be trimmed down to a more concise size than it currently is.
    • I don't either agree or understand. The lede of the sub article seems to be adequate.
      • A box that simply lists a few of the core articles is simply unnecessary. If it's relevant for navigation, then they can eaily be worked into the prose of the intro, like P:BB does for battlecruisers. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will do.
  • 1D is obviously not met because the portal is still under construction.
    • ??? I disagree.
      • You have roughly a quarter of the features a FP should have, and had a busted content box. Still, the lack of features indicates that there is much work to be done. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 seems mostly met, because it appears you have picked good text from reviewed articles. Also, on Portal:Submarine/Selected picture/3, the text seems improperly bolded.
    • bolded text fixed
  • 3 seems OK. I'm a bit skeptical about the license on File:APL5.jpg, and I don't know if File:Wolfgang Lüth.jpg's partial PD copyright allows it for use outside articlespace. The images on the featured articles and bios need captions and photo credits. I think you might run into a problem with monotony on the featured pictures if you don't get creative in your image subjects; a dark tube and conning tower slipping the water gets repetitive and boring.
    • Ummmm... what is a submarine but a dark tube and a conning tower? You can challenge the license on APL5 if you wish, I will change the Luth image for something appropriate.
      • You can find some more interesting images, like interiors, drydocks, seals/logos, and such (like File:USS Sam Rayburn (SSBN-635) missile hatches.jpg, File:USS Greeneville in dry dock.jpg, or this SEAL delivery vehicle). Try to get a good mix of b&w photos, color photos, art/drawings, and some diagrams or technical drawings. You can also maybe do a few on submarine-related stuff, like reactors, missiles/torpedos, and the like. And you have to make sure that all images have the appropriate license; if it's fishy, it's best not to use it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will look at some of those, I don't like the missile hatch image for some reason.
  • 4 is an easy yes.
  • 5 could use some work. Take a look at Portal:Battleships for some help there; you can probably copy most of it.
    • There are no categories or portals to link to, other than the cats provided. Subs seem to be an ill-covered subject on the Wikimedia projects.
      • There are. War, History, Nautical, Transport, and Battleships seem like good portals to link to. There is coverage on WikiNews, and while there aren't pages on WikiQuote, WikiBooks, or Wikiversity, they do have valid search results you can link to. It's better than leaving an almost empty box. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incorporating.

In all, it seems like a good start, but you may have jumped the gun on nominating it at the moment. You've only been working on it since October, and I think you need several more months at the current pace of work. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a major jump :) to get comments. I think I can pass, with a large amount of determination and work :). WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 02:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got another question: does the scope of the portal include just military ships, or maybe other submersibles? You lead should note that. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to some, I will bbl. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other subs as well. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, insufficient content to pass 1(a). Wikipedia:Portal guidelines suggests 20 articles, which may be on the high side, but "selected articles" (2 GAs) and "selected biography" (1 GA, 1 A-class) are both far, far too small in number to make this worthy of featuring. You only have three images, which is again far too few given the potential here - they don't have to be featured images. The "Things to do" is a red link. More work is needed, probably on creating quality submarine-related content first, before trying again to make this a featured portal. Bencherlite^Talk 11:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added one FA to selected articles, working on more. WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 15:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I suggest you withdraw this, then, and bring it back when it's ready? It still needs a lot of work. Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Glaring color scheme, not nearly enough selected images and articles. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.