Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Poland/archive1

Portal:Poland[edit]

Initially, I wasn't really a big fan of the Wikipedia portal concept. But since there already was a Poland portal, completely defunct, I thought I might try to revamp it. It turned out to be quite fun, actually. I learned some new things about my own country in the process, and even more about Poland's coverage in Wikipedia. It helped me notice a systemic bias caused by geographic origin and personal interests of the most prolific Polish contributors. Apparently, most are history buffs from either Silesia or Lesser Poland, which would explain why virtually all quality Poland-related articles are about history; and why there's a geographic bias towards southern parts of the country.

Anyway, I tried to do my best, starting on 1 May. There are now four sections with fully randomized content: 21 GA or better historical articles, 10 GA+ biographies, 11 selected locations and 34 QI+ pictures. Additionally, a DYK sections with five most interesting Poland-related hooks selected monthly from the Main Page DYK; and "Poland now" highliting recent, on-going and/or scheduled events and holidays.

So far, I've been almost alone working on this, so any comments or suggestions are welcome. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add some B-class articles to selected locations if you wish, as long as they are in good quality. I don't mind seeing an occasional B-class articles if they are important. Article quality may not accurately reflect its importance. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you mean because almost all of the selected locations are C-class. We currently have no geographic Poland-related articles of higher quality, so C-class are as good as you can get. Perhaps you meant selected bio, where almost articles are GA or better? As of now, we don't have any more Polish biographies that are GA or better, so including B-class articles would indeed be the only way to expand this section. We've alreay made one exception for John Paul II – a B-class article, but good and important enough to be included. Is that what you are suggesting? — Kpalion^(talk) 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]