Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Houston


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was delist. Here is my rationale. It failed to meet 1(a) and 1(d) of the criteria. The subject of this portal is substantial enough to provide large selections of high-quality pieces to the portal (as shown by a long list in the "Recommended articles" section). Yet in each component of the portal (DYK, biographies, pictures & articles), the number of pages showcased is much less than desired. On top of that, during a quick spot check, I observed that quite a number of article selections showcased aren't of high quality (good or featured articles). Also, the portal seems to have stopped updating since June 2011. Photos did not provide linked credits so it also failed to meet criteria #3. Hence my decision is to remove/delist this portal of its featured status. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Houston
This portal hasn't been updated since 2009, and doesn't select content randomly; in its current state it offers no content. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notified WP:Houston / WP:Texas / WP:US (Gyrobo had already notified, who nominated the portal for featured status and who was the last person to update it, at the time of launching this FPoR.) This meets the criteria for speedy delisting and I will do so in 1 week unless efforts are started to rescue it. BencherliteTalk 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I concur. I think there is plenty of content but it will take considerable time to rebuild the portal. My recommendation is that it be delisted, the problems fixed and then it can be resubmitted. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kumioko, it has seven redlinks since more than two years, rendering the "Featured" title meaningless. --Elekhh (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How can I rework it so it doesn't have to be maintained as much?
 * One of the issues is that it has to be updated every month, while newer portals only have to have a certain amount of content "cycled"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Newer portals use random portal component and related templates to cycle through a series of sub-pages. So, for example, "my" portal P:ENGLAW has code like this:


 * I'll convert the DYK section as an example for you to follow, if you're interested. BencherliteTalk 07:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. What that shows is that there's a lot of similarity between the groups of hooks used in the past, so some variety will be needed (including eliminating duplicates) and some new hooks found to make up the numbers. You can also automate updating of the featured/good content box by using User:JL-Bot/Project content.  Hope this helps; let me know if you need more. BencherliteTalk 07:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Let me look at the portal and try to finish rewriting it... WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Update we are no longer in speedy delisting territory. WhisperToMe has almost finished rebuilding the portal using random components, and then it should be a relatively simple matter to make the last few tweaks to finish bringing it up to modern standards. BencherliteTalk 20:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks for updating. The portal was created back in 2006 and I kept it updated as much as possible. I don't think the dynamic update was available back when the portal became featured, thanks for making these revisions. Postoak (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The last thing we need to do is fill up the quotes section: Portal:Houston/Selected quote WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeated the four quotes until they filled the quotes section. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is from June? Res Mar 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said at user talk:Cirt some days ago after he asked me what my views now were, "Well, it would be nice to have more than 4 quotes but that's hardly a deal-breaker. Close it as a "retain status", I suggest." Hopefully someone will do the honours sometime soon... BencherliteTalk 11:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.