Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Sports/archive1

Portal:Sports
What does this need to get to FPO status? Right now it has:


 * 20 Selected articles, all FAs or GAs
 * 22 Selected biographies, all FAs or GAs
 * 20 Selected teams (like biographies, but for teams), all FAs or GAs
 * 25 Selected pictures, all FPs
 * 20 sets of five DKYs
 * 12 sets of selected anniversaries (one per month)
 * The standard suite of portal items (related content, categories, associated Wikimedia)

Note that this used to be Portal:Sports and Games, however I broke the portal in two because the portal was just not working as it was, and none of the other projects combined the portals. I will begin creating Portal:Games soon.

 S ven M anguard  Wha?  21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from Lionratz


 * 1) Add Wikiproject and Things you can do sections to encourage participation


 * 1) Summaries for all Selected sections are too long (according to the guidelines, " Article and biography summaries should not significantly exceed 200 words in length.")

Other than that, I have no other comments. This portal looks very appealing to me.--Lionratz (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll add the "Things you can do" section soon. WikiProjects are already in there, in the "Related content" section. With that many items, images don't make sense to do them in two separate sections with icons, so I opted for one section with text. As for the size of the prompt, I think 200 is way too small. I opted for something of a more readable size, and believe me this is an improvement over what I did last time.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from Adam Cuerden

Sport has its own pages at FP and own category at FA. Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Sport and Featured_pictures/People/Sport lists 60 FPs between them, and Featured_articles and the list of biographies just below it should get around that in FAs, although, admittedly, that would be divided up into two separate sections of the portal. Now, not every one of those is necessarily going to be completely suitable - some you might want to save for Portal Games, or might be too narrow in focus for a top-end portal - but it does seem that for such a high-level, linked-from-the-main-page portal, we should link to as much featured content as is reasonable to do. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like I've got some work ahead of me.
 * The major limiter for the images is that I want to have all the images be the same size, or as close to that as possible. I'd be happy to add more of the landscape and square images, but I worry that the portrait orientation images are going to look awfully small.
 * As to the articles (and the images) I worked very hard to try and prevent one sport or one country from dominating the portal. I'll add more, but one thing I do want to avoid is all of a sudden having 37 football players and 1 of everything else. The other thing I've been avoiding is athletes that are still in their prime, as I don't want to have to update someone's stats every few months. There's still a lot to work with. I guess I'm just saying all of this since you offered to help.
 * Thanks for the review. I'll be chipping away at this for a while.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are fair points. However, I do think a little psychology might do you well here. When people see 20 of each component, they think "He can't have reviewed everything." If they see a variety of numbers, say, 21, 23, 22, 24 - they'll think "Clearly, he selected the best from the selection available for each of them." I bet you'll never see another comment like my last one if you do that. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)