Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Star Trek/archive1

Portal:Star Trek
Portal:Star Trek is a joint collaboration between and myself. I just helped out with the formatting and Miyagawa did the bulk of the legwork. We believe it's ready for Featured consideration and we're bringing it here for Peer Review first to get further opinions and comments about how to further improve its quality.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Notified: User talk:Miyagawa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * : In the future, notify me too, in case I don't see them. I intend to get involved in every PPR and FPOC from now on.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly nice to see some new faces in the portal namespace. Hopefully my comments don't scare you off. Keep in mind that these are all suggestions, and that this wall of comments isn't an indication that your portal is bad (it's actually quite good).
 * Comments by Sven Manguard


 * I'm really not a fan of the way you've chosen to arrange the two selected article sections. The "Featured article" section only has 12 entries, and I generally prefer having sections of at least 20, so that there's a good rotation. Looking at what articles are FA and GA class, I'd actually split it into a "Selected article" section and a "Selected episode" section, both with at least 20 entries.
 * Within a section, the summaries for each selection should be around the same size. That way, the section takes up around the same amount of space in the larger portal no matter which selection is showing. It doesn't need to be exact, just visually close. Portal:Star Trek/Featured article/3 is twice the size of Portal:Star Trek/Featured article/2, meaning that it will be twice as long when it shows in the portal. Because of how you've set up your sections, the gap isn't too bad on any of the standard screen widths except for 1024 x 768 (|1024|768|1 I use this site to do tests), but that's a really old resolution anyways.
 * I don't like the selected picture section. When there aren't FPs, I still want the images to be visibly of decent quality. Too many of the images are of low technical quality, and when you've got a bad looking image as a focal point of the portal, the portal just doesn't look right. I'm not sure what to do, as there might not be 20 high quality images.
 * The Quality content section is massive. I personally only include current featured content when I do mine, but at the very least I would remove the "Did you know? articles", "Good article nominees" and "Former featured articles" sections, leaving only the active featured content and GAs. That will cut it down to half of the current size.
 * I'd add Portal:Speculative fiction to the related portals. You might find others too. The full list is at User:Sven Manguard/List of Portals.
 * I'm not sure what the Wikiversity or Wikivoyage links add in the Star Trek on other WikiMedia Projects section. Especially the latter, which only mentions it briefly in their entry on Space
 * File:Delta-shield.svg appears three times in the portal (header, categories, and main topics). I'm personally not a fan of filler images in sections like categories and main topics, but if you're going to have filler images, I'd choose three different ones over using the same image three times.
 * The Anniversaries this month, DYK, Quotes, Main topics, and Things you can do sections are perfect, I wouldn't change a thing.

Anyways, this is in generally good shape. Let me know your thoughts on these suggestions. Please use  so that I know you've responded, and can respond to your response to my response.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  05:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much,, will update when the rest are done. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Responses by Cirt
 * 1) Good idea, will re-arrange those sects and note it back here.
 * 2) Good point, this is something that maybe User:Miyagawa could handle.
 * 3) Another area maybe User:Miyagawa could take over fixing.
 * 4) Trimmed size of Quality content sect. Next time the bot comes by, it'll trim it and update it.
 * 5) Added Portal:Speculative fiction to related portals.
 * 6) Trimmed both Wikiversity and Wikivoyage from sister links in WikiMedia projects sect.
 * 7) Swapped out File:Delta-shield.svg in categories and main topics sects for two different images.
 * 8) Anniversaries this month, DYK, Quotes, Main topics, and Things you can do sections -- Thanks very much, most appreciated.


 * Responses by Miyagawa
 * 2: I'll get that sorted once the FA/GA split is changed to Selected article/episode instead - that'll make it easier to make the balance is correct across all combinations.
 * 3: I'll take another look at them - I'm not sure that we'll have twenty. Certainly we've got the single FP, plus the free use Original Series promotional shots. Anything after that might be a bit hit and miss. I'll report back here once I work out what the situation is. Miyagawa (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Both these should have only WP:GA or WP:FA quality selections. Both should get up to at least twenty (20) total selections each. Now the portal is reformatted for the rest of the work that User:Miyagawa can handle. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update by Cirt
 * Portal:Star Trek/Selected episode = now has fifteen (15) total selections.
 * Portal:Star Trek/Selected article = now has seventeen (17) total selections.
 * No problem, I'll take the most common sort of size for the blurbs and make them all match over the weekend. I'll also top up the number of articles where I can (I'm certain that the episodes will easily meet the mark, not sure about the "others" - I might have to do some more GA's). Miyagawa (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, keep us posted here, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and adjusted the list of selected pictures - it was fairly fortunate as we'd just had a couple new Original Series promotional shots uploaded to commons (including Spock's Brain!). So we've got 20 now. We'll need to double check that we haven't repeated the images elsewhere, but with the extra shots we should now have plenty of images to choose from. Plus, the guy who uploaded the images has done a check on the copyright status of the Star Trek promotional images and it seems that prior to 1969, they didn't copyright a single image. Not a one. Now we just need to source the other images! Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , any updates on this yet? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - been caught up with some non-Wiki stuff. I'm going to aim for about 200 words per section if that sounds good - this means that they'll all be around the same size as "Yesterday's Enterprise". This means that mostly they'll be increased in size, and only really "These Are the Voyages..." will be reduced in size as that's currently 334 words. Does that sounds like a good size, or should I be aiming for a larger size? Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine,, just make sure to do that sizing for both the Selected episode sects and the Selected article sects. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally started on it, I'm just working my way through the episodes now - once I've standardarised the sizes I'll add more until we're back up to 20. Then I'll work on the "others" section and get those all to the same size as well. Miyagawa (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, all 20 episodes are now there and at the standard length. I've taken a look at the selected articles and we'll be able to do 20. At the moment we have 17, and I've identified three more articles that are GAs but not episodes that we can add (Nighthawk, Planet of the Titans and the second season of TNG). Miyagawa (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, keep us posted here. Seems like when all that's done as mentioned above, we can probably close this peer review at that point in time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, going to take a break for a few hours now - the selected articles 1 through 5 and 13 through 17 are done. I've also added three ones to take it up to 20, but 18 is currently very stubbish and I need to expand it. Most of the others should be trimming jobs with the exception of bat'leth which needs to be expanded slightly. I ended up adding Nighthawk and Planet of the Titans, but went with the novel Spock Must Die! instead of the TNG season article. Miyagawa (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, they're all around the same size now. The only thing is that the selected article box is narrower than the selected episode box, and so its still pushing it slightly out of alignment. Miyagawa (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I modified the image widths of both columns, Miyagawa, does that look better now? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's much better. Miyagawa (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

, anything else to do, or did we address above successfully? :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a problem with the DYK section. Specifically, the DYKs I viewed appear to have never run on the main page. There were 77 of them in the recognized content section, so I don't see a reason who we can't use ones that have actually gone through the vetting process. If you want, I'd be happy to help do a switchover. Everything else looks good.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with on this one. I hadn't realized that was the case. Which ones do you see you think haven't appeared on the Main Page? It looks like either myself or  left notes at the bottom of each DYK hook subpage noting confirmation of when they appeared on T:DYK, did you see that? Can you be more specific? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon re-examination, it appears that I somehow went from reviewing the DYK section to reviewing the anniversaries section without realizing that I was no longer looking at DYKs. My bad. This is, as far as I am concerned, ready to go to FPO nomination.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, no worries, easy mistake. :) Thanks very much for the input, about to go traveling soon. I'll close the peer review and we'll go from there maybe in a week. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)