Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Terrorism/archive1

Portal:Terrorism
Statistics: Three rotating images in the Intro, 15 Selected articles, all GA-class or FA-class, 10 Selected biographies, all GA-class or FA-class, 20 Selected pictures, 20 sets of 3 DYK hooks, all with free-use images, 20 Selected quotes, all with free-use images, and a Rotating In this month section.

Looking for any feedback/comments prior to WP:FPORTC. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 

Comment. It's a well-put-together portal with a clean layout and adequate amount of content. I was particularly interested in the "In this month" feature, and hope that this could be extended in future. I have one major concern with regard to featuring this -- your intro states that there is no clear definition of terrorism, so it's not clear what exactly is in the purview of the portal, and this becomes particularly obvious in the biography section. The inclusion of, for example, Idi Armin was unclear to me under the definition commonly used within the UK (which would exclude government actions), and perhaps needs to be more clearly justified within the blurb. I'm not sure including military people involved in the "war on terror" such as Michael Patrick Murphy is sensible. Also the blurb for George W Bush should focus on his views/actions regarding terrorism.


 * My other comments are minor. Some Selected Article blurbs need to be edited to be closer to the average length -- eg R v Thomas, The CIA and September 11, & Real IRA are very short, World Trade Center is rather long. Also big variation in the Selected Biographies & Pictures. Probably because of this, the column balance seems way off for many selections (much longer on the right). The blurbs could in several cases do with a copy edit.


 * The import from Wikinews doesn't seem to be picking up very much -- it might be better to add items by hand? Or delete altogether if this can't be maintained.


 * The instructions need personalising to this portal -- in at least one place they refer to "Buddhism justice" (DYKs). Also you don't have instructions for suggestions for "In this month".


 * The layout might perhaps be improved by reducing the number of 2-col boxes at the end.

Hope this is of use to you in improving this portal! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Espresso Addict
 * I generally like to keep the text as is, from the WP:LEAD that it was imported from. Otherwise, it could be seen as arbitrarily selective text choice on the part of the editor, as opposed to the stable lede version from the article itself. Therefore, if changes should be made, they should be done, at the lede of the article itself, Terrorism.
 * The biographies selected are done not for implication of anything at all, merely due to relevance to or within the topic, broadly defined. This would of course include those both involved in instigating terrorism, fighting against terror, law enforcement, military, etc.
 * Okay, might be best to remove the Wikinews section, will think about that suggestion some more or perhaps find other ways to improve it.
 * I will work on fixing the instructions, thanks for the recommendation.
 * "Otherwise, it could be seen as arbitrarily selective text choice on the part of the editor, as opposed to the stable lede version from the article itself." That's interesting. I've always written the blurb essentially from scratch to match the needs of the portal, based on the whole of the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I specifically avoid that type of construction. I always use the WP:LEAD text of the article itself. If the article is not adequate of a satisfactory level of quality, I just don't use that article in that portal. This makes things much easier - for example: it completely avoids any disputes or conflict over what is appropriate blurb text, because those debates should be on the talk page of the article, and not get shifted into two places and be both the purview of the portal talk page and article talk page simultaneously. Hope that makes things clear. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear certainly, but I strongly disagree. However this isn't the forum for discussing it. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Yeah, that would best be a discussion for another time and place. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)