Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured Portals in Wikipedia A featured portal is a portal which is regarded by the community as being particularly good. This page is where featured portal candidates are considered by the community. Please see "what is a featured portal?" for general standards and criteria. Before nominating a portal here, it is highly recommended you receive feedback from the community by listing it at portal peer review. Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. A portal should not be a featured portal candidate and at the same time be listed at portal peer review. Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed. Do not split a nomination page into subsections, which will cause problems in its archiving (if necessary, use bolded headings). Please respond positively to constructive criticism. For a nomination to be promoted to featured portal status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators, as determined by the portal directors: Cirt and OhanaUnited. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. A bot will update the portal talk page after the portal is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FPOC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks. At present, there are 137 featured portals, of a total of 580 portals on Wikipedia. Purge page cache

Shortcuts: WP:FPOC WP:FPORTC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals ← Featured topics Featured portal tools: Featured portal criteria Portal peer review Featured portal candidates Featured portal log Featured portal review Former featured portals

Nomination procedure Before nominating a portal for featured portal status on this page, compare it against the featured portal criteria and ensure that it meets all criteria before nominating. It is strongly recommended that you use the portal peer review process before nominating the portal. Peer reviews help to identify and fix basic improvement needs before they might be used as the basis for opposing a nomination. You may also wish to observe other featured portals in the same topic to get ideas on how to further improve your portal before nomination. Place {{FPOC}} on the talk page of the nominated portal, and click the "initiate nomination" link – This will allow you to initiate the nomination in the correct format. Note: If you are resubmitting the portal after a previously failed nomination, it is important that you follow the following instructions correctly: Use the move tab to rename the previous nomination to a new title: example: move Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Example/Archive 1 Go back to the template you left on the talk page of the nominated portal, and replace the code {{FPOC}} with {{FPOC|Archive 1}}. Save the page and re-click the "initiate nomination" link to start the nomination again. Fill in the blanks of the page, including why you are nominating the portal and other necessary details about the portal that need to be covered. Click this link and place the following code (replacing Example with the name of your portal) directly under the header, and above all previous nominations. This will transclude the nomination subpage you created for your nominated portal to be seen on the main candidacy page. Be sure to include an edit summary that clearly states which portal you are nominating: e.g., nominating Portal:Example. Nominator is strongly encouraged to watchlist the nomination page. Supporting and objecting Please read nominated portals fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the portal nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link). If you approve of a portal, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to a portal's suitability for the Wikipedia. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Any registered user may vote. IP users will have their votes crossed out, but their comments on portal content should be considered. Users casting more than 1 vote by using alternate/different accounts will have all but their primary account's vote removed. Consensus must be reached for a portal to be promoted to featured portal status. Consensus shall be determined by a nomination closer who is not materially involved in the portal's development or maintenance, or any related WikiProjects. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. To archive a nomination Any editor in good standing is welcome to analyse consensus in a nomination, and close it accordingly. There are featured portal directors who are trusted and willing to close difficult or contentious nominations in which they haven't expressed an opinion. If you would like to ask that a nomination be closed, have concerns over a closure, or seek clarification in any regard, please ask at the talk page. Remove the transcluded discussion from this page (click here). While removing it, mention the name of the portal in the edit summary. Transclude the nomination to the promoted or not promoted log, as appropriate. Update the Template:Featured portal log tallies by clicking here. Update Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/List, which appears on Template:FPcandidates, by clicking here. If the article was not promoted, there is nothing else editors need to do; the bot will update the talk page. Specifically, there is no need to remove the {{FPOC}} template or update the {{articlehistory}} template; the bot will do that. Some time later, a bot will mark the nomination page closed, and update the portal talk page. Please do not update articlehistory or the talk page yourself, as that will stall the bot and create extra work. The delay in bot processing of the FPOC closing can range from minutes to a few days; editors will know if an article was featured or archived by checking the archived nominations or the featured log. If the article was listed at FPORT by a featured portal director, it has been promoted and you can add the star to the portal, by adding {{featured portal}} to the bottom of the portal page (unless the bot has already done that). The bot will do everything else, viz., it will upgrade Project assessments, close the FPOC, remove the {{FPOC}} template, and update ArticleHistory. For successful nominations: Update Template:FPO number by clicking here. Add the portal to Portal:Featured portals. Edit Portal:Featured content/Portals. Remember to update "max" value in the "#switch:" function. Place bold-italics around the portal at Portal:Contents/Portals. Update Wikipedia:Goings-on by clicking here. Add {{FA}} alongside the portal at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. Ensure the Maintainers/WikiProject information is up-to-date.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 Portal:Statistics 1.2 Portal:Opera 1.3 Portal:Finger Lakes

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Portal:Statistics

This portal has been peer reviewed and seems to be ready as a featured portal candidate. —G716 <^T·_C> 18:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Notified WikiProject Statistics—G716 <^T·_C> 19:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Any other possibly related wikiprojects you could notify that might be interested in contributing to the discussion? Math, Science, Economics, etc., something like that? Cirt (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Done: Mathematics, Probability, Science, Economics —G716 <^T·_C> 01:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully that will draw in some editors to comment. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Opera

Co-nomination: (Shoemaker's Holiday, Cirt, and Voceditenore). After a previous, failed nomination, this has been redone top to bottom. Notably, dozens of articles have been brought up to GA or better, we've gained about 10 additional featured pictures through a picture drive, and the layout has had a complete going-over by Cirt. We believe that this now meets all the criteria, and serves as an excellent introduction to high-quality content on opera.

It has an active WikiProject behind it, so the numbers of articles, biographies, pictures, and sounds will continue to increase over time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Very well built portal (meets FPC) with excellent content and rotation. Maybe revamp Portal:Arts next? Only "Associated Wikimedia" needs to be redone as several links go nowhere useful. feydey (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I could try... Would you be interested in joining me? There's literally hundreds of FPs, FSes, and so on we really ought to include in it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think feydey means categorizing all the stuff on Commons. That link's OK. The problem is with these links: Opera on Wikinews, Opera on Wikibooks, and Opera on Wikiversity. They default to an assumed page on those media projects titled "Opera" when in fact there is none. Opera on Wikiquote is OK (it has a page) and Opera on Wikisource is OK because it already links to the search results on "opera". Opera on Wiktionary is sort of OK - it links to a redirect page to a definition of er... Opera. I'd suggest replacing the default links for the 3 "go nowhere" with ones to search results, e.g.

Opera on Wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Opera&fulltext=Search

Opera on Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Search/Opera

Opera on Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Opera&fulltext=Search

- Voceditenore (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought he was talking about Portal:Arts (which is what I was talking about =). Took a little ingenuity, but I've implemented your suggested links. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the coding a little cleaner, it's all fixed now [1]. Cirt (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - well built and beautiful portal. Great work guys. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support A great and lovely portal which is coherent in nature. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - This is just a suggestion, but you may want to standardize some of the entries under Selected article and Selected biography so that they are of similar length. Some of the more extreme examples: Portal:Opera/Selected biography/3 & Portal:Opera/Selected biography/6, Portal:Opera/Selected article/13 & Portal:Opera/Selected article/12. --Jh12 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response: Generally the issues are with the shorter ones, the other longer ones are okay. As I generally take the text from the WP:LEADs of the articles themselves, the issue is with those articles themselves to be improved upon hopefully. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it's a lot easier to expand the really short ones. Adding one or two more lines to the shortest ones should do it. It just looks glaring when there are length differences of 2x or greater. --Jh12 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally I don't think that's such a big deal - again I go by the WP:LEADs, of those articles at present, and also sometimes it is nice to have that bit of extra dynamism in the portal. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response: I've now slightly expanded Portal:Opera/Selected biography/3 and Portal:Opera/Selected article/13 to redress the balance. I could also easily trim slightly the rather long and wordy ones, e.g. Portal:Opera/Selected article/12, and especially Portal:Opera/Selected biography/6 and Portal:Opera/Selected biography/4. It would probably improve their readability in the confined space of a portal. I would agree with Cirt, though, that a bit of variation in "shape" can add dynamism. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Voceditenore (talk · contribs)! Cirt (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed Portal:Opera/Selected biography/4, Portal:Opera/Selected biography/6, and Portal:Opera/Selected article/12. I tried to keep all the basic facts, but reduced the amount of commentary on them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support It's a personal preference more than anything. Two reasons I like standardized entries are 1. For technical reasons, the boxes will align better and there's less chance of large white spaces 2. Extremely short leads may not introduce an article adequately. Anyway, fantastic work! I appreciate the effort. --Jh12 (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a few suggestions from [sd] 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Add {{Browsebar}} at the beginning, e.g. the Internet portal.
  • Selected biography: Update I and XIII with the dates of birth and death.
  • Introduction: Can you find a better photograph for II? The current one is good but unclear, in my opinion.
  • Opera topics: In my opinion, the word Opera is not needed; instead, I'd suggest Main topics or Major topics. Also, I think the link to the opera article should be removed, because (i) it's been linked to several times above and (ii) it is centered but doesn't line up correctly with the box title (Opera topics).

    Done. Addressed all of these above points by Sd31415 (talk · contribs), thanks, they were all good suggestions. :) Cirt (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Finger Lakes

Co-nomination: (Cirt and Mitchazenia). See archived peer review (notified relevant WikiProjects, but only got one comment, oh well). Stats: 15 selected articles, 10 selected biographies, 11 selected pictures, 14 selected lakes (the Finger Lakes), 13 selected attractions, 40 featured pictures, 37 additional selected pictures, 12 sets of rotating DYK hooks, and an automatically rotating In this month section. I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Finger Lakes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lakes, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York. Cirt (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Support after review, needs some work with captions. feydey (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC) In summary: fails FPC 1a. The content is very remotely connected to the topic, having a bird's picture with the caption: "The Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) is the only mockingbird commonly found in North America" used on the portal misses the the portal's core. Why 2 picture boxes? While well built it is not FP useful, to get FP it needs to focus on the core topics on the issue. feydey (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Responses from Cirt to Feydey (addressed)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Suggestion I am a bit inclined to agree, I fear: If you're going to include images of wildlife of the region (a reasonable choice), particularly when it isn't necessarily photographed in the region, it needs to be put under the caption "Wildlife found in the Finger Lakes area" or "Selected wildlife found in the region". Otherwise, it's misleading and off-topic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Response to Feydey: Wildlife featured picture section removed [2]. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Comment. The problem isn't simply one image, but the whole portal's content. In the SA list only 2 have actually Finger Lakes linked; what has "A shield for U.S. Route 20 outside of Skaneateles" picture do with FL, or pic of a lighthouse, Oswego Light, that is actually in Lake Ontario? I guess the portal could be named "Finger Lakes and the surrounding counties" with current content. feydey (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC) These all relate to the Finger Lakes region. Cirt (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Then the intro needs to be clarified, about what area is considered to be FL region. feydey (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC) How would you suggest clarifying this? Could you provide some suggested wording? Cirt (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Shoemaker's Holiday (addressed)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Detailed review: Shoemaker's Holiday Going section-by-section: Opening: Fixed minor grammar issue. ✓ pass Selected article: Generally of good quality, though Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected article/1, is rather over-technical. ✓ pass with minor reservations. Selected lake a good choice; including the minor Finger Lakes is particularly wise. ✓ pass. Selected attraction Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected attraction/5 may have some issues in the last two sentences (also, there was a rather odd typo on the Archives/Nomination page, which I fixed). Otherwise, ✓ pass. Selected biography May occasionally benefit from minor tweaks to emphasise the Finger Lakes connection, E.g. Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/1 required clicking on the towns and cities mentioned to confirm he was born in the Finger Lakes area. Other ones that may benefit from a more explicit connection being drawn are Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/4, Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/6, Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/7, Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/8, Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/9, and Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/10. In all cases but Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/10, the information showing the connection to the Finger Lakes is there, but requires a knowledge of what towns are in the Finger Lakes area to figure out what part connects to them. Millard Fillmore - #10 - Certainly was connected, but the next sentence of the article, "Fillmore was born in a log cabin in Cayuga County in the Finger Lakes region of New York State" was not included in the sample text. ✗  Fail, if weakly. Selected picture: Would benefit greatly from lengthier, more detailed captions. ✗  Fail Did you know? Portal:Finger Lakes/DYK has the instructions, "Only include completed sets of 3." - however, all sets given are, in fact, sets of two. One of these needs to change. ✗  Fail ✓ pass In this month Generally speaking, could use more explicit descriptions. For instance, it's somewhat odd that "January 7, 1800 - Birth of Millard Fillmore, thirteenth President of the United States" fails to mention he was born in the Finger Lakes region. ✗  Fail Wikiprojects, Categories, Quality content, Topics, Things you can do ✓ pass. Though "Things you can do" may be a maintenance nightmare. On the whole: This is very close, but needs a little more work to pull it all together. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) For the reord, I believe all are fixed now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Help addressing these above points would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Response to points raised above by Shoemaker's Holiday Selected biography Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/1 These was added to the portal originally by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) (see history) Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/4 This was added to the portal originally by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) (see history) Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/6 This was added to the portal originally by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) (see history) Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/7 This was added to the portal originally by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) (see history) Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/8 This was added to the portal originally by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) (see history) Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/9 This was added to the portal originally by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) (see history) Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/10 = Done. Comment on above Selected biography issues: Help from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) addressing the points he raised about these entries he added to the portal would be most appreciated. Selected picture: There are forty selections currently used. They are all directly related to the Finger Lakes region. Did you know? Portal:Finger Lakes/DYK instructions changed to read "Only include completed sets of 2." = Done. In this month - Respectfully disagree that every single entry has to have the phrase "Finger Lakes" in it. This becomes overly repetitive and unnecessary - the entries all relate to the Finger Lakes region. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Comment. As in Portal:Hawaii the content is about the state and the islands -- the Finger Lakes article needs a fork Finger lakes region by so the portal's content is easier to comprehend. Comments? feydey (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Already at Finger_lakes_region#Region. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Responses from Cirt to Feydey (addressed)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Intro images: The Intro now prominently has only maps of the Finger Lakes region, displayed as such: Portal:Finger Lakes/Intro/Image. This will help to make it clear what region the portal encompasses. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Comment - Intro text: In response to above comments by Feydey (talk · contribs), I added text to the intro identifying the lakes and counties included in the Finger Lakes region. See [3]. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Comment. The map is good (add it to the article's page too?) and the counties in the intro, perhaps mention some major towns and cities of the area? After looking at the Long Island article I'm willing to let go of some of the issues concerning the portal's reach. I'll review later after the response to the issues raised by Shoemaker's Holiday. feydey (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC) In response to this suggestion from Feydey (talk · contribs) I have added some text to the intro about towns/cities of the area [4]. The map is already included in the article Finger Lakes. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments by Jh12

Due to the nature of this portal, I can understand using sub-GA articles but you're going to want to change the Instructions under Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected attraction, Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected article, and Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography to reflect that. For example the article under Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected article/8 is rated Start-class, Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected attraction/1 is rated Stub, and Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected biography/10 is B even though the Instructions say the articles listed are GA or FA. --Jh12 (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response: Fixed. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

All the articles you mention are pretty clear B's, and one's actually a GA. Are you sure you got the links right? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is because I have fixed it, as I noted, above. :P Cirt (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like Shoemaker's comment above, I think the portal "Would benefit greatly from lengthier, more detailed captions." In particular, it could use expansion of the captions to further explain significance to the Finger Lakes region and/or something interesting about the selections. For example, Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected picture/21 says "A tower of 600 bowls on [sic?] glass at the Corning Museum of Glass." That doesn't seem very interesting to me; more compelling is that the article says the museum "is home to the world’s most comprehensive collection of glass" and that it's in "one of the most prominent glassmaking towns in America." --Jh12 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that info is not really sourced to secondary sources in the article, which is why we went with simply descriptive of the image itself, as opposed to the subject in the article. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose based on this aspect of the portal, but I still think it is something that can be worked on. If the more outstanding facts can't be sourced, the captions could include basic information such as location, population, or other context. Going back to Portal:Finger Lakes/Selected picture/21, it could read "A tower of 600 glass bowls at the Corning Museum of Glass. Founded in 1950 by Corning Glass Works (now Corning Incorporated), the museum is located in the Finger Lakes region of New York and houses a research library devoted to glass." I just think some of the captions are still weak compared to some of the recently promoted portals Portal:Peru/Selected picture, Portal:Brazil/Selected picture/Archives, and Portal:Japan/Selected picture --Jh12 (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed that one per your suggestion [5]. As for the others, as I said already, above, I believe that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) had gone through and improved the captions on those, but I will go through and have another look. Cirt (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Good job. I have a few minor suggestions that I'd like to see addressed. [sd] 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Introduction: The fourteen lakes located in the Finger Lakes region include: The word include suggests there are more lakes than the fourteen you list.
  • Related Portals: Portals should be portals to follow the rules of capitalization you used in the rest of the portal.
  • Things you can do: You use both WikiProject Lakes and Lakes WikiProject. I'd recommend using sticking to WikiProject Lakes, since you use that wording for another box.
  • Topics: Is this section necessary? You list all of these articles in the introduction and again have the county names in the box for categories, which brings me to…
  • Categories: Shouldn't this category also be there?
  • In this month: e.g. June 2007 - Change the hyphens to en dashes (–), which the featured Germany portal use as well.
  • Selected picture: Two of the pictures, namely Ithaca Falls and Glenora Wine Cellars, don't have articles, so I can't read more about them. I'd recommend either you or members of WikiProject New York to start articles on them.

    Everything addressed except for the last one, as I don't have the experience for those two. I will request them for you though :) - 3 1/2 years of Mitch32 16:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    Great. Thanks, [sd] 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you to Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) for addressing those points. :) Cirt (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal Portals:  Featured (Criteria, Candidates) | List | Directory | WikiProject | Guidelines | Instructions | Peer review | Category