The following is an archived discussion of a featured portal candidate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the portal's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The portal was promoted by OhanaUnited 02:57, 5 July 2009 [1].

Portal:Opera[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I made the coding a little cleaner, it's all fixed now [2]. Cirt (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well built and beautiful portal. Great work guys. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great and lovely portal which is coherent in nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support with a few suggestions from [sd] 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.