The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Keep. Portal already kept, procedural closing. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 04:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cricket[edit]

Portal is not well maintained. Comparable to other featured portals it does not have news section and portal can have a news section. Portal is not well-maintained. Portal does not have selected picture type of section. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which aspects are not well-maintained? It has certainly been updated in the last three months, which is what WP:WIAFPo requires. I can't see that a news section or a "selected picture" section is a requirement in WP:WIAFPo either. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Portal is easier to maintain if it is in template format. Without making any changes to portal it can be updated. Current/Most recent matches has not been updated for more than one month. Shyam ^(T/C) 10:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to convert it to the transcluded template format, be my guest. WP:WIAFPo does not require a specific format. Although there is no "news" section, there is, as you mention, a section with links to the articles on current and recent matches. I have just taken the opportunity to bring it up to date. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like Aloan I don't think a pic or news section is required. It makes up for it in Point 1 - uniqueness. Whereas most portals have a similar look and become dull and boring after a while to look at, Portal:Cricket's different layout catches the eye, probably more than the other FPo's or for that matter, any portal. As for the current/recent matches section, rather than complain, you should Be Bold enough to update it, if it is a few weeks behind. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, none of the points mentioned are required for featured portal status. Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep echo DaGizza. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Also, as cricket is not overly suited to having a "picture of the day", why not have a "cricketer of the day" instead? Not only are there enough cricketers about with articles here, but it would act as an incentive to get people to improve the articles. It's also something else to put on the front page. I'll add this thought to the portal talk page too. Paddyohale 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this portal is in violation of at least one requriement of the criteria. It has red links when it should not do. Maintainers of this portal please set about rectifying this. Thanks, --cj | talk 09:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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