| Revision as of 13:37, 23 July 2006 editRagesoss (talk | contribs)Administrators21,501 edits support← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:12, 27 July 2006 edit undoCJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,411 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| I contacted Cyde about this yesterday, and he's definitely been "on", but hasn't replied, so I've put the photo credit back in. I hope it lasts. - ] (] • ]) 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | I contacted Cyde about this yesterday, and he's definitely been "on", but hasn't replied, so I've put the photo credit back in. I hope it lasts. - ] (] • ]) 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Looks good; '''support''' from me now that the changes have been made. ] 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | :Looks good; '''support''' from me now that the changes have been made. ] 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Minor object''': It's a decent portal on a very important subject, however I can't yet support. The portal is presently quite unbalanced – the right column is significantly longer. I suggest keeping ''Did you know...'' to a minimum of four items and reformatting ''WikiProjects''. If there is to be a ''News'' section (which looks rather like a tack-on), I'd like to see it maintained in the style of those of ] and ]. ''Categories'' could probably be presented nicer as well. With regards to content, it's important to revise the selected article/biography excerpts before publishing - the current selected biography was/is grammatically odd.--] | ] 02:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:12, 27 July 2006
Portal:Biology
This portal has been around for a long time, receives regular updates, and has had a minor facelift and expansion recently with the addition of links to related portals and Mediawiki resources.
It's been a great portal for quite some time, but we've apparently never thought about nominating it, so here goes. Looking forward to your comments.
PS: Here is a version from February 2005, two weeks after it was created.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Object:- Selected picture needs an image credit.
- No list of major topics.
- The "Alternative categorization schemes" box seems quite useless, but that might just be personal preference.
- Overall, though, quite good. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a box for the major topics is a must. Once that gets added, I'll probably be ready to support it.--ragesoss 17:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Great work. Support.--ragesoss 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Photo credits have been added. The major topics box is there, but needs some cosmetic changes over the coming few days. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think he meant a photo credit like so.Joe I 05:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)- The correct edit was made, just reverted. Joe I 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I contacted Cyde about this yesterday, and he's definitely been "on", but hasn't replied, so I've put the photo credit back in. I hope it lasts. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good; support from me now that the changes have been made. Kirill Lokshin 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Minor object: It's a decent portal on a very important subject, however I can't yet support. The portal is presently quite unbalanced – the right column is significantly longer. I suggest keeping Did you know... to a minimum of four items and reformatting WikiProjects. If there is to be a News section (which looks rather like a tack-on), I'd like to see it maintained in the style of those of Portal:Australia and Portal:New Zealand. Categories could probably be presented nicer as well. With regards to content, it's important to revise the selected article/biography excerpts before publishing - the current selected biography was/is grammatically odd.--cj | talk 02:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)