Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

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 21:16, 2 October 2011 [1].

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject District of Columbia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Talk:Supreme Court of the United States, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. See archived peer review. I was surprised there was not previously a portal in existence on the topic of Supreme Court of the United States, so I've gone ahead and created one from scratch. :) I believe the portal meets the standards for Featured Portal status. — Cirt (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any concerns. Looks good to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review mentioned the variation in length of the Selected article texts, and I don't think that's been dealt with. When I first saw the portal, it was showing Taylor v. Beckham (Portal:Supreme Court of the United States/Selected article/12) – at 343 words, the longest of the texts – which unbalanced the page significantly, leaving a lot of white space on the right-hand side. For comparison, the shortest text (Portal:Supreme Court of the United States/Selected article/5) is only 93 words, and 10 of those are the title! A similar case is found with the selected biographies, ranging from 68 words to 326. They don't need to be exactly the same, but fivefold variation does seem too much. Could you fit each of them into a range of 150–250 words? One minor point for the future: In this month currently includes File:Sonia Sotomayor in SCOTUS robe.jpg, which is now a featured picture. You may like to add it to the Selected pictures come September; perhaps you had already planned to do that. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, I'll get on addressing those soon. :) — Cirt (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support got sufficiently improved at peer review for me to support this. Yes, the "selected article" blurbs still vary in length, and I hope Cirt gets the opportunity to try and trim the worst-offending blurbs, but I'm not inclined to withhold a deserved support just for that. There are things on the portal that I might have done differently, but that's not the point either. Good job. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A great looking portal, I particularly like the "In this month" section. It will benefit from standardising the "selected article" blurb lengths, but shouldn't impinge on the nomination. Zangar (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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