Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Slush pile/2017

< Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates | Slush pile
← 2016 DotM slush pile for 2017 (current) 2018 →

Place: Gaspé Peninsula
Blurb: The far eastern tip of Quebec, where the Appalachian Mountains plunge into the ocean, is a wild and wonderful place with something for everyone: breathtaking scenery, all the seafood you can eat, and some of the best skiing in Eastern Canada. (blurb needs work) (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Outline for now, but please see comments below. (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Jun-Sep
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe I'm jumping the gun in nominating this now, but hear me out.
Nomination
  • Right now I'm in the midst of what has proven to be a very, very long and protracted update of the Buffalo district articles. I should be finished with that in a week or two, at which point I plan to start again on my long-dormant Gaspé Peninsula project. Despite what it may look like, the majority of the work has already been finished - Gaspé Peninsula itself has all the content it needs; the only thing keeping it from being bumped up to Guide status right now is the state of the articles below it in the breadcrumb hierarchy. Wikivoyage:Region guide status states that for a Region article to be evaluated at Guide level, all subregions must be at Usable status or better; in turn, for each subregion to be at Usable status, the most important of their respective "Cities" and "Other destinations" must be at Usable status or better. My course of action has been to go our readers one better and ensure that all of the bottom-level articles are at least Usable, and the most important ones are at Guide.
So, by way of a breakdown of the work that remains to be done to get this article up to Guide status, there are three main components:
  1. Writing Guide articles for the most important bottom-level destinations. Thus far I've written and/or improved Percé, Chandler, and Forillon National Park to Guide standards; each of those took about two or three weeks apiece. Looking forward, I'd like to have Bonaventure, Gaspé, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Gaspésie National Park, and maybe Amqui at Guide status too.
  2. Bringing all other bottom-level destinations to Usable status. Given that Usable articles only require a "Get in" section plus one listing each in "See", "Eat", and "Sleep", a clip of two or three of these per day is not an unreasonable expectation.
  3. Bringing subregion articles Gaspesian Coast, Upper Gaspé, Land's End, Chaleur Bay, and Matapédia Valley up to Usable status. Aside from the status of the bottom-level destinations, the only thing a Region article requires to be Usable is a "Get in" section and a "See" section where the most prominent attractions are listed. Again, a clip of two or three of these per day is not an unreasonable expectation, though I'll likely end up including a bit more content than that.
Again, maybe it would be better to have delayed this nomination until I was further along in the process, but I wanted to make sure this article got up on the page before all the summer 2017 OtBP slots were gone - Nauru and Groningen have already taken two of them. (For those who think it's audacious to have jumped the gun like this, it might be germane to note that Buffalo was technically at Outline status for most of the time it was on this page; it still had two redlinked district articles when it was nominated, the last of which didn't "go blue" until three days before it went on the Main Page.) If by some slim chance Gaspé Peninsula isn't ready for the Main Page by then, we can easily put it off till 2018. But I highly doubt that will happen.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't looked at the articles that carefully (some like Percé are in great shape, on the other hand there are others like Matapédia Valley which obviously need more content) but I trust you'll get all of them to usable or better until next summer. Concerning Nauru, I imagined that one was scheduled for March. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we could probably get away with featuring Nauru in March, it's less than ideal - per w:Nauru#Climate it's still a fairly rainy time of year there. Climatically speaking, the best time to run Nauru would be either between mid-spring and early summer or in the early autumn (Northern Hemisphere in both cases), but I'd caution against slotting it in May or June because it would likely be competing with nominees from temperate latitudes that can't really be featured any other time of year. I had imagined April 2017 to be a fair compromise, but there's certainly some wiggle room there if necessary (especially if the deficiencies ChubbyWimbus mentioned aren't fixed in time). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in the summer there's a ton of brilliant articles but only so many months, in the winter it's exactly other way around :( .
As the one who translated/googled up much of the content currently in the Nauru article, I will probably help out with Nauru at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, a little friendly reminder in the case you've forgotten about this nomination... ϒpsilon (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ypsilon - I had thought that my work on Buffalo was essentially done once I finished the district articles. But sadly, keeping them all up to date has proven to be way more of a time suck than I realized, slowing progress on other Wikivoyage work including the Gaspé project. I do intend to get around to this at some point, but I can no longer guarantee they'll be ready by summer 2018. Let's wait until the end of the year and see how things progress, and then we can either commit to featuring it next summer or else throw it on the slush pile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. I trust your judgment in assuring everyone of what you will do, and therefore give a supporting vote based on your superb track record of producing articles of exceptional quality. That said, please inform us of when you think the articles in question are ready, so that we can judge for ourselves at that time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I of course fully understand the conditional nature of your support, Ikan. But, to be clear, I see the Gaspé Peninsula article itself as essentially complete, and don't foresee any particular changes to it between now and when it goes on the Main Page, other than the redlinks in the "Regions" section being upgraded to live articles. So you can feel free to base your judgment on the content of the article rather than just my track record. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reread anything close to the entire article yet, but of course it looks great. I think "Get in/By car" may require an update, though: Did the extension of A-20 as far as Trois-Pistoles that was supposed to open by 2015 open yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan - Latest reports are that they've extended A-20 about 14 kilometers eastward to the outskirts of Trois-Pistoles, but according to Wikipedia the interchange serving Trois-Pistoles itself isn't expected to be in service until later this year. I've updated the article to reflect that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is Gaspe actually off the beaten path, or should it be DotM? I'd say the latter because the one time I visited, mid-summer in the 1970s, it was absolutely flooded with tourists. Pashley (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I was there in 2012, it was indeed crowded with tourists, but they were mostly other Québécois. Gaspé seems relatively less well-known among English-Canadians and almost completely unknown among non-Canadians. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place: Along the Magnificient Mile
Blurb: Let us take you on a tour through the heart of Chicago! (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Star (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct (from Bronzeville's nomination above)
Nominated by: ϒpsilon (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This one and Loop Art Tour are Star itineraries in Chicago. Yes, I know Bronzeville was nominated for next summer, and I wouldn't go Batman on drugs if the community would decide to run that one next summer and this one sometime later (or decide that this one and/or Loop art tour are too personal to be featured). But consider that 1. it's usually a bit harder finding good FTT candidates than other types of featured articles, 2. while the last Star articles we've featured have been topics, in the past they've virtually all been destination articles, 3. it was mentioned in Downtown Shanghai's nomination above that next summer is quite heavy on European and North American destinations (as usual, and everyone knows the reason), so this would free up one OtBP slot for e.g. Apia while we would still give Chicago a month on the Main Page. For the article itself, there are probably just a couple of prices that need to be updated (to 2018 prices, just before the article goes live).
Nomination
  • Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One question: With the exception of illumination and perhaps drinks at night, couldn't the itinerary be done in reverse? Should that be noted in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though if we're going to take a candidate that by next summer will have waited over a year to be featured and make it wait two more years in favor of a different nominee from the same city that's not of significantly higher quality, I'd prefer it to be for more compelling reasons than the above. Especially since we do still have an open OtBP slot next summer for the likes of Apia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so then it's probably best to impound this one in the Slush pile like we did with London Hampstead once. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place: Vatican City
Blurb: Contained entirely within the city of Rome, the world's smallest sovereign state is also the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, where over 2,000 years of history are archived in basilicas, chapels and museums - and around every corner is another masterpiece of Renaissance art. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Apr-Oct; midsummer somewhat less preferable due to heat and tourist crowds
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A good DotM candidate for spring 2017.
Nomination
  • Weak support for the article as it is now, but it wouldn't take much to upgrade that to strong support:
  • There are no places to sleep in the Vatican itself, though in the "Sleep" section there are plenty of hotel listings for properties located in the adjacent Vaticano neighborhood of Rome which is also covered in this article. However, none of these properties are indicated on the article's static map (though some of them do have geo coordinates). We need to either update the static map or else replace it with a dynamic one, also finding and adding geo coordinates for all listings that don't already have them.
  • "Go next" is empty. There's plenty to do and see in Rome, so this should be an easy field to populate.
  • The "Drink" section is empty for obvious reasons. Captain Obvious though it may be, perhaps this section could do with a sentence or two explaining that there's not much of a nightlife scene in the Holy See.
  • The "Stay safe", "Connect" and "Respect" sections are all pretty short. Would it be worthwhile to elaborate a bit on the dangers of pickpocketing in St. Peter's Square and the Sistine Chapel? Is there absolutely nowhere to connect to the Internet within the walls of the Vatican? What about telephone calling codes - does the Vatican have the same country code as Italy, the same city code as Rome? Any more dos and don'ts we can think of with regard to being respectful?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some remarks:
  • "Understand" should mention some things about Borgo and Prati, since they're also covered by this article.
  • "Get around" also completely ignores these neighborhoods.
  • Under "Do", I think we might mention something about taking confession, as one thing that really struck me (and I'm not a Catholic) is that there were numerous confession booths in St. Peter's, with signs stating the languages the priest taking confession in each booth spoke. I believe there are certain hours each day when priests are available for confession.
  • Under "Buy", what about Catholic figurines and so on?
  • "Eat" is pretty skimpy and, as Andre says, "Drink" is empty. I definitely don't think it should be, because this article is not just about the Holy See. There are undoubtedly bars in Borgo and Prati.
I think AndreCarrotflower covered the rest. This article is not ready for a feature at this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, the more I mull this over, the less comfortable I feel about this article in an overall sense. I realize that the purview of Wikivoyage articles doesn't always correspond with arbitrary political boundaries, and I know that Vatican City is a "country" only in the very most technical of senses, but all the same, I am not at all comfortable with the setup of Vatican City being lumped together in this article with various adjacent neighborhoods of Rome proper. I think the Vatican is a distinct enough entity in itself that it deserves its own article. Obviously the place to bring up these concerns is at Talk:Rome, but when you add this to the preexisting concerns about the article which are pretty wide in scope (Ikan's comment above was an eye-opener for me, and I also foresee trouble ahead with addressing the map issue given that there have been objections raised in the past when static maps, however outdated, have been replaced with dynamic ones), as well as my comments below about Mérida (which would fit very comfortably into the April 2017 slot), I've concluded that we ought to slush this candidate. If anyone has any objections, let's hear them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree that the Vatican merits an article by itself. The Vatican Museums alone could easily take a week or two of a determined traveler's time, and rewardingly so. And to give an analogy: If we can have a good article that focuses only on the Forbidden City, surely, there's enough in the Vatican for a good free-standing guide to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place: Vikings and the Old Norse
Blurb: Thousand years ago, the Nordic people travelled far east and west, taking part in the foundation of countries such as England, France and Russia. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Labelled as Outline (not reviewed in long time) (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Northern summer. Preferrably June, as many festivities are held
Nominated by: Yvwv (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While very few Norse people went on Viking expeditions, and few physical artifacts remain, the Vikings had great impact on European history, and remain important to the Nordic self-image.
Nomination

Place: Zurich
Blurb: A decidedly hipper alternative to the button-down world of Geneva, Switzerland's largest city blends the medieval with the modern in a gorgeous setting at the head of the Limmat River. (should not exceed ~145 characters)
Article status: Guide (must be guide or above).
Time to feature: Sep 2016; otherwise May-Oct
Nominated by: AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It occurs to me that we need a replacement for Riga, which is still on the schedule to be featured as DotM in September despite a near-consensus that it should be slushed. What do you all think about this article?
Nomination
  • Very close, IMO probably the closest-to-perfect geographically and seasonally appropriate article that can be found with such a time crunch. Some of the listings need geo coordinates, and "Go next" could do with a nice pruning, but otherwise Zurich looks just about ready to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost — Coordinates. The latter half of the article is as of now entirely void of photos. There are some old-style links and as usual it'd be good to check if everything listed in the article is still in business. Probably Go next could be cut down a little bit. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still needs work, but it's worth it, as the article improved markedly over the last two years or so. PrinceGloria (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I have just taken a closer look. A LOT needs to be done to brush up the key "See" and "Do" sections. It is no less of a challenge than Riga to me, I am obviously all for us striving to improve both, but let us bear that in mind. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments at Talk:Zurich#Reorganise the see section, I would not be opposed to slushing this nominee. Last year, when we were sniping back and forth about whether Riga should be districtified before being put on the Main Page I hastily nominated Zurich as a possible replacement candidate that IMO needed less work than Riga did to bring it up to snuff. However, the summer 2016 slot at issue ended up being filled by Paris/1st arrondissement instead, while Riga was improved and featured in 2017, and meanwhile Zurich seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle as none of the necessary fixes have yet been executed. If someone wants to give this article a relatively major overhaul over the next six weeks, have at it, but if not, the Northern Hemisphere summer is not a difficult time for which to find suitable DotM candidates, and there are plenty of worthier ones out there. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I am not entirely opposed to slushing, given that the current "understand" section is what I came up with in a few minutes and there are issues with the see section as well. We might get it up to snuff in time for featuring, but surely there are other places in the northern hemisphere summer harking for their spot that would be less work? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've got to make a decision one way or the other soon, because we need banners by the end of the month for whatever our September DotM ends up being. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should we raise the issue in the pub, then? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have been trying to update this article, but there is indeed a lot wrong with it. I think it would make more sense to slush it, as this has been sitting here for a while without much improvement and it would be very ambitious to bring it up to standard in the time remaining. Drat70 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just slush Zurich, it's in a worse condition than Riga was. May I suggest Milan for September instead? Me and Prince districtified the city and beautified and updated the article pretty far in 2015 planning to make it a DotM, but it wasn't nominated as Iseo next door was featured as OtBP the same year. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ypsi, that's precisely the candidate I had my eye on as well. I'll officially nominate Milan some time in the next day or two if you don't get to it before I do, and we can throw Zurich on the slush pile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well this morning my laptop didn't wake up any longer after a system update, and editing with this @$&#& clumsy tablet takes ages, so I won't likely be doing much here for the next few days. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates/Slush_pile/2017&oldid=5005187"