Open main menu

Wikivoyage:Star nominations/Slush pile

This is the slush pile for Project:Star nominations -- articles that were not agreed to be of Star status yet. Articles in the slush pile can be renominated if the criticisms from the previous nomination are addressed.

Scuba divingEdit

Pretty comprehensive overall coverage of the activity from the point of view of an interested traveller considering learning to dive and beginning divers thinking of organising a dive holiday (it's probably actually the case that there may be two articles in there: Scuba diving destinations, and Scuba diving overview for travellers -- both of which examples show that I should not be naming articles!). (WT-en) Hypatia 00:49, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

  • 1) A map pinpointing the most popular dive destinations might help out the geopolitically challenged who don't know where, say, Thailand or Malta is. 2) I think you may be right that this is more than one article. There's a lot here, and either splitting it up and editing it down to cover just the most-travel-related aspects would help. - 19:56, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Support. I've never been scuba diving, but I definately could go ahead and start my own scuba diving school with this article. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:07, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Support. The article definitely meets the criteria for star article. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) EmbrunOntario (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose. I've been a big contributor to the article and I like it, but I think the index of scuba destinations up front needs a lot more work — it should cover all the biggies and give nutshell summaries. I don't think any splitting is needed at this stage. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:40, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

Withdrawn pending addition of a map and improvements to the list of destinations. (WT-en) Hypatia 20:28, 31 July 2006 (EDT)

YogyakartaEdit

  • It's a Guide, it's got a map and it's DOTM. Let's make it a Star if it isn't one already. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:03, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Support- Sounds good. Are there any more things that could be added in the Do Section? (WT-en) Felixboy 14:11, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Don't support for the following reasons:
  1. "Do" section is less than stellar for a city of 500,000.
  2. There isn't a "Stay Safe" section or any information pertaining how to avoid hassles, being a crime victim, or natural disasters.
    1. Added. It's kinda hard to avoid earthquakes though.
  3. There isn't a "Cope" section.
    1. Section added, but it's empty...
  4. MoS is sketchy in some places.
  5. Some listings have little or no contact info (I.e. Yogyakarta#Sleep there isn't an address or phone number for "Monical Hotel". Also, under Yogyakarta#Museum we provide absolutely no information about the "Museum Batik". There's simply a link to a Wikipedia article about the painting technique, but nothing about the museum.) -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:22, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
    1. Correct name is "Monica Hotel", I dug up a phone number but couldn't find an address. The Museum Batik is so obscure it's not listed in any of my guidebooks, so I just deleted it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:14, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
detiled address for Monica Hotel has been added (WT-en) hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Don't Support. It's an awesome article, but. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:59, 4 November 2006 (EST)
    1. Bunches of entries lack addresses or directions. For example, the Saphir Square mall is listed as "Jalan Solo". If there is no further address that can be given then I withdraw the complaint.
      1. this has been fixed (WT-en) hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
    2. Phone numbers often fail MoS. Maybe switch to the newfangled listings tag and make it Not Your Problem?
      1. fixed (WT-en) hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
    3. No prices on Museums.
      1. this has been fixed (WT-en) hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
    4. Is JI an abbrev for Jalan? For consistency, it'd be nice if only one format is used.
      1. this has been fixed (WT-en) hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
    5. Would an address for the train station and bus station be helpful? Or do we just assume the reader will be going by taxi and the taxi driver knows where they are?
    6. Have a mentioned lately that I wish there was a level between guide and star?
  • Don't support. Same reasons as above, especially the lack of things in "Do" and the lack of contacts (and info in some places) for "sleep" listings. I want to see this make it as a star, because its pretty close to being there if all these points are sorted. -- (WT-en) Tim 17:11, 4 November 2006 (EST)
  • This thing has been pending for quite a long time. Have the objections been addressed, or should it be slush-piled for now? Let's make a decision here. (I have no strong opinions on this article myself.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 20:12, 16 November 2006 (EST)
There were quite a few problems and I believe only partial attempts to address the issues were made. It needs to be slush-piled. -- Sapphire

PuneEdit

  • I really don't think it's a Star yet, but it's not far away, and since someone unilaterally proclaimed it a Star (which I rolled back), it should at least be examined, in the spirit of "due process." A relatively small bit of work might make it a real, viable candidate. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:42, 24 November 2006 (EST)
    • Shouldn't this process be for articles that the nominator believes are stars, and wants to get some confirmation from others before changing the status? We already have a lot of places to say, "This article is almost there, let's put it over the top;" and the Project:Collaboration of the Week is a good place to solicit that help. --(WT-en) Evan 11:18, 22 December 2006 (EST)
  • Don't support yet. It's a good guide, but a couple of things to work on:
-I'm not quite sure why it needs/gets a big maps of all of India's airports and sea ports, did I miss something?
-Get around needs subsections
-All listings need addresses, opening hours, etc in proper format
-The writing could use a once-over, there's some repetition here and there, etc.
-Get out needs to be figured out as there's way too much there. Some info should be moved to its own guide
-The images don't all work as good illustrations of the destination.
(WT-en) Maj 23:40, 26 November 2006 (EST)

I'm afraid I was the one who proclaimed it a star, sorry Bill! Someone deleted my map of the airports and the picture of train. I feel that it's agood move. I've tried to add and complete the listings and the Shopping and Eating lists are quite comprehensive now. The Get Out Section is ok, too. - upamanyu

Nothing to be sorry about; there's now some incentive to improve the content in a way that will push it to Star, even though (IMO) it's not there yet. Let's see what develops. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:28, 27 November 2006 (EST)
I added the info section and wrote more about the suburban railway in the get around section. please proclaim it a star if you think it's ready. you can also mail me on how to improve it, my ID is upamanyu.mallik@gmail.com -- User: Upamanyuwikivoyage 17:55, 28 November 2006 (IST)

PS and please can you edit some of the stuff if you have time, English isn't my mother tongue.

Don't Support - This article has a lot of listings, but they are very incomplete for an article that would be moved to Star status. I do agree that this article is well on it's way, but almost all of the listings are just "name", "address" and in some cases "link". To be a Star I would think a good portion of the listing should have more complete information (ie: hours, prices, days, hours and a paragraph about the listing). With that done for at least half of the listings (do, see, drink, buy and sleep, plus the edits that User:(WT-en) Maj suggests, and a good Wikivoyage map I think we could go with Star. I also notice that this is using the quickbar and I believe that is reserved for Country articles for now. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:42, 4 December 2006 (EST)

  • Don't support. Most of the listings in this article are neither complete (no addresses, phon enumbers, hours, prices) nor formatted according to the MoS. The tables of travel info aren't covered in the MoS, and I think we need to have a standard before calling any such tables star-worthy. I've only made a cursory review, this is not a comprehensive list of problems. I'd like another chance to review after these problems have been fixed. --(WT-en) Evan 11:18, 22 December 2006 (EST)
  • Don't support - this article just finished Project:Collaboration of the week, and while it was cleaned up a lot, it's still a ways away from Star status, its original Star initiator agrees that it's not there, and it's been discussed for nearly 6 weeks - I think it should be slushed... (WT-en) Cacahuate 01:22, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Flores (Guatemala)Edit

  • As you consider Flores, consider the size of the place. I'm counting somewhere around 40 total city blocks- total- and you have not one, but TWO maps of the area, addresses/phones, everything even remotely worth seeing is included, I see no MOS violations (but then I'm a fairly untrained eye), and in the entire article the only two things I see that need sprucing up are details on ARCAS and the Petencito Zoo (in the sense that if you're including them, you might as well say something about them). (WT-en) Mtvcdm 00:01, 21 November 2006 (EST)
  • It's a great article and it might not be too much work to get it to star, but it's not there right now. Keep in mind that to be a Star, it pretty much needs to conform to the Manual of Style perfectly and stuff like phone numbers, hours, and prices should all be present for every listing. Check out Project:Accommodation listings and see how stuff is supposed to be organized for the Sleep section. Currently the Sleep section formatting is kinda all over the place with placement of URLs, Phone Numbers, prices, and the placement of those annoying commas and full stops. If you choose to press forward with this, that would be great! -- (WT-en) Colin 16:48, 22 November 2006 (EST)
    • Agree with Colin; not there yet, but could be pushed to Star status with relatively little effort. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:44, 24 November 2006 (EST)
    • Ditto Bill. I will nominate this for CotW and that should sort out the MoS. -- (WT-en) Tim 08:34, 25 November 2006 (EST)
  • So can this one be slushed? Consensus seems clear that it's not a Star yet. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:44, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Maybe we can just work on it instead of tossing it back to oblivion? I just cleaned it up a little, but it needs more... (WT-en) Cacahuate 08:17, 9 December 2006 (EST)
I added some info for ARCAS and the zoo and did more MoS work... what else needs doing? El Remate and a couple other sites in the area seem to be included in this article even though they aren't Flores, but maybe aren't worth their own articles and are so close anyway... I'm fine with them being included here... The Get Out map is great... (WT-en) Cacahuate 08:25, 16 December 2006 (EST)
We're not going to delete it. How about adding it to Project:Collaboration of the week? --(WT-en) Evan 09:24, 16 December 2006 (EST)
of course not, it just seemed to be getting more attention since it was here and up for nomination... I was suggesting we hurry up and fix the few things that are wrong since several of us agree that it's pretty close to star... but anyhoo, whaddya think of the article? (WT-en) Cacahuate 10:14, 16 December 2006 (EST)
p.s., it already is nominated for CotW, but I didn't feel like waiting for it to have its day and fixed what I could see wrong now, so it should prob not become CotW now as there isn't a ton to do... (WT-en) Cacahuate 10:16, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Hey peoples, User:(WT-en) Windhorse and I have done some more cleanups and additions, any further comments from anyone? (WT-en) Cacahuate 10:27, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, just to give you some idea of the level of perfectionism we're looking for on star article, let me give you an example. The Petencito Zoo is listed, but lacks a phone number, address, directions, hours, prices, and url (if available). Also, there should be a period (full-stop) before the plaintext description of the attraction. It's a great article, it's just that "Star" pretty much means perfect. Cheers! -- (WT-en) Colin 13:04, 5 January 2007 (EST)
So, I've cleaned it up a bit more and added templates, but it still lacks a few phone #'s (if they exist), and some hours for the drink listings, things I can't get without being there... it's still a great article for such a tiny destination (and this time, unlike Berneray, it matches the thus far defined MoS better)... but I suppose, even after much effort, it still ain't perfect... what to do? (WT-en) Cacahuate 05:32, 13 January 2007 (EST)

EnglandEdit

Same story as for Pune; someone unilaterally proclaimed it a Star, so (after rolling it back) let's follow due process and discuss it. The article has much to recommend it, but the "nine-cities holy war" means that it is rather unstable, and discussions will be difficult to follow lacking a reference point. Let's try to discuss, anyway. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:00, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Don't support - the Do section is tragically small for a country of England's importance. There's more to do in England than just play golf. The Get In should be proparly formatted - a list of airports won't do.

The Eat section is quite comprehensive. Perhaps nit could be made a CoW.

(WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 08:13, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Don't Support. My issue is the See section; you'd think there'd be a bit more than "England has a large and diverse range of attractions" and then divert the reader to a couple other websites- the point is that this page alone would be all you'd need. Even the most basic things would be enough for me- any four of London Bridge, Hadrian's Wall, Stonehenge, Big Ben, and Buckingham Palace should do it. (WT-en) Mtvcdm 01:49, 24 December 2006 (EST) (Edited to actually log in and then resign.)

Rail travel in IndiaEdit

Quite comprehensive. good pics. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 06:08, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Don't support. We don't have well-defined criteria for star travel topics. I don't even know if such criteria would be meaningful. --(WT-en) Evan 11:12, 5 January 2007 (EST)
This article needs a new lead photo, the lead photograph was a train in Canada, not India. (WT-en) JYolkowski 13:09, 21 January 2007 (EST)

ClevelandEdit

As a former resident, after having reviewed this city article is seems quite comprehensive. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 206.54.145.254 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 8 January 2007 (EST)

  • At a minimum the district articles need to be upgraded to guide status per Project:City guide status. The map is also a bit bare - it's minimally useful, but not what I'd consider a star article map. Many of the listings have no descriptions, addresses or contact info, and since the article is using the huge city article template the sleep and eat listings should be moved into the district articles. The text could also use work - the article reads as a list of information, rather than a guide to Cleveland. This article has a lot of useful information, but I think it still needs a considerable amount of work before it's a "star" article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:58, 9 January 2007 (EST)
    • An additional notes, there is a lot of content in this article that is about cities in Greater Cleveland, rather than the city of Cleveland itself, and that content needs to be moved to the appropriate city article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:47, 9 January 2007 (EST)

South AfricaEdit

This article is now quite complete and I would like to see some input and comments from the community on what might still be wrong with it or how it can still be improved in order to qualify for star status. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:13, 17 January 2007 (EST)

  • Don't support, yet! I really like this article, I think it more or less meets all the criteria for being a star except that a lot of the destination articles mentioned on the page are at outline or usable status. If we can increase the number of guide status pages, then I'd support. But for now, although this article would probably be really useful to a traveller, the lack of high quality city articles would be a problem! Having said this, I did only briefly look at the status at the bottom of the city pages - if these are out of date, and enough of them are at guide status then I would happily support this nomination. -- (WT-en) Tim 03:38, 17 January 2007 (EST)
Good point, thanks. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:43, 17 January 2007 (EST)

IndiaEdit

Quite a comprehensive country article. Needs a bit of re-organizing and MoSing but that's about it. 202.141.70.60 09:45, 21 January 2007 (EST)

  • Opinion pending - it is a great article, but all those things should be fixed before it's nominated for star. I also just noticed on the country guide status page that it's the only one that doesn't specify what the sub-articles need to be - For City, Region, etc in order for one to become a star all of the sub-articles would have to be at least "guide" status... I'm curious about people's view on that here: Project:Country guide status (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 12:24, 21 January 2007 (EST)
  • Don't support - I agree with (WT-en) Tim's comment on my submission of South Africa. It's no use having a very good top level country page if there is not enough information to support it in the sub-articles. We will just have to work harder in order to make a country a star. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 13:21, 21 January 2007 (EST)

FalunEdit

To be honest I can't think of much more to put in this article. The town isn't bigger than this and I'd appreciate some input if someone is missing something in the article, or if it should be considered complete. (WT-en) Jake73 15:36, 14 February 2007 (EST)

  • Abstain for now - Just had a quick look before I'm off to bed. You might want to add eatpricerange and sleeppricerange
    • Good idea. Added. (PS: why does the eat box have more space between the lines than the sleep box?)(WT-en) Jake73 16:16, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Support. The "See" and "Do" sections are not quite in line with the MOS and could do with some specfic shops in the "Buy" section, but overall it is a good article with good photographs and a map. -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:06, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Don't support. As mentioned above, See and Do don't match attraction listings format. Restaurants and bars need hours and estimated prices. Geocoding would help but isn't strictly necessary. Otherwise, it looks really good. --(WT-en) Evan 17:28, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Opinion Pending - there's just 1 tiny problem, the prices of restaurants and bars aren't given, nor are the opening hours. Otherwise GREAT article! Once that's been fixed, I'll fully support. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 04:02, 26 February 2007 (EST)
  • Support. Great article. I would like to see more of them.(WV-en) elisa

ShimlaEdit

  • Don't support - nice effort, again, Upamanyu, but we shouldn't really nominate an article until it has everything it needs - if you know it doesn't have a map, then you know it won't pass through this nomination process, and we shouldn't use this page just to draw attention to articles (WT-en) - Cacahuate 11:56, 18 February 2007 (EST)
    • Sorry Cacahuate, I just wanted to draw attention to it since someone might take the initiative to make a map once its on the star nominations list. Any others problems with the article?? - I'll try to clean them up. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 03:52, 19 February 2007 (EST)
I'll have a look at it later and see if I see anything other than the map, and I'll comment on the Shimla talk page, as I don't want to encourage this page to be used for this purpose, it should be used for articles that are already believed to be right on the cusp or stardom. As an aside, we're slowly talking about making some other sort of page/project that would serve this duty, I'll try to further what I was thinking on that soon too. (WT-en) - Cacahuate 04:21, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Kgalagadi Transfrontier ParkEdit

I can't think of much more to put in this article. The park and surrounding options has been covered. Edits and clean ups done. Any suggestions? - (WT-en) wikusdutoit 09:00, 3 March 2007 (CAT)

  • Don't Support -- I know you put quite a bit of work into this article, but I don't think it is really star potential yet. I'll list my concerns on Talk:Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park rather than here, that way we will have it with the article and can work on getting those things resolved. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:41, 4 March 2007 (EST)

North KoreaEdit

I haven't done much editing to this article, but I think the contributors who have made this article what it is have done a fantastic job, such detailed and reliable information on such an obscure and secretive destination deserves positive recognition --(WT-en) MiddleEastern 13:22, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • Do not support. All of the objections that were raised to declaring Finland a star apply in spades to this one -- rudimentary regional structure, very few destinations within the country that are developed at all, let alone to Guide status, etc. Star status isn't a "reward" for the contributors; it's an evaluation of the content of the article. I agree that contributors have done a fantastic job with a very difficult subject, so maybe give 'em Barnstars, but the article definitely isn't a Star and won't be without a great deal of development. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)
  • Do not support, for the reasons Bill identified. I'd argue for being flexible about some of the Star criteria if (for example) a country only has one or two real cities, but that's not true of North Korea. The fact that it's very difficult to write a guide about North Korea... simply makes getting this article to Star status very difficult; it's not a reason to relax the standards. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)
  • Do not support. Check out Project:Country guide status for what we're looking for if you want to move forward on this. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:23, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Jeffreys BayEdit

We have not had a nomination in a while, so I thought it's time to see what it will take to get the first African star article.

As far as I know this is quite complete, but the town is growing fast and I will be updating it with changes, additions and the occasional delete every January after my yearly visit down there. I know that a new regional shopping mall is due to open later this year, a large hotel is being build and a whole new residential area is being developed, so there will definitely be an update early next year.

So, let's have it, tell me what I missed and what still needs to be done to make this one a star. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

  • It's a very good article, but the map has several unlabeled short dead-end streets... OK, maybe that's not important. :) I do have to say that I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the photos of businesses. I know: they're welcomed in the Japanese WT, but here in English we've avoided them, and I'm concerned about the slippery slope of encouraging hoteliers and resauranteurs to use the power of images to spotlight their place over others', and the perception of it as advertising. As a traveler, I prefer to see more general photos of the shopping district rather than specific shops. I can see the value of showing a specific store/hotel/whatever as an example of what to expect, but a photo of just a sign ceases to have that kind of general usefulness and looks more like an advert to me. It could have some copyright/trademark-law implications as well. I'm not sure this is the place to debate this issue, nor whether it's applicable to the question of Star status, but... there it is. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Good points, thanks for the feedback. I think the photos for Billabong and Walskipper should be OK. Both are landmarks in the area and JBay is Billabong Country (the entrance to JBay is even marked as such). I'll remove the sign and vfd the image. The Mexican and Marina Martinique B&B images I can replace with something more general (one thing I am not short of is JBay photos). --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Don't support - it's got a lot of potential and is a good article, but many listings are very sparse - need descriptions, address, hours, estimated prices, etc for every listing. Some directional things would be nice too... for example, where is the internet cafe, the gym, the gift shops and the laundromat? It doesn't describe them in the article and they aren't on the map. Once that and Todd's picture issues are sorted though, I think it's a good contender for Star status. Nice map... That must have taken you forever with all the tiny curvy lanes! Could you add a scale to it, I'm curious about the distances... – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Thanks, noted. I'll have a look into those issues. I don't think this one is going to make it this time round, but I'd still like to see some more comments. I'd like to use this feedback to expand Project:Status_rating a bit so people (including myself) will have a clearer idea of what is required. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
    • As a meta-note, it's unusual for us to have a "nominations" page where the nominator typically doesn't believe that the thing they're nominating deserves the status they're nominating it for. I think we really need a separate process for this, since it's really confusing for people.--(WT-en) Evan 11:29, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree that a request for peer review type page will be a good idea, but that is actually not why I nominated this. I was going thru some of the stuff I have worked on before and noted that this does actually comply with Project:Status_rating; so when I nominated it I did not expect that it will have any major issues becoming a star. Having seen the comments I have changed my mind and am quite sure that it needs quite a bit more work before it will be ready. I'd like to take these and any additional comments and create a more complete checklist of what the minimum requirements are. That way one has a list of requirements to tick off rather than just a vague follows the manual of style exactly and has appropriate illustrations, such as photos and a map. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 00:05, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I think expanding the requirements (or detailing them) is a great idea. And we do need something similar to Peer Review, we've talked a little about it over the last few months, but nothing has transpired as of yet... see Wikivoyage_talk:Star_articles#Star_Potential. I believe in you Nick, wow us with an amazing new idea (and actually implement it!). Something needs to happen :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 02:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Want to support, but... Good article, great map & photos, but as others have pointed out listings need a description for it to be a star article, otherwise we risk developing yet another yellow pages. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:44, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


CincinnatiEdit

I haven't wanted to nominate Cincinnati for star status for a long time because I didn't want to make that the objective when I edited the guide. Anyhow, I know it's not perfect - there are still some MoS issues that I'm sure I continue to overlook. As a result, I'm now nominating Cincinnati to let everyone pick and prod so I can find the weak spots in the article and improve the guide. Of course, I invite you to fix any problems you see. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 12:03, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I think it's a great guide and, to my unsophisticated eye, it looks close to being a star. Having been there a couple of times, I think you should mention the symbiotic (parasitical?) relationship that Covington has with Cincinnati - e.g. all of those giant hotels just across the river, and the huge amounts of business travelers (myself included, I'm ashamed to say) who get lured into spending their hotel cash there instead. I'd also like to see more covert Afghan Whigs references in the text, but I understand that's not part of the article grading criteria. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:17, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Couple more things - style of time used needs to be consistent throughout the article (should be am/pm, since it's the USA), and while the map is terrific (I am endlessly impressed by mapmakers), can you chop off the excess white space on the far right? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:27, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
I've known about the time styling issues for months, but I just didn't have the heart to revert everything to AM/PM (Yuck!), especially after this. I'm not sure if I'll be able to bring myself to convert every single 17:00 to 5PM so I may need help from anyone who isn't offended by such a crude system to convert times. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 17:41, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I hope more people will chime in on this. It strikes me as a very good article. Here's what I've got:

  • The 'Get In' section leads with the sentence "There are two airports close to Cincinnati", but only describes one, offering a few suggestions for alternatives in the paragraph. Is there intended to be a clear-cut second? If not, strike the sentence.
  • In 'See', we need a description for the Cincinnati Music Hall (what kind of shows do we see there?)
  • Most attractions in that first 'See' section need price information.
  • Are tours available for the Ingalls Building and the PNC Tower, or do people just see them from the outside?
  • Also wondering if the Creation Museum belongs in Get Out or if it's really close enough to be considered a Cincinnati attraction.
  • Need a description for the Fire Museum.
  • Among the Parks, noting that Eden Park is free implies that other parks may not be. If they're all free, strike the sentence.
  • Need a description for Playhouse in the Park.
  • Geographically, I'm a little unclear on where the amusement parks sit relative to Cincinnati.
  • If Riverfest is the city's biggest bash, I want more details about what goes on there.
  • The Bengals haven't won the AFC during Marvin Lewis's tenure.
  • In 'Buy', Saks Fifth Avenue and Tower Place need descriptions, and Saks needs hours.
  • Some restaurants need hours. Cumin needs a description.
  • Groceries would fit better after Budget rather than after Splurge.
  • Morton's of Chicago needs a description.
  • The "while single people may disagree" sentence in 'Drink' is unclear. Does that refer to individual people isolated from the crowd or to date-less people in general? Why do they disagree?
  • Blue Wisp need a description.
  • In 'Sleep', the Hyatt Regency needs a description.
  • What do I need to connect to Cincinnati Bell Wi-Fi? What does it cost?
  • Does the airplane advisory in 'Get Out' belong in 'Get In'?

And there's my piece. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 13:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I tried to finish this list off. (WT-en) Lanskeith17 13:27, 29 June 2007 (EDT)


I'll get started on fixing things, but there are a few things I'm curious about too.
  • The Creation Museum is roughly 25 miles from Cincinnati by car and is located in some hick town in Northern Kentucky, so I'm unclear if we should list it in the Cincinnati guide. When the place opened all the major news outlets would say "the museum, outside of Cincinnati", which may cause people to associate the museum as being in or within a couple of miles of Cincinnati. Should this reference be removed?
  • The amusement parks (Kings Island) are located about 20 miles from Cincinnati too, but as far as I know, travelers are likely to associate the amusement parks with Cincinnati. How should this be handled? They're already listed in Mason (Ohio), which is where they are technically located.
Kings Island is advertized as a Cincinnati spot (and it always has been) (WT-en) Lanskeith17 13:31, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't understand the part about the PNC or Ingalls buildings. I'm not sure anyone would want to tour either building and I really can't imagine a huge corporation like PNC wanting to provide tours of the building while their employees are working. Aside from the interesting architecture, I'm not sure they would be noteworthy sights, although Tom Cruise (and Dustin Hoffman?) did film part of Rain Man in the PNC building. Anyone have thoughts?
PNC/ Ingalls are important historical landmarks for Cincinnati. They might not have tours, but you can easily spot them and appreciate regardless of a tour. They should stay in. (WT-en) Lanskeith17 13:31, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
  • The single line is supposed to be a joke (keep those guides lively), which refers to Cincinnati's ever closing-down nightlife scene. A lot of places that are popular spots for singles continually go out-of-business, which gets blamed on a lack of business, despite these places being very popular. I'll remove it because I don't feel like explaining the joke in the guide. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 14:40, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Just as an aside, I plan to fix the things you pointed out, but my ability to focus and concentrate, along with my ability to stay alert is suffering – concussion. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 16:10, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
No hurry! I think it's against the grading criteria for potential star articles to worsen concussions. I would move the Creation Museum to Get Out (and the Northern Kentucky article, if it exists), and drop the PNC/Ingalls listings. You could mention them in a paragraph describing the downtown area, or forget them entirely. If you think single people disagree with the Forbes report, then go with the single peoples' opinions. It just need a small clarifier. You could say something like, "A report in Forbes called Cincinnati the best place in the nation for singles, something actual Cincinnati singles might find surprising in light of the city's ever closing-down nightlife." (I'm still foggy on whether that refers to early closing hours each night or the fact that a lot of clubs have been closing permanently of late.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 16:28, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Almost support. Good article! Beautiful opening pic. Will support once the above is finished being fixed, and a few more:
    • Map needs excess white space removed from right side, and svg uploaded
    • All listings should be represented on the map... are most of them missing because they're off the scale of the map? If so, maybe map should be expanded, or more neighborhood maps should be made? Sorry, not familiar with Cincinatti!
    • Several Eat listings need hours and prices
    • Several of the sleep listings need prices
    • There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on phone # formats for US #'s, and Project:Phone numbers should be updated since we're using the new tags more now (which don't allow for the italicized area code)... but I think either +1 (xxx) xxx-xxxx or +1 xxx xxx-xxxx would look a little more standard...

That's what I can see! Looks close! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:51, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

  • Don't support. But of course this decision is subject to revision. I really like the article, but the listings need some more tender love and MoS. Also, I don't know how much this is reaching, but from a traveler's perspective (and I have one here because I'm planning a road trip for next week that may well include a couple days in Cincinnati) Covington (Kentucky) and Newport (Kentucky) are basically the same city as Cincinnati, regardless of the state-administrative boundaries. And the Covington article in particular is really underdeveloped—the understand section consists of a short description of the city's street grid with weird capitalization. I don't know whether it's fair to bring up these other articles in this discussion, but they just seem an awful lot like districts of Cincinnati that (in Covington's case) haven't even broken past the outline status. From my perspective, this brings down the quality of the Cincinnati guide and makes it feel as though something is missing. On a related note, I think it would be nice to include some listings just across the river on the map.

On another note, the map is beautiful, but seems kind of short on listings given the large number present in the article. Can more restaurants/bars be added to the map? Or would they be off the map in some other part of the city? If they are in a different area, could we put up a larger, less detailed map of the city to help orient travelers? (whoops I see Cacahuate made this exact point right before me)

Here are a few things that caught my eye while going over listings' hours:

  • Government square section seems a bit out of place? I was surprised to see it where it is and then had to read over it carefully just to understand why this information was being presented.
  • Cincinnati zoo hours: from when until early October? Is it open in the winter?
  • Listings phone numbers should have the non-local calling part in italics... ;) Just kidding, but this bothers me too!
  • A fair number of listings are missing hours, price ranges, and/or descriptions (although they look like listings that should have these things)
  • I got some of them, but some price ranges have extraneous spaces around the dash

Well, so, some work to be done, but nothing impossible! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 06:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Two things...
  1. Newport and Covington cannot really be considered the same city as Cincinnati, despite what Covington hopes and says. Newport bills itself as a separate destination and does kind of deserve the respect of being a separate destination, especially with all the development and future plans it has. Plus, if I recall, criteria states nothing about making stars out of neighboring places before another place can be called a star.
  2. Yes, many of the listings mentioned in the guide are outside the coverage of the current map. The problem is... I suck at map making and will be unable to develop anything further. If someone else, who has the skills want's to take a stab at a general map I'll fill it in with the details. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 23:08, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
I've updated the map, but I'm waiting for the cache to respond. I may be making more changes, so I'll upload the SVG file later. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 01:23, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Also, Peter, how does Government Square seem out of place? It serves no other purpose than a hub for public buses and I should mention it is the most important stop for anyone who uses the bus service. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 01:32, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Initially it just seemed awkward to me so I mentioned it. Looking back, I think that it only seemed awkward because the subheader "Government square" looked strange under "Get around"—kind of jarring from a skimmer's perspective because "government square" sounds to the uneducated ear like an attraction. Maybe it would look better without the subheader (just as a paragraph under "By bus") and starting with a sentence like, "Government square is the main hub for public buses in Cincinnati." Nothing terribly important, but it did catch my eye on a read-through. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
About the map, what part of making a general map do you need help with? I wouldn't mind creating the street layout, if you could email me an image of an outlined map area (on a satellite image or existing map image) that would cover the article listings not present in the downtown map. I don't know the area very well, so that part would be hard for me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Basically, I can't design all the wonderful details you cartographers do. For the purposes, of this guide I think we'd be good with a UC/Clifton/Coreyville map and a Hyde Park/East Walnut Hills map. For the most part, our guide doesn't take the reader outside of these areas, except for a few exceptions like the Zoo. I've got a street map of Cincinnati, but it has a lot of detail that's useless for our purposes. If you zoom in on the letter "A" that would be Hyde Park a map from Observatory and up to I-71 would be useful. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 23:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
So a map bounded by Observatory, Dana Ave, I-71, and Marburg/Ridge Ave would work? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:35, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
That would work, but if the eastern boundary could be expanded to Ault Park/Columbia Parkway that would be awesome. It'd be ideal if you could focus on the Edwards Road/Erie Avenue/Paxton Avenue, and follow Observatory Avenue all the way into Ault Park. Erie Avenue has several shops and restaurants I want to list, plus the US' oldest observatory is near Ault Park, if I'm not mistaken. -- 71.72.212.152 00:27, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
That's the eastern boundary you want extended, right? I'll see what I can whip up over the next few days. Unfortunately, its design won't match exactly the existing Cincinnati map, but it shouldn't be too far off. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:00, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Yep. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 04:24, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
I think Newport's article is as good as it needs to be right now. I understand Peter's feelings about Covington, though - it is kind of like a (bland) district of the bigger city. I wouldn't hold back my support for the star based on Covington, but it'd be good to have it at usable status. That would only require descriptions for a couple more restaurants and a couple of bars, and a note as to whether Budget accommodation can or cannot be found in Covington. (My assumption is no, since the big box hotels are there, but I could be wrong.) Having done that, we would have fulfilled 98% of travelers' needs vis a vis Covington. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:23, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Round twoEdit

The two weeks have definitely expired, but I'm hoping people are amenable to giving this article another round of consideration - fixing the minor flaws got lost in a torrent of new listings from a new user, (WT-en) Lanskeith17. Here some more to chew on:

  • Why was the Skywalk built? Why and where would I take it? Is it a covered path (hence the reference to beating the weather)? Is it free and pedestrian-only?
  • Several entries under 'See', particularly in the first half, lack admission.
  • Need info for Timberwolf Amphitheater. Also, aren't concert venues usually under Drink?
  • Price for King's Island
  • Drop a couple lesser festivals - there are quite a few listed here
  • Prices for the university athletics, also phone for U of Cincinnati
  • Description of the noteworthy shopping districts - what does each one offer? I see only two descriptions.
  • Hours for Aglamesis Bros, Ingredients, Jim Dandy's Family BBQ, Tucker's Restaurant, Busken Bakery.
  • Personally, I wouldn't brag about having attracted Dick Cheney to anything
  • Info for Empress Chili
  • Hours for Skyline Chili, Camp Washington, Camp Washington Chili
  • Need description for Nicholson's
  • Hours for Boi Na Braza, McCormick & Schmick's, Teller's of Hyde Park
  • Description for McFadden's, Blue Jazz Wisp Club
  • What kind of latest music at the Poison Room? Also need hours
  • Hours for Whiskey Dick's, Alchemize, City View Tavern,
  • Description for Comfort Inn & Suites, Gaslight B&B
  • Price for Hilton Netherland, Hyatt Regency
  • Is food really accepted by homeless people? That section seems awkward.
  • I would structure the Get Out section - separate right-next-door day-trips from four-hour ones.
  • The way in which Hours are given need to be standardized throughout the article. Someone ought to schmooze OldPine... (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


CharlotteEdit

This article is right on the verge of being totally complete, so I'm going to go ahead and nominate it to see if we can get the kinks worked out and make it a star. The main missing element is a map, which I've tried to make before but found myself hopelessly lost. There might be some minor MoS issues here and there. Another concern of mine is that the History section (which I had a large hand in writing, mea culpa) is somewhat bloated. However, context is really important to understanding why Charlotte is what it is, so most of the info would be helpful to visitors wondering where the @!#$ the historic district is.

But on the whole, I'm pretty proud of this article as it's come a long way over the past couple of years. The districts are mostly complete, and the listings are up to date. Any questions/comments would be very helpful in trying to fix the remaining deficiencies. -- (WT-en) Bruinsbuddy42 15:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Wow! I'm surprised I haven't noticed this before--this is a fantastic guide! After a very quick lookover, I've noticed a few MoS related things and, of course, the lack of a map. But content-wise, this really does look complete and well put together.
  1. As the city has been "districtified" all eat, drink, sleep, etc. listings should be in the district articles, not the main city article.
  2. I'm not sure whether we are yet requiring this, as our article status policies have not been updated to reflect it, but it would be best if all listings were converted to use the listings templates (e.g., * {{eat | name= | alt= | url= | email= | address= | lat= | long= | directions= | phone= | tollfree= | fax= | hours= | price= | content= }}) because that will enable automated listings adjustments if/when we make adjustments to the Project:Manual of style. This is a rather big task, though.
  3. One of the big city criteria is that all districts must be at least guide status in order for the city to be a star. The districts look pretty good and could be upgraded without too much work.
  4. Because this city has districts, I think two maps are in order: a general overview street map with at least the principal "see" listings, and a map showing the districts' relations to each other and their boundaries (see Chicago for an example). I can help with the maps.
There may be a few other tweaks to be made, but after a quick skim, these were the main issues that jumped out. Don't support at least until these four issues are resolved (except maybe number 2). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:00, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't support. Really nice article with a lot of information (a little too much in some cases - I'd drop the list of radio stations, for example), but per many discussions in the slush pile, it's better to hold off nominating an article until it actually does fulfill the star requirements, rather than when you think it's getting close. Seek out some map wizards and ask them for map help on their user pages. The lack of a map and the other points described by Peter, particularly the first and third, mean it can't be a star. (Also, a lot of listings on the main page don't have hours or prices, and some, like the nightclubs, don't have any description at all.) Please keep up the great work and let's come back to this one later. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)


Fundamentals of flyingEdit

This is probably one of our best travel topics. I want to use this as a test case for developing criteria for Star travel topics. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Support after edits: I vote for moving Passenger Rights into a separate page, both for easier use for wikivoyagers and as its content is not as mature as in the rest of the article. After that, I support Star nomination for Fundamentals. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:53, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Don't support. There's a wealth of good information in the article, and it's well-written. But the divisions between Tips for flying, Fundamentals of flying, First and business class travel, and Round the world flights seem fuzzy to me, and it'll get even moreso if there's a fifth page of Passengers' rights added to the hierarchy. A sort of disambiguation page telling me exactly what distinct offerings are on each Flying page would help. (Imagine a country page, but the country is Flying, and the regions are these topics.) And then make sure they aren't duplicating each other. (Right now, there are tips in Fundamentals, for example.) There are several external links throughout the article, especially in the first section, that must be against the policy. The other flying articles (business travel most egregiously) also have this problem. We need to determine if the external links policy is different for this kind of article. (There are also some Wikipedia links in the text, like Richard Reid.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 21:35, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Teaching EnglishEdit

This has come a long way from being a vfd candidate a few years ago. Except perhaps for a few photos, I cannot think how it might be improved further. Is it a star yet? (WT-en) Pashley 02:08, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Undecided, but inclined to oppose. This is very well written and organized, entirely up to the level we expect of Star articles, and is likely to be helpful to someone starting to explore the topic. However, I conjecture (admittedly without first-hand knowledge) that the business of teaching ESL is, in practice, so intricate that an article this brief can't live up to the criteria appearing in Template:Startopic, namely "covers the topic completely with great information and visuals" (my emphasis added). Covering this topic "completely" probably takes a book, not an article -- which is not a knock on the article itself, but I'm just not convinced that it can be a Star. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Ditto. This is a great article, but I too wondered whether it is possible to say of it that it "covers the topic completely," since full-length books are published on the topic. Next time I get to a bookstore, I'll take a look at one of these books and then I'll come to a decision regarding my vote. On another note, perhaps a photo or two would be nice? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Of course it is not complete — as you say, that would take at least one book — but this is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia or a career counselling site. Is it complete enough for a travel guide? I think so; it gives a decent overview, enough to get a traveller started on considering whether teaching English is for him or her, and enough links that he/she can find more if required. (WT-en) Pashley 23:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree it needs a picture or two, but I have none to hand. Anyone? (WT-en) Pashley 23:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Is it complete enough for a travel guide? That's a tough question, because I don't know of any other travel guides that would have a general teaching English article. But then again, I don't know of any other serious world-wide travel guides. I think it might qualify as a complete overview, but I just think we need to be clear about how we reconcile the "star-ification" of an article like this with our travel topic star criteria. It might be necessary to revise those criteria somewhat. As for photos, surely someone working on this site is currently teaching English? If so, they could probably coax some students into a model release for a classroom shot? Otherwise this looks kind of funny. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:31, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Peter's suggestion makes sense. Let's take a look at the criteria and then come back to this one. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I can probably dig out a classroom picture or two from my ESL days. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I added one. Not a thing of beauty, though. But then, ESL rarely is.
Everything about this article is good - the writing, the organization - but there's too much missing to call it a star. To me, if it's a star topic, I should be able to refer someone to it as their one-stop source for that topic. They shouldn't need to learn much more at all from external links. There are a lot of quirks to working in Japanese eikaiwa that come as a shock to many people moving over there, thinking they're going to be the English teacher they remember from grade school. If this topic is a star, it needs to anticipate common misunderstandings and disabuse them from an insider's perspective. All it currently does is tell me to search the web for opinions, and that some will be happy, others will be angry rants. Even moreso, I'd like to come away from a star version of this topic knowing what the difference is between ESL schools in China, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. (Let alone Europe.) But doing that is going to rely heavily on personal anecdotes, and the only way to deal with that is Wikipedian NPOV, and that's going to lead to something as utterly useless as Wikipedia's eikaiwa articles. There's nothing about the challenges of teaching ESL, nothing about how to make a lesson plan or how to use supplements, nothing about classroom manner. I don't mean to be negative about this article, because it's exactly what Pashley described it as - a decent overview - I just don't think a decent overview can be a star. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 22:15, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Could it be a star if we call it Introduction to Teaching English? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wrote above "Except perhaps for a few photos, I cannot think how it might be improved further." Gorilla Jones's criticism answers that question very well. So this clearly is not a star yet. Can I withdraw the nomination? More important, the gorilla points out a good path for improvement. Anyone care to plunge forward on that path? (WT-en) Pashley 23:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I'll watchlist it and try to help out a little between Chicago barrages. Whether it becomes a star or not in the future, this is a great example of the things Wikivoyage does that print guides don't. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:39, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

O'Hare International AirportEdit

I'm nominating this one because I'd like to get some feedback on how an ideal airport article should be done. There are several at Guide throughout the site, but none above. This one has good photos and a sterling map by Peter, tons of up-to-date hotel listings, and a brachiosaurus. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:03, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I'm inclined to support, having not been there... the article looks nice, seems to cover it while keeping it to the point. One question... why is the airport map upside down? I find it confusing when up isn't north. But clearly not a big deal. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • Support. Although I feel pretty satisfied with the article, I'd also really like to hear some criticism, as we haven't hashed out with a lot of clarity what we want from our airport articles. Should we try to put eat and buy listings on the airport map or would that be excessive? Anything else that people would want on their airport map? I flipped the map upside down because a) I think that's mostly the way you are facing once you arrive—entrance/baggage check in the foreground and gates in the back, and b) that's how all the other O'Hare maps are displayed. My feeling was that the airport is enough of a world unto itself where the average traveler forgets which way is north. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:28, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Fair enough. As for what I want from an airport article.... the basics. What I kinda like about this is that it's not overdone, and not trying too hard... I like the simplicity of the eat sections, etc... you're at an airport... there's not that much to be said... I don't think having the restaurants on the map are necessary, unless they're necessary due to complication or if they're spread widely throughout a large terminal... in most airports if you say that a place in in terminal one, once you're in terminal 1 it's usually pretty clear where the food is. – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • Support. Looks quite thorough and complete. That said, it seems like there's a lot of stuff around the airport and it's not really clear on how to get there, so perhaps we could have an overall map of the area, just to orient people as to where all those hotels and outer parking lots are? Then you have that in addition to the principal airport map. Just a thought, doesn't change my vote of support. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:02, 11 November 2007 (EST)
That's a really good point actually, I hadn't thought of that... it isn't clear at all where the hotels are, the most that is said about many of them is their distance from the airport. Descriptions of how to get there should be made at the very least, and an area map would be an even better idea – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:54, 18 November 2007 (EST)
I thought about making an area map, but I'm not sure it would really add much value, as I'm pretty sure all the hotels operate shuttles directly from the area just outside baggage claim. But I'll try and double check on that, and you're definitely right that we should make it clear how one gets to the listed hotels. Similarly, all the outer parking lots have shuttles taking you directly to the terminals and are themselves well signed from the described "get in#by car" routes. Still and all, the completionist/perfectionist in me wants to see the O'Hare area mapped eventually—it's just last on my list of priorities for Chicago right now. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:44, 18 November 2007 (EST)
Any more comments? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:13, 26 November 2007 (EST)
For some very weird reason I get an error everytime I try to view the page, saying that WT is experiencing a problem. Only that page. So I can't look at it... anyhow, did you fix the last issue we discussed and at least give a verbal sense of where the hotels are or how to get to them? I still think a map would be ideal, but at least the words should be there :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 23:49, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Let me know if the directions I've added help clarify where the hotels are (see here). If not, we'll table the nomination until a map exists. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 14:10, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Tells me everything I think i'd ever want to know about the airport, would do well as a star (WT-en) Prof Jack 07:38, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I'll table the nomination for now until we have a map of the roads around there, and then it should be ready. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)

New ZealandEdit

This article has a fantastic description and enough information for anyone to use. It also has good pictures, maps ect. I don't know why this isn't a star article already. 92.3.32.223

  • Don't Support. My biggest issue with this article is that everything below it (the rest of New Zealand) has very poor coverage. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a single article in New Zealand besides this one and this one that rises above "usable" status. It's probably why we don't have any regional star articles yet. Besides that issue, there seems to be a lack of thorough descriptions in certain places, especially the See and Do sections. The Do section is especially bad: so I can do all this stuff there, but how good is it? What's the Skiing and snowboarding like? How's the surfing? Swimming with seals sounds cool, but where can I do it? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 20:39, 15 February 2008 (EST)
  • Don't Support. Quick glance reveals following problems: 1) lack of a map w/ regions breakdown & routes between linked destinations; 2) linked destinations/regions are not all guide status or better; 3) "Do" section needs serious overhaul; 4) "Other destinations" list needs to be pared down to no more than 9 destinations; 5) several minor mos edits needed (e.g., sprucing up the one liner listings). Much of it is rather nicely written, but there is a ton of work still needed to make this one a star. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)


Walt Disney World ResortEdit

This article is very deserving of being a Star article. All of the sections are teeming with helpful information. User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784 9/4/2008

  • Comment: At first glance this article looks really impressive. Since we have never gone through this process for a non-city, non-park destination, this will be tricky. I'll read through it within a couple days (hopefully) and get back to you on this. Hopefully we can get some real discussion going on this article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:34, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Not quite there. My biggest problem with the article as it stands right now is that almost none of the listings follow our MoS. Most of the hotels listed do not have contact info, prices, location info, or any of the stuff that is required under our MoS, and the descriptions sound like they were pulled directly from the Disney website. The same goes for everything in the Eat and Buy sections. Now, granted we are talking about a theme park, so perhaps we can't get them to perfectly fit the MoS, but I feel like we can do better than this. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Quick Critique: I gave this a 15 min speed read and...
  • Pros: I think overall this article is very good. Some of its sections seem really comprehensive...like "Stay safe." To its credit, it also makes use of things like info boxes, pictures, and warning boxes, and overall it seems pretty well formatted.
  • Cons: I agree with PerryPlanet above — most of the listings are incomplete per MoS. Also, most of them are not in alphabetical order. Not all addresses are abbreviated...e.g. uses "Street" not "St." The "Sleep" section on the map appears to be done well, but only six "See" and "Do" items are mapped, and none of the other sections are there at all? Also, in the "Read" section (and ostensibly throughout the article) it does mention a lot of other travel publications...is that standard? I would like to see a complete article here so that no further referral was necessary. It would be better perhaps to see more info on the "information centers" that were only passively mentioned. It would be nice to see them marked on the map as well. I wonder would a "Contact" section be appropriate here?
  • Decision: Good job, well done, but I think there is a lot of tidying up work left. (WT-en) Asterix 14:30, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, here is what I think: User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784 9/5/08

  • About the "Read" section: discuss this with the person who wrote that (User:(WT-en) LtPowers). But seriously, I think that section is helpful.
  • The Disney-branded hotels share a common reservations number (1-407-WDISNEY), and I have not been able to locate any individual addresses and phone numbers, so are those really necessary?
  • None of the shops or restaurants have contact information. That is fine as long as we know just their locations.
  • If you can, please make any adjustments as necessary, and I or anyone else can try to duplicate.


Per your request:
(WT-en) Asterix 17:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Update: I have adjusted all the hotel listings to the best of my knowledge. I would appreciate it if you could plunge forward and add anything I may have missed.
  • Another update: I put all the Sleep listings in alphabetical order. Please redo the map to reflect the change, and expand its name to Walt Disney World Resort or just Walt Disney World - that is the name of the article, and it's cited in the infobox under "Understand."
I agree that this approaches star quality. I also had concerns about the "Read" section when Lt first put it in. His reasoning was that we would never cover in detail as well as the referenced sources. *shrug*. All hotels have phone numbers and all attractions have locations. I am concerned that we don't even describe locations e.g. "east side of park" "to the left of the main entrance".. whatever. I guess if we don't do that, perhaps the Read section is truly necessary. I don't like rushing to Star... it implies there's nothing left to do. (WT-en) OldPine 13:54, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Another update: I redid the Buy section, but I know somehow that it isn't "complete" yet - please plunge forward.
User:(WT-en) LtPowers has voiced a concern over the "Buy" section. Please focus on this section
I haven't read through carefully yet, but this does look like a great article. But I'd be tempted to hold up the "starrification" until we have WT style maps of each park, with all attractions marked. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:41, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Use this link to create the maps: http://www.wdwinfo.com/maps/index.htm -- User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784
I wasn't volunteering ;) And those maps are all copyrighted. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:28, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Another update: The Magic Kingdom subsection now covers all the attractions! Let's finish all the others. User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784

On closer inspection, and based upon the last few comments, I now also think that we should hold off on starification. Articles are supposed to be at star level before they get onto this page. To my knowledge this page is for possible minor tweaks and fine tuning. It's clear now that the articles "completeness" cannot be verified, and there are also several more maps to be made -- no mean feat! There was also a question raised above about the source of the material that does not seem to have been addressed. (WT-en) Asterix 16:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

9/7/08 - I have finished the overhaul of the See and Do section, to the best of my ability. The Eat and Buy sections are now the only ones that need attention. But I'm at a loss as to what should be done - maybe all of you can help. No need to rush, let's at least make this a Star-quality article, if not Star itself. User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784

9/9/08 - After reviewing the Eat and Buy sections in several other Star articles, I think I may have a working knowledge of how to finally "finish" this article. It's going to take some time, though. Update 9/10/08: I have finally completed the expansion of the subsections that were in need of attention. Unless anyone says so otherwise, I will re-boot this nomination by erasing this discussion. User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784

First, please never delete discussions; they should always be archived, and in this case should be archived in the nominations slush pile. Second, I do object to this article being made a star as long as it lacks maps that show the locations of all attractions. The satellite data is available, and a map trace is eminently possible. It's also a pretty clear requirement for all non-region star nominations to have all listed attractions/restaurants/etc. marked on a Wikivoyage-style map. It's nonetheless a great article, but it lacks the "perfect" quality of a star. There should be no notable room for improvement in an article if we are to make it a star. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:10, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
One other optional suggestion: it would be nice to have some more images, since the article is so long. They help break up the black & whiteness of the page. And I'd guess there are a lot of good photos of Disney World floating around! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Just added 2 more pictures. User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784 9/11/08 9:52 CDT

9/16/08: After reviewing a few Star articles that have only one map, I think that this article is definitely Star quality, with or without maps of sub-areas such as the theme parks. User:(WT-en) Jonathan 784

  • Object. I don't think this article is ready for star status. I'm not even going to nitpick, I have one major underlying criticism of this article - lack of descriptions in the listings. Some Eat and Sleep listings do not have any descriptions at all, and those that do read like they were pulled directly from a Disney website. Honestly, looking at it the only differences I can tell between the listings are theme, location, and price. That's not good enough for me. I need something more specific - what makes this place worth staying or eating at? What are the highlights? Stuff like that. As it is right now, I can't support promoting this one to star status. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 19:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Geez, I didn't even know this was up for star, or I would have been contributing to the discussion. Gotta do a better job communicating, Jonathan, especially on the talk page. A few items:
    1. I understand Peter's suggestion of park maps, but I question their value. To me, "The Magic Kingdom" is the attraction, so a map of it would be an attraction map, not even a city map. It'd be like having a map of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. -- and equally subject to frequent changes. I can see other perspectives though -- certainly a visitor to WDW makes extensive use of park maps, so I can understand why we might want them here (although I daresay Disney does a much, much better job of producing them than we ever could).
    2. The "Read" section can go if necessary. I don't fully understand the purpose of the "Read" section, because it's not really described anywhere, so I did what I could. I will point out, though, that some of those sources go into much greater detail than we generally do -- AllEars.net, for example, has detailed menus for the restaurants on property, something we would never try to keep up-to-date.
    3. Jonathan's prolific efforts on this article are deserving of recognition and accolades, although I agree the article isn't star-level yet. I still need to take a detailed look at the current state to see exactly what I feel needs changing; a lot of my earlier visions for the article have been made moot by Jonathan's efforts, and I do still have that unresolved question on the talk page.
  • -- (WT-en) LtPowers 09:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

This discussion seems to have stalled, so I'm bringing it back up. I just made a quick trip to the public library to take a look at Fodor's Walt Disney World -- here are my new thoughts:

  • Fodor's book not only has maps of the theme parks but also of the resorts. It would probably not be worth such an effort to have theme park maps, or resort maps, for that matter.
  • I wrote many of the restaurant descriptions myself, and I'm not a culinary critic. The way I see it, the restaurant descriptions are decent enough provided that the external links lead to some more specific info.
  • For the hotel listings that don't have descriptions, I think they're allright with just the contact info and the links. These are ordinary, non-themed hotels anyway.

(WT-en) Jonathan 784 14:49, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Objections Jonathan, I really commend your efforts, and I think it'll get there eventually - but for now I have the following objections;
  1. The layout of the page is a mess (I have a very untypical resolution of 1680x1050, it may not be obvious to you if you're on a low res setting ) - this refers to the info boxes in particular.
  2. No, I really think a place needs maps over the attractions, with the same underlying reasons as the external links guidelines (we want the content here). And I know that other star articles might just have one map, but this is a different sort of article and destination all together - try it - it's not that freighting once you get into it :-)
  3. There are still a lot of listings that don't have descriptions - this is a must as far as I'm concerned, and others could use further elaborations (I recommend doing them one section at the time, until you feel really good about the section, and then moving on to the next one)
I feel you frustrations dude, I digged headlong into Copenhagen myself, without realizing how much work it takes just to get the districts into guide standard. Just take it one section at the time, and try not to rush it too much. Ganbatte kudasai! ;-)
—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Sertmann (talkcontribs)
While I don't deny that park maps are useful, I question whether it's practical to keep them updated. See my comparison above -- it'd be useful to have a map of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., but not really practical. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Hmm. The reason we don't keep up maps of museums is because they provide their own maps at the door for free. If they don't, then I think a map would be quite handy (like at the Hermitage, for example). So, are the Disney maps free? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:52, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh yes, due to their essential nature. Disney gives them away by the bucketful. You get the full suite of maps/guides at check-in, or with your tickets if you're not staying on-site. I can't imagine anyone choosing to use our maps while actually in the park, no matter how good they are.
That said, there may be some value in a potential visitor using our maps to plan his or her visit. When the idea of park maps was first floated, I was thinking of maps as detailed as a city map would be. However, now that I think about it, a basic map of each park, showing the major themed areas (the seven "lands" in the Magic Kingdom, each pavilion in Epcot, etc.) and major landmarks might be worthwhile, and not as hard to keep up-to-date as a map showing every last ride, restaurant, and show. I still don't think I'd let their absence keep the article from becoming a star, but I wouldn't object to their inclusion either. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
That was how i was thinking, mainly locations of the different rides - anyway, I've s striked it under my objections, even though i'd really like to see it (WT-en) Sertmann 10:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I would like to see that. I made a National Mall map that basically set out to do the same thing (although I doubt Disney World would have quite so many attractions on one map!). I'd like to see these before calling it a star—while the guide is awesome even without them, it's not quite as perfect as our criteria require (the criterion that there be no ostensible room for improvement). And given my geography bent I really like to see the lay of the land before arriving. I think these maps would be pretty easy to do, since NASA provides really close up images of the parks, and because you could use the Disney maps (or just experience) as a guide in marking the landmarks/major rides.
So in sum, I'd like to see these basic maps before I strike my objection. Once we've got them up, I'll take a closer read through the article before I support. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Looks fine to me! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 23:22, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
So what is holding this back from being a star:updated list? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 16:18, 13 November 2008 (EST).


I think it's time to add this to the slush pile. I don't think the prose is sparkling yet, and Peter still wants park maps, which will take a while. I'm working on an Epcot-area map but I'm not sure how it's going to come out using our house style (due to the way Disney uses stagecraft and illusion to influence the guests' perceptions, an aerial view of the parks does not mesh well with what the guest perceives). Furthermore, given our goals to be comprehensive and the only travel guide a traveler would need for a given destination, that means our Walt Disney World travel guide needs to be book-length. All the other Disney World travel guides are. For us, that's going to mean dividing up into "districts", possibly on the scale of individual lands (i.e., a "Fantasyland" article, a "Future World" article, a "Camp Minnie-Mickey" article, etc.).

In short, I think we need to have a discussion about what exactly our WDW article should include, and how big it should be. This is not the place for that discussion, though, so I would encourage anyone who commented here to join me on Talk:Walt Disney World Resort for tea and cookies a discussion on the scope of this article. A lot of interesting points were raised above, but we need to discuss them there, not here.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 11:06, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I honestly think it would be very unlikely that a typical traveller would print out a theme park map created by us and use it, givien the fact that official maps are distributed for free, either at the park entrances or at hotel check in. As for the rest of the article, I am always open to new suggestions/ideas. (WT-en) Jonathan 784 10:21, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Edmonton/CentralEdit

Don't quite know if it's "there", but if you give a list of WHERE to improve, I will fix it. I've worked on it extensively and was the first district I worked on after Edmonton districting! I put a lot of effort into it and tried to put in the most complete listings, unlike others and I just hope it doesn't suck. Is it there, or where are the improvements? I'd love for this to be star! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 18:31, 13 November 2008 (EST).

  • Not yet. Looks like the article is coming along quite nicely, but it's still pretty far from the star's "perfection" requirement. Just at a very quick first glance: not all listings are "listingified", not all establishments have hours listed, almost no price ranges given for restaurants, hours formatting is often incorrect, sections should have quick introductory paragraphs. I'd encourage you to slush this nomination for now (since articles shouldn't really be nominated until they are star quality) and take a good look at existing star articles (like this one) and look over the Project:Manual of style to get an idea of how to achieve the requisite formatting "perfection." --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)
I'll leave on for some more opinions, plus I'll do the stuff you said over the next couple days, so there's no point in like redoing in 2 days from now. I'll just leave it. But thankyou. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST).
To add, doncha think by MIDRANGE, BUDGET...you'd get the pricing? Or do you mean like average price for a dish is 30$, etc.? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 19:05, 13 November 2008 (EST).
I agree, many listings needs expansion, and some are really incomplete (I even spotted a few missing addresses), section introductions are lacking (i'd especially like to see some in the do subsections), the listings are not in alphabetical order, etc. It IS great work, and Edmonton coverage is expanding at a mind blowing pace, but it's not a star yet. There is a reason why there are so few of them, even though this place has been going for a good number of years - it takes extraordinary dedication to get articles up there (just take a look at the Disney world nomination above. So i'd suggest you slush this for now, read through the star articles, and get to work expanding the article so you can renominate it later --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 13:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Well this sucks! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 15:46, 14 November 2008 (EST).
This can be added to the slush pile. But expect a come back (I hope!)!!! Keep smiling ,(WT-en) ee talk 19:37, 14 November 2008 (EST).
You can do that :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Copenhagen/ØsterbroEdit

I don't know if it's bad style, nominating your own article or not, but I've picked up on (WT-en) Elgaard's excellent work, on this district (where we both live). Fixed the map, MoS'ed it, and added everything I felt was missing. Neither of us are native speakers, so there might be an issue there, otherwise i feel like it's essentially a complete piece of work. (WT-en) Sertmann 14:11, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Support. It's a great work of a district article, with a nice map, and is all properly formatted as far as I can tell. And please feel free to nominate your own articles—I think the nominator is almost always the author. Just a couple suggestions:
1) Short introductions for see, do, and eat would be nice.
2) Adding a contact section to the map key, and numbering the contact icons would be really useful, since otherwise most readers won't recognize what those black contact symbols are
3) Are the cope listings on the map? I saw the H symbol, which I assume was the hospital, but I wasn't sure about the other two. Maybe there's a way to make this more clear?
The last one, the Laundromat Café, i'm not really sure how to mark that (symbol wise) - any ideas? (WT-en) Sertmann 04:58, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
You could perhaps create an ad hoc symbol for each of the cope listings, like a green triangle with a number inside. Otherwise you could try and make a washing machine symbol, but I'm not going to try to do that myself ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Also watch those hours formats, I changed them, e.g., M-Sa:noon-5PM,Su:noon-6PM → M-Sa noon-5PM, Su noon-6PM. Anyway, fantastic work, and I look forward to seeing more on Copenhagen! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:56, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Support. Also agree that short introductions to each section would be nice, but otherwise this looks good! Nice work – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 00:27, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Support. It looks like a lovely guide, with nice pictures and a great map. In addition to the concerns raised by Peter above, I have a couple of my own:
1) The Sleep section has one listing which doesn't appear on the map, Copenhagen B&B, while the map shows two sleep listings which don't seem to be in the article: Sleep-in Copenhagen and Charlottehaven.
Fixed that, except Copenhagen B&B, doesn't want their address public, but give out the address once people have a confirmed booking, i think that should be respected, without having to remove the listing (WT-en) Sertmann 04:58, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
2) The Buy section feels a little small. Obviously, I've never been to Copenhagen and don't know the extent of the shopping scene, but if there are many small stores like it says in the intro to the Buy section, perhaps we could stick just a few more in? This is not a major concern of mine, though. Just a minor nitpick.
3) Another minor nitpick which has absolutely nothing to stop the article from becoming a Star: the 4 pictures in the See section feel a little too clustered together, perhaps we could spread them throughout the See section? For instance, putting the picture of The Little Mermaid Statue next to the listing for The little Mermaid Statue. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 11:44, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Support - Why? Because I know there has been a lot of work put into it and I looked at it, and I actually learned lots from it, it is well written, and definately deserves it. SO YES! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:56, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
To add, I believe everything has been met that's been brought up and it's been a 3 weeks. Should this not be a star? Happy first day of snow in Edmonton, (WT-en) ee talk 14:59, 11 November 2008 (EST).
There are still outstanding objections to fix:
1) need a suggestion on how to add the laundromat cafe to the map (symbol wise)
2) There's still some introductions to left to write to the sections, and I'm out of idea's on how/what to write, that would be of "star" quality
3) Need to figure out a solution to the image problem (which is darn hard as I'm on a wide resolution screen, and it all looked good to me - tried changing it, and it's all a big mess on my computer now)
4) Have to take a walk around the neighborhood to find some more good stores to add (as I don't want to add something, just for the sake of adding it)
So it's sorta on hold until I get some inspiration to resolve the above issues - the current plan is to "finish" Copenhagen/Christianshavn and Copenhagen/Northern suburbs to guide status, as this is where my idea's to develop the guide are at the moment, and then revisit this, before i continue with the other districts (WT-en) Sertmann 15:48, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Al right, keep up the good work! Happy first day of snow in Edmonton, (WT-en) ee talk 15:54, 11 November 2008 (EST).
Re: Laundromat Cafe, I haven't noticed anyone come up with a symbol for the "cope" section yet on maps, but what about just a square similar to the "see/do" but make it orange or something, with a number in it... keep it simple? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Teaching EnglishEdit

This article I looked over and looks gosh darn good! Would be our first travel topic star! Thoughts-can it make it? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 13:03, 14 November 2008 (EST).

Project:Star nominations/Slush pile#Teaching English (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:23, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Yes I know, but per request via talk page, it was asked to bring this back. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 12:25, 15 November 2008 (EST).
There is a problem that would need solving to make this a star, Talk:Teaching_English#Re_section_Resources_for_English_teachers. 19:16, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I took a crack at solving it. (WT-en) Pashley 09:00, 31 December 2008 (EST)

MatsuyamaEdit

Former Destination of the Month, now mapped and formatted. Much of the writing was done by User:(WT-en) Ojousama, who clearly knew the city quite well. Great images, too. I could scrounge up a couple more hotel listings if necessary, but having been there — and considering the size of the city — I do feel this article covers it thoroughly. Your review would be greatly appreciated... (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:47, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

  • I think it's almost there, but some sections could be improved. The Understand section is well-written, but it seems a bit too short for a city of 500.000 inhabitants. The listings in the article are great, but the See, Buy Eat, Drink and Sleep sections all have no introductions. Especially for the drink section this is hard to cope with -- where in the city are the good clubs and bars? Is it easy to enter, are identity papers required? Also I know Japan is a safe country, but to omit the Stay Safe section completely? It is a big city and travelers must have something to be wary of, even if it's only pickpocket crime. A good article which has all these issues taken care of, is the Hiroshima article, which could function as a good example. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 13:19, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
  • After reviewing the article, I think these issues need to be addressed:
    • Sleep Section: Are only 5 Sleep options enough?
    • Eat Section: If Taimeshi is an Uwajima specialty, then the information should probably be moved to the Uwajima article. To go along with that, it's not really clear whether any of the dishes are really Matsuyama inventions/alterrations. Also, if these dishes are local specialties, then there should be at least one restaurant listed below that serves each specialty, because visitors may actually want to try them. Only 7 restaurants doesn't seem right, either. Are there not enough restaurants in this city to have the "Budget", "mid-Range", and "Splurge" options?
    • Buy: Yunomachi appears to be the hot spot for shopping in the city. If so, I think it should be highlighted and its location should be clarified.
    • The "Co-ed Almost-Naked Stair-Climbing" thing seems odd to me. Is there a better way of presenting it?
    • See: I don't know for sure, but it seems like more could be said about some of the pilgrimage temples. I also noticed that all of the attractions were able to be placed on the map, aside from the temples, which makes me suspicious that there is more to do outside of the scope of the map. The existing content is good, but I wonder if there aren't some unknowns we have yet to discover/add. The map is of the inner city, around the main station... How far beyond the map does the city extend? Most Japanese cities extend well beyond the city center, and attractions typically exist elsewhere, even if there are less of them. Okayama, for example, has a significant number of attractions outside of the city center. Kurashiki does, as well. Matsuyama may be different, but can we verify that there is truly nothing to do beyond what is on the map?
    • Do: The "Zazen Meditation" thing is confusing. Where is it actually located? Is the building called "Zazen Meditation"? Also, are the koto lessons held at the Information Center?
    • Get Out: Ehime Children's Castle is in Matsuyama, so it should be listed in the "See" section. This sort of brings me back to whether or not the "See" section truly covers the whole city. Also, I think the "Get Out" section needs to link to other cities/articles, not list specific attractions as if it were the "See" section.

Sorry if these seem nitpicky or obnoxious, but I have to admit that I am sceptical about this nomination. Even after the issues with current content are addressed, I would still only feel comfortable supporting this if someone could verify that the temples and Children's Castle are really the only things outside of the city center to see/do. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:31, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Hmm. Yeah, I have fundamental problems with Chubby's comments. First, I think a review of Project:Goals_and_non-goals and Project:Article status is in order. Wikivoyage is not a Yellow Pages, nor have we ever defined Star status as containing every single attraction within a day's reach of the city. Neither Chicago nor Singapore contain every attraction in those cities. They contain the good ones, the attractions that are recommended by the people who have written the article. Travellers' time is short, and they want to make the most of it. As anybody who has spent time in Japan knows, there are some neighborhood temples & shrines that are really not of any interest to a tourist. If we hand a tourist a travel guide that's swamped with listings, wherein every one notable attraction is surrounded by five weak ones, we have done them a disservice. Part of the process of creating a travel guide is curation — selecting and identifying the best, not merely creating really long lists of everything that's there.
Now as for Matsuyama itself, I think it's silly to say that there must be more attractions because most of the listed attractions fit on the map. The shape of the map is defined by where the attractions are. That's part of the process of making a map. So you're saying that, since the map covers almost everything, it must be missing a lot. That is a catch-22. You raise the example of Okayama. That was the hardest map I've done, simply because I could not figure out how to frame it. The listings as assembled there do not constitute a coherent geographical area. As a result, that article has several listings like the Tomata Onsen Noritake or Okayama Dome where no reader could figure out where the attraction is relative to their hotel or what we're recommending they do there. That's a shortcoming of the article, not an asset.
If you read the listings (particularly before I edited them for length), it's clear that the original author knew the city extremely well. If you've been to Matsuyama, you'll know that 90% of tourists make a beeline for Dogo Onsen and then depart. All of the rest of those listings are the comprehensive coverage. There is no process by which we can "verify" that there aren't more possible listings somewhere for any article on this site. (I will say, though, that I've flipped through published travel guides and not found any Matsuyama listings that the Wikivoyage article doesn't have.) And the article does extend well beyond the city center — the Dogo area, for example, and the Russian Soldiers Cemetery, are well out of the city center. I don't understand the cause for the confusion over Zazen meditation, as the location (Keitokoji) and address are given in the listing. It's in the 'Do' section, so the listing it named for the thing you do there. That's like wondering whether 'Hang-gliding' is a building you should be looking for in Tottori.
It is, as I said, not a problem to find a few more hotel listings, and perhaps a few more eat listings if necessary. To address Globe-trotter's comments, it would be easy enough to fashion a few section introductions and perhaps shift content from some of the longer listings to lengthen 'Understand'. I'll try to think of something for a Stay Safe section, but having written the Hiroshima Stay Safe section, I can't really imagine what would go in a Matsuyama version, other than a warning not to stay in the hot bath too long. It's Shikoku — pick-pocketing and petty crime is even less of any issue in Matsuyama than anywhere else in Japan. A city-level stay safe article should only highlight things that aren't already evident from reading the country-level article. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 22:00, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
I can't figure which of the points you addressed - perhaps addressing the issues in order, or beneath them is better. I don't think we need to have a yellow pages, but the sleep section doesn't seem to offer me much choice. The first looks a bit like a nice western style hotel from the description, but the price would tell me it probably isn't. Unless, there isn't much choice there?
I'm not sure I see the humor in the naked on the stairs thing, but that isn't a showstopper, everybody's sense of humor is different - is it meant to be funny? Also, are we going to format phone numbers in their international form? --(WT-en) inas 23:29, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
Ah, I see Keitokoji now. I must have skipped over it since it's listed with the address. Directions should be added on how to get to the 88 temple sites, also.

I have read the goals and non-goals before, and I do not advocate that every temple, shrine, etc. be added to the city however, a star article should also be thorough, which different people will obviously have different ideas about. I know that information can be added to star articles if a great attraction were found in the city that is not currently listed, but that is not really how "star articles" are defined. With Okayama, the city's shape is odd and it extends quite far beyond the city center, and many of the larger Japanese cities are like that. I agree with you that not having a map that shows all of Okayama's attractions are a weakness of the page, and with Okayama's size and shape, reconciling that sounds like quite a pain in the ass, and there may be some listings that can be dealt away with, and if you feel that I've organized it in a bad way, I am very open to discussing with you a better way to present it (I suppose that is a conversation best moved elsewhere).

My point in bringing it up is that, if Matsuyama is of any comparable size, it is possible (likely?) that there are more sites that are worthwhile. For example, if you look through the sites in the "Other areas" part on the Okayama page, do you feel that none of the attractions within the section are worth visiting or that none of them could be of interest to travellers? Would you suggest deleting all of the listings? While you may debate the value of some, I assume there are listings there that you would not want to be deleted, even though their presence makes map-making a royal pain. That's why I was questioning whether or not the entire city of Matsuyama has been represented or if the page simply represents the best of the area surrounding the station.

While many travellers do just want to see the best attractions and leave, the strength of Wikivoyage over other guides is that we can also accommodate those who want to spend a little more time in the area, so, as you said, we can list more than just the onsen and the castle. I am not trying to accuse you of taking advantage of everyone else's ignorance of the city by purposely leaving out great sites, nor do I have any silly goal of not allowing this article to become a star. I was just wanting to know if anyone knows about the areas of the city not mentioned, but I think it's probably best to just forget about that comment, since I feel like taking it at face value would possibly deny the article a star based on vague notions that something else may exist, whether it does or not. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:13, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't think this is particularly productive, so I'll withdraw the nomination. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:24, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Singapore/RiversideEdit

There's not any of my work in this one, but just looking at this district makes me feel like it's on star status. It has plenty of listings, is nicely formatted and has some great maps. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 09:49, 7 December 2009 (EST)

I will have a thorough read tomorrow but the article looks great. At first glance I am not sure the maps show every listing. That needs checking. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:44, 11 December 2009 (EST)
  • Not quite. It's a pretty good article, but there are still some issues. One is some problems in the Eat and Drink sections - a lot of those listings are missing phone numbers and hours, and I see one that's not properly formatted. Also, the Do section seems rather small...is that really all there is to Do here? The Get in section is also looking a little shrimpy. Overall it's a great article, but I can't say it's a star yet. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 19:20, 14 December 2009 (EST)
  • I added the missing telephone numbers of the Buy, Drink, Eat and Sleep sections, except for Lau Pa Sat (food stall market) and Yong Bak Kut Teh (I found it on Google Street View, but cannot find it's telephone number anywhere online. It seemed so small, maybe it doesn't have any. I also fixed the bad listing. About the hours: that's a bit harder to fulfill, it's hard to find the opening hours online for some of the listings. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 18:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Had a closer look and very nearly I would say. A few points:
  • The map has no scale on it.
  • The map needs updating as a number of listings are not on there.
  • Sleep section needs a price range table or is it enough that there is one in the parent city guide?
  • On opening hours for restaurants and bars. These are generally a bit of problem in Asia as they tend to be a moveable feast. Singapore might be a bit more reliable on that front though.
  • A hotel I have used a lot here in the past, Swisshotel Stamford, is on the map but not listed.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Hmm, didn't realize this was nominated -- not one of Sg's better articles, I would've thought? Anyway, the Riverside district is somewhat awkwardly shaped and is thus split into two maps, but the 2nd map is not in the book and thus hasn't been updated in eons. Sleep price ranges are consistent across the entire Sg guide, so the infobox should be unnecessary. And while restaurants have opening hours, for hawker stalls trying to find them is hopeless. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:30, 17 February 2010 (EST)
That means there is another map that is not shown in the article? Can that be put right? If not, then the nomination fails I think. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:11, 21 February 2010 (EST)
There are two maps already: one at Get around and the other at Drink. However, I've now sliced off a good chunk of the article and turned it into Singapore/Marina Bay, which is a bit sparse now but will grow considerably within a year or two as the casino gets going. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:22, 24 February 2010 (EST)
Seeing how things are still debated, I suggest its best to move this one to the slush pile for the time being. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:25, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Teaching EnglishEdit

This was nominated some time back and rejected. It would have been our first star travel topic, and one of the issues was that we weren't entirely clear on criteria for a star topic. The same issue may come up for the dive site topics.

Some of the other issues raised in the earlier rejection have been addressed. Others, like not being "complete" in a sense that requires a book, have been ignored. Is it ready now? (WT-en) Pashley 21:46, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Some of Gorilla Jones' concerns do not seem to have been addressed, but I think he made some valid points. This article doesn't offer much for those actually teaching it, nor does it offer much comparative information between countries/regions. I also think this article has an Asia focus that the title does not imply. There are scattered references to the Middle East and Europe, but a lot more could be said about these, I imagine. Latin America is on the list as a "popular" place for teaching English yet if I am considering doing this in Latin America, the article doesn't offer me much (absolutely nothing specific about this supposedly popular choice). If I am considering teaching English in Africa, the article is definitely not going to help. I think most people do end up in Asia, but the article should still mention the full scope of possibilities, because "Teaching English" is done elsewhere. Including these atypical destinations would also put our guide above most others, that are also focused around China, Japan, and Korea. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:21, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
A few observations:
  1. Does the article have to provide much for those actually teaching? There are links to sites which presumably do just that. What information for people actually teaching would be considered appropriate?
  2. Requiring equal representation for all possible places where English may be taught by a traveller might be an excessive requirement, and perhaps would prevent the article from ever reaching star status. One possible way around this might be to have the main article "Teaching English", and regional sub articles. In this way the main article could be rated a star if at least one region is a star. Also it might be useful to the user if it is split into regions.
  3. Is "Teaching English" the best title? A large number of teachers of English do it with no connection to travelling except their daily commute. OK, I realise that this is Wikivoyage and anything in it will automatically be assumed to have some connection with travel, but there may be a better title. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:55, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Well, it is called "Teaching English", so it's not a stretch to think that someone might expect to find pointers and suggestions for those already teaching it. As far as number 2 is concerned, I think it is completely reasonable to expect an article to cover the topic fully in order to be a star, and no article is entitled to star status. If no one adds information about Latin America, Africa, Middle East, or Europe, then I don't see why it should be a star. If the New York City article only mentioned Manhattan, would we call it a star? If star status articles are supposed to be the best guide Wikivoyage (or any source) could offer on a particular subject, then I don't think we can expect this article to ever be a star if we make assumptions about where people do or should teach English. I'm not sure if splitting it by region/continent/country would be better or not. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 19:10, 3 November 2009 (EST)
I've rewritten the "Destinations" section and made a few changes elsewhere to better cover other places. Comments? (WT-en) Pashley 06:48, 5 November 2009 (EST)
Hi ChubbyWimbus,
  1. Your first point and my third point relate. If it had a different title which did not imply that information for people already teaching English should be expected, then that requirement would disappear. I am not advocating such a change, just pointing it out as an option. I dont know or care enough about the subject to have strong opinions on the content.
  2. My point is that it should be reasonably practicable for any article to be improved to star status if it is intended for this to be a target. If the idea is that only some classes of article can have the potential to become stars that is different. Technically, requiring that an article is complete may mean that it is complete regardless of the status of sub-articles or other articles lower in the geographical hierarchy, or that the status of subordinate articles is a criterion. This appears to be the case for regions, countries etc, where if I understand correctly, a significant portion of the subordinate articles must be at star or guide level for the high level article to be considered. This is reasonable, as requiring all subordinate articles to be star or guide would make it almost impossible for any other than the lowest level to gain and retain star status. I dont suggest that all non-star subordinate articles be deleted from mention, just that at least some percentage other than all should be required to be at star and guide level. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:10, 8 November 2009 (EST)

The added information about the broader scope of options has definitely improved the article, but I wonder if this needs some sort of discussion about what people want this article to be? Is this article targeted at those wanting to teach English, those already teaching it, or both? How in-depth does everyone imagine this article should go at its best? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)

There seems to be precious little interest in this nomination. Back to the slush pile? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:08, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Long Beach Simon's TownEdit

Motivation: This is the first dive site to reach the stage where star nomination is appropriate (by my criteria), so I have nominated it to get feedback so that a standard can be set for dive sites. This site is reasonably typical of one of a range of site types. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 13:36, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

My proposed criteria for star status for a dive site follow:

→ Moved to Talk page (Stefan)

Some edits have been done to keep formatting in line with modifications to Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle, also a star nomination at this time, and which has has far more attention. Also a few content improvements. Still waiting for a direct comment on this one though. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:21, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Question: Are the points on the map designating the points of interest talked about in the article or do they simply designate the perimeter of the dive site? The reason I ask is that if they designate certain sites, like the Ferro concrete yacht wreck, it may be nice to have the site written on the map by its associated dot. I'm not a diver, so if it is not useful, then just ignore this. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:22, 9 January 2010 (EST)

This site is going to be quite difficult to significantly improve in the near future. I think it may be time to transfer to the slushpile until further notice. Other sites which are more likely to make it are waiting for a pop at star. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 12:21, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

FigueresEdit

I'm putting this forth as I've put a good deal of effort to get it in line with all the required elements to be a Star article. Just now I've cleaned up the Get Out section to link to only live pages (which meant creating a good number of them) and have added a map. With this, I feel that it is ready for Star status. (WT-en) Primecoordinator 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Not yet. I haven't read through the article carefully, but a few problems jump out immediately. First and foremost, the article needs to have a Wikivoyage-style map (Project:How to draw a map/Project:How to create a map), with all listings marked. If you are up to the task of finishing up the rest of the necessary tasks for star status, my hunch is that a mapmaker will be happy to volunteer.
Other issues that stand out while skimming: 1) contact details missing for many listings; 2) more description is needed for most listings outside the see section; 3) I think it would be desirable to add more eat and drink listings; 4) eat listings should be sorted by price.
I hope this is helpful, rather than discouraging, as it would be wonderful to have our first Spanish star article! At present, though, it seems to be "merely" a fine guide-status article. Surprisingly, we don't really have any star articles to look at that are a comparable size to Figueres, but Hilversum (pop. 80,000) might be a good example to look to, although it clearly is longer than the Figueres article should be. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:05, 10 March 2010 (EST)
Actually yes, it is discouraging as the standards for Star articles aren't evenly applied at all, no matter how spelled out it is. And how the hell do you rate something as a 'Not yet' before you've even finished it?!! I find that to be more an attempt to "be first" in reviewing as opposed to actually writing a proper review. As for the map, if I had known there were more specific standards on them, then I wouldn't have wasted my time, thanks... Many aspects of Wikivoyage have been generally quite hard to find, so it's no wonder that certain areas are lacking content. Also, there are some Star articles that don't have maps. In regards to breaking down the listings for food and drink, that's rather insane beyond the hotels. This is a town of 40,000 people, not a metropolis like Barcelona with 2 million. Drinks are the same cost everywhere and food varies maybe 10€ between a "hi end" and "low end" restaurant. At this point, if someone else wants to take up the mantle and finish this out, such as the map, that would be great. Otherwise, I've spent more than enough time on it and you can continue to have Spain without any Star articles as Barcelona and Madrid seem to be stuck amidst infighting which it seems this community breeds more of than any sense of cohesion towards a better product. (WT-en) Primecoordinator 19:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry to have come across as discouraging, I really am just trying to give constructive criticism to help build a better product ;) (I couldn't care less about "being first"—I'm usually last.) I say not yet, because without having done a thorough read through, there are a couple obstacles that clearly stand in the way of star status (notably the map). The guidelines/criteria for star status are at Project:City guide status.
By the way, drink listings do not need price ranges, as you may see from reading other star articles. Also, which star articles do not have maps? They should be demoted if this is true. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:27, 10 March 2010 (EST)
Hey Primecoordinator, please do not be discouraged by this. It is a strong guide, but the demands for star status are rightly very high. Once you have an eye for star articles, it is quite easy to have a preliminary read, and to notice things that are missing. That is exactly what Peter did in a constructive way. It is very possible for small, little known destinations to reach star status: see Sheki (pop 65,000) and Nusa Lembongan (pop 8,000), as well as Hilversum, already mentioned. If a map is the biggest issue (I suspect it is), then I can help out by drawing it. What I obviously can't do though is place all the icons etc, so I would need your guidance on that. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:55, 10 March 2010 (EST)
Yeah, I can help with that when you pull it together. I've never used this mapping system and would need some guidance for for. (WT-en) Primecoordinator 09:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Have uploaded a more proper map. Can provide the illustrator file if anyone feels like truing anything up. (WT-en) Primecoordinator 21:18, 04 April 2010 (UTC)
Also flesh out a proper History section (WT-en) Primecoordinator 21:20, 04 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. What is the base source you used for tracing that map please? There are no free sources I could find with that level of detail, and you have not indicated the source on the map mark up. Also, if you were doing this, it would have been nice tell me and I would not have wasted time. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:46, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
I posted a reply on the Talk page over a week ago and assumed that as you hadn't responded you had given up on me. Also, I was hoping to start with what you had created, but you only uploaded the png and not any svg file to work with that I could see. As to the source, it's based on my knowledge of having lived there, an aerial photo my wife took as a teenager (it's her home town), and cross reference with the city tourism guide. Some of this may appear off with the Google Map, which for some reason is incorrect in number of items. And yeah, the Open Street Map is practically non-existent. --(WT-en) Primecoordinator 11:51, 05 April 2010 (UTC)
The SVG is now uploaded (this would not normally be done until the map is finished). Just go ahead and use if it is helpful.

After a far from thorough read, I will try to post an audit list of what I think needs to happen to this article to get it to star standard.

  • Needs an opening paragraph that makes you want to go there.
  • Talk section needs wikilinks to Catalan and Spanish phrasebooks.
  • Get in section needs cities to be wikilinked, and the wikilink to Ryanair should be removed (there is no such article).
  • See section. All formal attractions need opening hours and admission prices. If no admission it should say so.
  • Do section. Is there no theatre or cinema in the town? Or anything else to do?
  • Buy section. Shops need opening hours and phone numbers.
  • Eat section. Restaurants need opening hours, phone numbers and prices.
  • Drink Section. Bars and Wineries need phone numbers and hours.
  • Sleep section. A sleeppricerange table would be good. All hotels need prices.
  • Stay safe section. Add the police station contact details and address.
  • Cope - no section at the moment. Hospital details would be good, plus libraries?
  • Contact - no section at the moment. Internet cafes? Post office? The area dialing code.

That's a start at least on specifics. Other small things, I have just gone ahead and changed. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:33, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the map. As to some items that you bring up:
  • Opening paragraph rewritten.
  • Talk linked out.
  • For Get in, not really sure what you're getting at. Is it standard style to re-link cities in Get In? And as for Ryanair, that should just link out to their main site, no?
A lot of the phone numbers just aren't going to happen. I'm not there currently and so it's impossible to look these things up as many of the places have no websites. I've added the ones that were easy to find. And answering the phone in general is a hit and miss thing. Most people just show up. I'll add the Cope and Contact sections when I get a chance as they're easy.
But, here's a large question for the community, in that why bother putting the exact prices for hotels? They change often, vary by season and nearly impossible to keep up to date. Shouldn't we do like most guides do and just keep them in general price ranges? I mean, people have to call or visit their website to make a reservation anyways so as long as they know that they're calling something in the Splurge range, that should be all, no? I ask this as when searching for hotels, even on their own websites the prices are never up to date, so I just ignore them. Seems like a useless, tedious thing to keep up on. --(WT-en) Primecoordinator 11:27, 06 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you do what you can with phone numbers. Some of the missing ones are easy - I just managed to find two with a Google search, eg TOT ART and Pastisseria Serra Lacasa. I appreciate that some may be harder. If they exist though a very large effort ought to be made to find them. An email to the local town council might be a good start.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:15, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Result: Slushed. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:48, 9 November 2010 (EST)

Russian phrasebookEdit

I'm hoping for some good feedback on this nomination, as it would be our first star phrasebook, and I'm not exactly sure what that will mean yet. It does rather clearly meet the requirements as currently written, but we may find that those should be tightened.

My understanding of Russian as a learned language is pretty strong, and it has also been thoroughly checked by several native speakers, so I am quite confident in its accuracy both in terms of English idioms and Russian translations. I'm more interested to see if others think it is as complete as it needs to be, and whether additional features could be added that we haven't really thought of yet. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:04, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

I want to hold off on a vote of support until I see other people weigh in on this, but this looks pretty solid to me. I can't think of any useful expressions you're missing here, but a couple of thoughts do cross my mind - in a couple of consonants in the pronunciation guide, you say something is pronounced like "___ in Spanish". Now, being from a region where a lot of Spanish is spoken, this isn't a problem for me, but I could imagine some English speaker looking at a ñ and thinking "huh?". The other thing is that very last expression on the list (Can I just pay a fine now?) - when you say "bribe", is that legal and/or commonly accepted? Don't want anyone getting in trouble here... (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 19:32, 13 August 2010 (EDT)
In virtually every country shaded green on that map, the "Can I pay the fine now?" phrase is unfortunately a pretty common way of interacting with "law enforcement"... particularly when caught peeing outside a bar or trying to cross the freaking border.
I addressed the unclear Spanish ñ bit. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:41, 13 August 2010 (EDT)
Based on my experience in Russia, I'd rank "Can I pay the fine now?" behind only "Thank you" and "Sorry/excuse me" on the list of phrases travelers should know. (And I wish I was joking.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:53, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

Since this isn't getting a ton of input (or any votes), I'll muse a bit on the question of what should a phrasebook ideally include:

  1. More images? The page is awfully black and white, which isn't visually appealing. On the other hand, I can't really think of a meaningful way to illustrate it beyond the map and alphabet key. Also, phrasebooks are likely to be printed from internet cafes, which may make it more important to keep images to a minimum. Anyhow, does anyone have suggestions on possible illustrations?
  2. More introductory prose? On what, exactly?
  3. Are there other categories of phrases not listed that would be helpful?

If given a bit of guidance, I definitely have the knowledge to add anything else that people would like to see. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:59, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

Phrasebooks are definitely not my forte. I will say that I'm not clear on the format of the pronunciation guide. For example, it says "e yeh - like yet" "e" is clearly the letter, but what is "yeh"? (WT-en) LtPowers 22:23, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
Yeh is the way the letter is pronounced. That is, the y part is integral to the pronunciation. I changed the example to yesterday, which might be more immediately understandable, I hope! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:11, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
Yeah, I figured that out, but the way it's organized is a bit confusing. It's hard to explain, but the way it's written, with <dd> and <dt> tags, implies that "e yeh" is what is being "defined", with "yesterday" the "definition" -- it implies that e and yeh are alternatives. In actual fact, it's "e" that is being "defined" with "yeh" part of the explanation. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:45, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Questions like "Where are you taking me?" are not accompanied by any possible options. If you ask a question, the most probable answers should be listed in order to understand the response, don't you think? Otherwise, the question is not particularly useful to ask.
Are there any experiences that one would often have in Russia or special topics that Russians are likely to talk about that would make sense to add to the phrasebook? For example, the Swahili phrasebook has a safari section with animals. Although that guide is nowhere near completion, special sections are where it is difficult to evaluate a phrasebook. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:47, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
I feel this is a little short for something to be a star. I'd like to see more food vocabulary...there's a dozen works now, how about the names of some fruits & vegetables. The authority section could use a few more phrases given it's significance in the region...My papers (visa) are in order, take me to the police station, I will not pay any fine until I speak to your police chief, etc. How do I ask "What time is it?". A few more directions could be added: where is a good (cheap) restaurant, what neighborhood am I in, how far is (name of town), where is the nearest subway station. Some adjectives would be useful: small/big, a lot/a little, interesting, expensive, hot, cold. And like ChubbyWimbus addresses, responses to questions you may be asked are also quite important! As for something interesting to insert, rather than pictures, a colored infobox might do the trick...you can address topics like deciphering addresses, names (Sveta=Svetlana, Sacha=Alexander, etc), how language/city names have changed since the soviet days, or (if there are any) common geographical names (ie. island, new/old, bay, village, upper/lower, etc). Keep in mind that the goal of a star page on WT is to be complete and lacking a desire to use another source. (WT-en) AHeneen 11:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Great feedback. I'll get to work on satisfying these requests. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Might be nice to have a section for major dialects — if there are any significant variances between how the language is spoken in Moscow compared to, say, Yakutsk, whether that be in terms of vocabulary or accent. It wouldn't have to go into great detail, and could mostly just link to the relevant sections of those articles if they have 'Talk' sections. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:48, 22 August 2010 (EDT)

Never use phrasebooks (I think I should), so difficult to comment--but if you have specific questions, I'd be happy to try answering.

As for paying fine right now, do we really need to emphasize in phrasebook (rather than in a destination guide) that it implies offering a bribe? Asking for an option to pay immediately is absolutely legitimate from a western tourist's point of view, and yes, he should expect a receipt etc. But if/when Russian law enforcement guys start being able to officially accept fines ad hoc, with receipts etc--should we change phrasebook to reflect that? I believe phrasebook should only help to translate. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:10, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

A phrasebook certainly should provide cultural notes on when a phrase is appropriate to use, as it can vary widely. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:18, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
This is a hard one to comment on, but for a start I really think cursive script should be included in the table since I clearly remember having trouble with those; R/г, д/д, и/и, т/т, even though i see it's noted, and it's partially visible in the handwritten script - i don't think it's clear whether this is a difference between handwritten and printed letters, or as is the case, also between printed regular and cursive script. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 07:35, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
Cursive is included to the right in the image table. I figured that it would make things too crowded and overwhelming to include the cursive letters on the main list, but if others disagree, lets change that.
On another note, it's been long enough where it would be legitimate to slush this, but I do intend to make the suggested changes by the end of October, so there may not be a need. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:31, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
I take that back--I won't be able to spend good time on this until January, so... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:34, 26 November 2010 (EST)

Result: slushed for now

Hong KongEdit

I think this article is good enough to be a star. Every district is at guide status. (WT-en) Sumone10154 21:47, 26 January 2011 (EST)

I'd certainly say Hong Kong is not ready yet. The districts are at an appalling state compared to a similar city like Singapore. We only recently decided to split up Hong Kong Island, so things are still in a state of flux. I also think this district scheme could use some changes. For now we use "central", "eastern" and "southern" Hong Kong Island, but these are quite boring names not reflecting the neighborhoods. And these articles are new, with many incomplete and messy listings. I did some clean-up lately at Hong Kong/Kowloon, and while apparently listed as a "guide", I still think it has a long way to go. Then there are the outlying islands, which is an unwieldy and messy article. I think the three larger outlying islands should just have their own article, just like Lantau (Lamma, Peng Chau and Cheung Chau). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 02:49, 1 February 2011 (EST)
Agree that Hong Kong is far from being a star. The status of all district articles has recently been changed to guide, but most of them should really be usable. I suggest we remove this nomination for now, work with the district articles until they really deserve to be guides and after that reconsider to work with the Hong Kong article to become a star. There is a long way to go, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 03:14, 1 February 2011 (EST)
So for the district articles what has to be done? (besides fixing the listings) (WT-en) –sumone10154 08:07, 1 February 2011 (EST)
Hi Sumone! Listingfication is a huge job and especially moving the content in the correct sub-articles is a major task. User:(WT-en) Herngong is a seasoned user here and actively improves the article. I think the article can be turned fast into a strong guide article, when someone (you?) starts working and especially brings the overloaded text again to live. We tried to revive HK article several times but so far guide level was the most. HK doesn't lack content but structure and living writing. (WT-en) jan 09:09, 1 February 2011 (EST)
  • Not yet. I agree that the district articles are not up to the standards that should be expected of a huge city star—they are far, far behind the quality found in our other Project:Star articles like Chicago, Bangkok, San Francisco, etc. Just looking at a few district articles, I would definitel dispute that they are at guide status. The most important (I think) would be Hong Kong/Central Hong Kong Island and Hong Kong/Kowloon. Both have empty sections, listings lacking details and descriptions, and I'm not sure how carefully curated the buy, eat, and drink sections really are. Furthermore, while the guidelines do only require guide status for the district articles, star status is meant to signify that our guide is either competitive with or superior to the best of our competition from other guidebooks. Without any district article maps, I think it's fair to say that this guide is still a pretty long ways off from that benchmark. For such a fantastic destination, though, it would be great to see the guide get closer to star status! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:15, 1 February 2011 (EST)

Result: slushed.

Bangkok/RattanakosinEdit

The Bangkok train goes on, now at station Rattanakosin, by far my favorite district :-) I'd be glad to hear your opinions. As I am not a native speaker, small bits might need rewriting as there is a lot of prose in the See section. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 22:04, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

It's my favourite part of Bangkok as well :). First reaction is that this is a quite superb article. There are so many attractions that the thought of tackling them all must have been a daunting prospect. I will give the article a thorough read when I have time, and post any comments here.--(WT-en) burmesedays 00:21, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
Nice article. I will go through more extensively later, but my first impression is that the History section needs a rewrite. The information is probably fine, but it does not read smoothly. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:53, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

I would like some more comments before I go ahead and promote this one. --(WT-en) Globe-trotter 19:45, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

I have only given it a very quick read at this time but I agree with Peter that the History section needs a re-write. The intro to the See section needs some work to clarify it, maybe the individual attractions mentioned in the intro paragraph do not need to be bolded. Looks like that article has had a lot of development already put into it. I really like that Reclining Buddha at Wat Pho image, especially at the head of the article, personally I like the size of it, but should it be downsized though for all the normal reasons. Good work. -- (WT-en) felix 00:45, 6 November 2011 (EDT)

Result: slushed.

Charlotte/Uptown (demotion)Edit

I hate to suggest demoting any star article, especially one that I myself nominated for the status in the first place, but this article has really been allowed to stagnate. A recent visit to Charlotte showed me just how out of date the material was, something I tried to fix. However, I came across a bunch of listings that have since closed (most of them nightclubs) and after removing them now it feels rather incomplete, especially compared to some of our other city district articles that have become stars since this one did. Much as I hate stripping this one of its title, it's going to take a lot of work to get this back up to truly star status and it really shouldn't be held up as an example of our finest work any longer. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2012 (CEST)

This has been up for a few months without any comment. Would anyone object to me demoting it? PerryPlanet (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, these are sad, so I'm not as enthusiastic a commenter. I'll take your word for it, though, regarding the material being out-of-date. If it's not reworkable, then do go ahead. --Peter Talk 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It still looks good I think. You've removed the out of date listings, so I'm not sure removing it from star status is necessary. Globe-trotter (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: not demoted.

StockholmEdit

As I am a co-author, the decision should be on others. /Yvwv (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Not yet. But it is great to see the Stockholm guide improved by leaps and bounds. For a huge city guide to be at star status, all districts must be at guide status or better. And really, the most important districts should be star or near-star quality, including district maps. Most of the districts are still just at usable status, and a few seem to be stuck at outline status. There are also a few listed that seem a bit confusing—Södertälje and Sigtuna both are self-described separate municipalities, and Södertörn seems to have sub-destinations in the cities and other destinations categories. With regards to the overview article, which is excellent, there are some more areas for improvement. In particular, all individual listings for sights, restaurants, shops, etc., should be moved from the overview article to the appropriate district articles, and should be replaced with overview prose, with links to relevant districts. --Peter Talk 01:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Does Wikivoyage have principles for which suburban districts to include with a city article? Including a suburban city such as Sigtuna in the Stockholm article would be motivated as it lies within the Stockholm public transport system, contains Stockholm's main international airport, and could be considered to visit during a one-day stop. On the other hand, it is a city in its own right. /Yvwv (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of our city articles treat suburbs as distinct destinations, but I'm of the opinion that close-in suburbs are often part of the city as far as the traveler is concerned. That's the approach I've taken with Rochester (New York), but I'm not aware of any other places for which that's the case. LtPowers (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Copenhagen also incorporates the suburbs. But most other cities don't. It depends on the destination I think. Globe-trotter (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Stockholm Municipality and Stockholm County are divided between provinces Uppland and Södermanland. Possibly Stockholm County could be a superior region to Stockholm. However, administrative borders are in many cases irrelevant to the traveller, as they are sometimes complicated; Solna and Sundbyberg are autonomous, while Kista, further away from central Stockholm in the same direction, is part of the Stockholm municipality. /Yvwv (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: slushed for now. --Peter Talk 15:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Singapore (demotion)Edit

See note below

This article is very well written and has a lot of useful information. But it lacks a map showing the locations of all the districts and what their borders are. How did it become a Star article without one? Having just visited Singapore, I found the districts system very confusing. Using the maps in the district articles (note that some of the sub-articles don't even have maps!) there appears to be large gaps where entire streets and neighbourhoods are not covered at all. The hotel I was to stay at, the Victoria Hotel, was not included in any district's borders. For that reason, I think the article should be demoted to a 'Potential star', until there has been an improvement of the districts system and maps. JamesA >talk 14:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment James: Singapore is one of our oldest Star articles Talk:Singapore#Star that went live in summer 2006. At that time requirements for Star have be lower but also the article degenerated lately due to nonsense edits and discussions. I know some of our most experienced users (who started the initial nom) are still around and one even lives in Singapore. jan (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    Understood, which is a perfect reason why we need to remove the status, fix it over a few weeks then renominate. It isn't just one minor issue that can be solved in a day, but numerous problems that may involve long discussions. JamesA >talk 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be denominated to guide status. There are big gaps in the hierarchy, and Singapore/Marina Bay is only at usable status. Globe-trotter (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Demote. I admit, I've been tempted in the past to nominate it for demotion, given that it has long fallen below our current standards for huge city star articles. I'm sure it was one of our best guides back in the day, but it's about time we demoted it. That said, it's very nearly a star, I'd say it just needs more content and maps in the district articles, to match up with the high standards we've set with San Francisco, Chicago, D.C., and Copenhagen. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm changing my vote. It's clear that some amazing work has been done on these articles in the past few months, elevating Singapore to the ranks of among our best city guides once again. Star. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - In recent days, there appears to have been a major push by some great users to sort out the districts, include some maps and clean up the prose. For that reason, I haven't yet pushed for this discussion to be ended and the article demoted, as there is a chance it could be back at star standard in a week or two. JamesA >talk 00:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the patience James. I was cracking along with the maps, but ran into all the outdated listings and had to look at other stuff to keep up my interest. So if anyone does have the time to fact check (which I've been doing online anyway) especially for Singapore/Riverside, that would be great. Otherwise that timeframe is a little short. Also, do you all think the Singapore/North and West map is sufficient, anything more then using an OpenStreetMap is probably more feasible.
One more thing, I'm wondering whether there're easier ways to check the 'up-to-date-ness', maybe taking the earliest retrieval date of the external links, i.e. if [1] is retrieved in 2006 then we only consider the entire article updated to 2006. Correct me if I'm wrong about how external links work though. - Torty3 (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn - After taking another look at the article, there appears to have been a major renewal of the article over the past few months. A massive congratulations and thanks to the users who worked on the article. It is definitely deserving of that star now. Therefore, I withdraw my earlier nomination to remove the star. If there's no more outstanding opposers, I guess this can be archived. JamesA >talk 10:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

LondonEdit

This is a beautiful article featuring everything you need to know about London. It lists many, many attractions. It also has a detailed "Be safe" section that is very comprehensive. This article is all you would ever need to know if you visited London. It is extremely detailed and is everything it needs to be. —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talkcontribs)

It is indeed an excellent article - but it's not a star. Per Wikivoyage:City guide status, in order for it to be a star, all district articles have to be at "guide" status, and many are merely at "usable". If you would like to put the work into getting those usables to guides and renominate London for star status, by all means go for it. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BaltimoreEdit

This is a very well done, practical article, that covers all aspects of Baltimore, from the touristy inner harbor to the seedier areas. It has everything a star article needs. It covers the entire city, a most impressive achievment for a city as infamous as Baltimore. I think it deserves a star. —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talkcontribs)

I believe that for a city guide to be a star article, all the district articles have to be at least guides. Most of the Baltimore district articles are guides, and one is a star, but North Baltimore is an outline and Southeast Baltimore is usable. So someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both those articles have to be brought up to guide level before Baltimore could be made a star. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
'Any district articles are at least "guide" status'. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 22:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.Edit

This is a fantastic article thoroughly covering the capitol of the United States. It is one article that needs a star. All of the districts are at least guides, and many of them are star articles. I'm amazed such a major tourist destination managed to bypass star status so long.—The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talkcontribs)

(1) Once again, please sign your posts on talk pages. I explained how in your user talk page. (2) It already is a star. Please check before nominating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mohenjo-daroEdit

Perhaps this is really immodest but since the article is at guide status, recently passed the OtBP nomination and mention everything that this small destination have to offer, I would like to nominate it for star nomination and see if it can be a first South Asian star article. Saqib (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Not yet - Ambition! That's good :-) However, although surely a guide and a feature article, stars should be almost perfect, and this one isn't yet, imho. Some issues are already mentioned at the OtbT nomination and at the article's talk page: spelling and grammar is good but not flawless yet, style is okay but not "stylistically superior and effective". For star standards, an archaeological site like this should indeed have a more extensive history section, explaining about the civilisation that built it and the archaeological history of excavations and the discovered artefacts (why is that dancing girl so important, e.g.). It should also have more detailed information about the places to stay and that restaurant, and the stalls around. I would also need better quality pictures, I think. I understand that it's hard to live up to those standards from a distance, as there seems to be limited practical information online (although there's plenty of info regarding history). Hopefully someone will visit there soon and get more information and pictures :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for comment Julia. Your concerns well noted. If I didn't had accident, I guess I was planning now to visit the site and catch all the practical information you asked above. -Saqib (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Julia, so I'm planning to visit the site soon, May I know apart from mentioned above asked information, anything else which I should gather? --Saqib (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Clarence (New York)Edit

I think this article, which User:AndreCarrotflower has worked so hard on, is really exemplary and should be made a star. It's so comprehensive and has wonderful illustrative photos in just about every section. Do you agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It's a fine article, but it has no map, which is a requirement. LtPowers (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Besides the glaring lack of a map, I'm also finding the way the images are aligned, alternating between right and left, really distracting. Maybe it's just because they're formatted so huge - which is another matter; save for the lead image, none of the photos seem interesting or detailed enough to justify having them at such large sizes. There is also some detailed information I question having. For instance, the mention of the Continental Connections Flight 3407 crash (I'm pretty sure I watched that Air Crash Investigation episode a couple of weeks ago); what use is that info to a traveler? It may have been a big event for this town, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should define it. Now, all that said, this is a good article, and I would like to see it come back with these issues resolved. It'd be very interesting to see an article about a suburb get a star. PerryPlanet (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • LtPowers and Perry, the lack of a map didn't register for me, and is obviously a good point. Perry, it's interesting to read your different take on the photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    I may try to whip up a map if I find the time. LtPowers (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Map complete, though "whip up" turned out to be a hopeless ideal. LtPowers (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    The photos are now right-aligned, as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Left-aligned images have always been frowned upon here - you may have noticed that literally less than 0.5% of our articles contain them (intentionally curated this way), and the ones we do have now were added in the last few months since launch, mostly by User:AndreCarrotflower, and possibly a couple of other users. They remain controversial as far as I know, since they create a meandering text flow, reduce scannability of listings, introduce flow and formatting problems (same reason we are happy to eliminate the vertical TOC), and present one more aesthetic variable for editors to disagree and fuss over. I personally despise the idea of introducing them sitewide, and if I had come across this article randomly, I absolutely would have changed the image positions back to our right-aligned standard. Texugo (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would also have an issue with left-aligned images in a star article, because they disrupt the flow of the text/bulleted items and make it difficult to scan. --Peter Talk 23:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    To play devil's advocate, though... don't most professionally published works try to vary the alignment of images in order to provide visual interest? LtPowers (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Text publishers have absolute control over formatting, always ensuring text is not broken up in random ways and listings remains appropriately grouped, etc.. We, however, are subject to a variety of things which affect our layouts in random ways depending on the reader's combination of window size, monitor size, font size, and browser type. Left-aligning images causes a number of random problems which may not be evident to the person originally deciding how the layout should be done. Texugo (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • While I was flattered by Ikan's note on my user page, I must confess I was surprised that Clarence was nominated for Star status especially in view of the fact that it doesn't have a map. Nonetheless, I agree that it's a well-written article and could easily be a Star with a map and a few other tweaks.
By way of addressing some of the other points brought up here: the reason for the left-aligned photos is that, as an amateur photographer, I tend to use a lot of photos in my articles. As LtPowers said, I feel that varying the position of the photos provides balance to a page, which I realize is at odds with Wikivoyage convention. But, much more importantly than that, the main reason I do so is to avoid having one photo stacked directly on top of another, which would happen frequently in an article like Buffalo if not for the staggered photo positions. That concern doesn't apply to Clarence, though, so I wouldn't oppose it one bit if someone went in there and shifted all the photos to the right.
I do have to rebut PerryPlanet's comments on mentioning the Continental Connections Flight 3407 crash in the "History" section. Among articles on this site, "History" is a pretty common subsection of "Understand"—but to take a strict reading of ttcf, we may as well jettison all the "History" sections sitewide as little if any of the information in them is indispensable information for travellers. Any historical information that has been integral in shaping the identity of a place would no doubt be reflected in what type of destinations are found there, and so forth. But being that the majority of Wikivoyagers who've written long and detailed articles have concluded through their own work that it's better to include a "History" section even if it runs afoul of a strict reading of ttcf, I included the information about the plane crash for the simple reason that if not for that, the "History" section of the Clarence article would have come to a dead stop in, if I remember correctly, the 1960s or '70s with the construction of the malls. It wouldn't read right; it's not as if nothing has happened in Clarence for the past half-century.
Pride in my own work aside, an honest answer by me to the question of whether Clarence qualifies as a Star article at the present moment would be "close, but not quite". I do think it has potential, and I look forward to working with my fellow Wikivoyagers to bring it up to snuff.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"Any historical information that has been integral in shaping the identity of a place..." And there's the rub. How is this plane crash integral to the shaping of Clarence? It was a one-time accident and any traces of it are most likely gone by this point. Anyway, I don't really see anything wrong with a history section on a travel guide ending in the 70s. I mean... it's a suburb. It probably hasn't changed much in the last 40-50 years. You could also just leave it on a general statement of "Today, Clarence is/enjoys... [insert general characteristics of place here]" to put something more conclusive at the end of the section. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Well and good, but that seems to me to be beside the point. There appear to be two conflicting ideas here. As I said, if "the traveler comes first" is to be observed strictly at all times, we probably shouldn't write "History" subsections. However, in practice, most Wikivoyagers seem to think ttcf can be relaxed to allow for them. So the question I have is, if we're willing to include subsections like "History" despite the fact that a) a strict reading of ttcf would frown on including information like that and b) everything that's "been integral in shaping the identity of a place" can be incorporated into other sections, then why limit "History" to those integral identity-shaping facts? Isn't that kind of redundant? In point of fact, can't a reader who's not interested in the history of a place simply skip down to the next section?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
If you're taking my argument to mean that we shouldn't have history subsections, you're completely missing my point. And I disagree that a strict interpretation of "the traveler comes first" means you can't have history sections. The idea (as I've always understood it) of having a history section is that you're providing some context for the reader so that they can get a sense of the identity of the place. For instance, look at the history section of Chicago: it's a very basic overview that doesn't get into a lot of minor specific events, but instead mentions only those large-scale trends or the rare really big event that played a major role in shaping the identity or layout of the city. Same with San Francisco or Pittsburgh. The Grand Canyon article doesn't need to talk about the 1956 mid-air collision over the Grand Canyon because an understanding of that isn't going to help a traveler get a sense of the identity of the Grand Canyon. We don't need to mention the "Miracle on the Hudson" in the New York City article.
I like to think of it as the difference between something that happened in that place, versus something that happened to that place, if that makes any sense. Anyway, we're getting way off-track here, the reason I brought up the plane crash in the first place was because I thought there was a lot of overly detailed information in the Understand section (do we really need all that census data?) and having an entire paragraph devoted to a plane crash struck me as the most obvious example. PerryPlanet (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The crash information does have some value, in that it's a recent event that may jog readers' memories as to where they've heard the name "Clarence" before. (Besides in It's a Wonderful Life.) LtPowers (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I think we could still cut back on the detail; it doesn't need a paragraph when a short mention would do. Something like "Tragedy struck Clarence in February of 2009 when a commuter plane crashed into a house in Clarence Center, spurring a rush of inquiries and strengthened airline regulations." We don't need to get into flight numbers, the cause of the crash, or a count of the dead; leave that info to Wikipedia. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd be perfectly happy to compromise by keeping the information in a streamlined or simplified form. Much of the text of that article, especially the "History" section, was sourced from a project on local history that I've been working on intermittently. Though my work on that project and on Wikivoyage do overlap in certain areas, I agree that the more academic approach of the other project tends to bleed through—especially when text is copied lock, stock and barrel. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] LtPowers: Great job on the map! The whole-city map is a little difficult to read, though. Would it be possible to enlarge it some without messing up the rest of the format of the article? I realize there's a very readable inset, but there's a bunch of other stuff to see in other parts of town. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following you. The icons in the inset are the exact same size as the icons in the main map. LtPowers (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
They look bigger, then, because there's more space between them. I think the pitch of the text for the numbered items on the left of the map probably should be bigger, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If you think 500px is too small, feel free to experiment with different image widths, but I'm not sure how much bigger we can make it. LtPowers (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll see what I can do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It was at lot clearer at 620px, but I dialed it back to 585px, which is the largest size that - barely - can fit on a single screen, being mindful of the difficulties in printing a map that requires piecing together two or more screens. I do think it's significantly clearer now than before. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
How do you define "one screen"? LtPowers (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] I define "one screen" as fitting (barely) on a single screen on my own desktop computer, providing that the top of the map is very close to the top of my screen and the bottom is very close to the bottom of my screen. If a lot of people's screens are small enough that the map is too big now, or if it's very unlikely to print on a single sheet of paper, that would be problematic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Very close. The two things that jump out at me as a blocker is the lack of descriptions for some listings and the use of duplicate listings, neither of which are that big of a deal in a guide article, but shouldn't be in a star article. This can be solved pretty neatly by just picking a section for the twice-listed items (Brennans sounds like it would be better in Drink, and it's OK to not have a ton of listings there, especially if you can just mention the most notable ones in the Drink intro). The coffeeshops should probably all just be in Drink, unless they are particularly notable for the food. We generally don't list grocery stores, unless you are in an area where self-catering is the norm or only option. I think the grocery stores are too much information, and should be struck. If the local chains are worth keeping (I'm not sure if they are, since there is already a long list of good Eat recommendations), they should still have some sort of description, ideally a mention of what they are + what is unique about that particular location. If there's nothing to say about them that hasn't been said elsewhere, just copy what's most important/most interesting from the relevant Buffalo articles—this article should be self-sufficient for the sake of downloaders and printers.
This next point is not, IMO, enough of a reason to hold up a starnom, but I'll still make the recommendation, since I think it would significantly improve the guide: edit the article down to size. Edit it like a madman intent on ridding the world of text. Good information and writing can get lost when there's too much information. The sections that stand out are Understand, Connect, Stay healthy, and especially Cope. Understand is really thick, and I had a lot of trouble reading it (I don't have a great attention span).
The other way to handle the issue of big blocks of text is just to make the lead sentence of each more attention-grabbing. Funny enough, the part PerryPlanet brought up was the one part that I immediately wanted to read, since it started with Tragedy struck... On the other hand, the lead paragraph of the section starts with a bunch of dry facts that aren't relevant to travel, like the square miles of the town, census definitions, and then gets bogged down in demographic statistics that could be replaced with something like "The wealthiest town in the Buffalo area (and one of the least diverse), Clarence has a bit of a snobby reputation." (Spin that however you like.) The next paragraph starts with Of all the cities... Clarence has the longest cities. I'm worried that the reader reaction at seeing that and then the big blocks of text following is "No kidding! Skim." The big problem there is that what follows is really good stuff, with a nice narrative, but which could all be edited down into something less intimidatingly big and more focused. Try and reduce the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level of those lengthy, punctuation-rich sentences down to something that a 16-year-old would be able to read ;)
I think you could do without most all the information in Connect (how many travelers are going to need this information?). The thing that might be missing, however, is a listing for the main public library, which would have useful computer/internet facilities. Stay healthy is almost always omitted from all but Country articles, and occasionally huge city articles. Cope really shouldn't have a laundry section, unless it's especially relevant (like for a backpacker stop at the end of a popular, grueling wilderness hike). Having it there (along with the yellow pages-like listing of all religious congregations) makes the article look less like a travel guide, and more like a locals/new residents guide or a department of commerce website. For the congregation section, I would remove all but the most notable—probably all but Clarence Church of Christ, St Mary's RC Church of Swormville, and maybe Niagara Frontier Sikh Society if it's interesting enough for a description. Then just briefly mention that "Jewish and Muslim services can be found in Amherst." I'd remove the broadcast section.
Lastly, 400px is really big by our standards for thumbnails, and I think you are using that because your thumb descriptions are 4-5x the length of what you'll find in other articles. That's another good place to look to trim, condense, and make tighter/punchier.
Now of course, I'm whinging about lengthy blocks of text while writing the same right here! But I hope this is useful criticism. If you'd like to see more examples of what I mean [1], I'll happily help with some of this—just say the word. I'm always reluctant to copyedit your work, since you're easily one of our best content contributors, and I don't want to step on your toes ;) But if you could just keep in mind the mantra "less is more" while you write, you'd quickly become one of our best writers in terms of style too. --Peter Talk 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Very nearly. User:Peterfitzgerald makes a good point about thumbnail sizes - especially for our poor readers on slow and or expensive data connections. If there is a good reason for not leaving them to display at the readers default preference width, then you might like to consider specifying them as a factor of that default width. That way, readers who have specified the smallest possible default width will not be so greatly inconvenienced by a (large) hard-coded width. --118.93nzp (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

TravemündeEdit

Mates, during the last weeks i put in a lot of effort to get Travemünde up to the star level. It is nominated for OtBP for next summer and hopefully it is by then a star article. I read all policies and hope that i didn't miss one. User:Mey2008 was so kind to add a dynamic map, so i hope this is an appropriate equivalent to our superb static WV maps. Thank you in advance for all your feedback. Regards, jan (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Close Support. It lacks rates in Sleep section. I got interested in Sail Ship Passat and can't find them anywhere! Jjtkk (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Good spot, added! Prices are not published as the Lübeck city administration runs the booking of the Sail Ship and prices are cost based. jan (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Right now Passat is listed twice (in Do and Sleep) which could be considered against our don't tout policy but I think it's one of the exemption cases. Anyway I'd move it from Do to See since it's a museum. Jjtkk (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
@Jjtkk: I think your concerns have now been addressed, haven't they?
If so, would you please formally change your "close" to a "support"? --118.93nzp (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet Support. It is a very nice guide. However, there are some inconsistencies and several things missing, for example: See/Do sections - why is one lighthouse in See and the other in Do? Buy: hours missing. Hours in the whole article must be used in a consistent style, so far they are mixed (AM/PM and 24 hour style). Sleep: prices missing. Do visitors have to pay Kurtaxe at the beach in Travemünde? I would also add Mobile home parks for completeness to the accommodation section, as many visitors and travellers through Travemünde (for example those who continue to Skandinavia with ferries) use them. Danapit (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. Lighthouse Old light house is listed unter do because you can climb to the top and attend activities. The new light house is not open for visitors and can only be seen from outside. Just see, no action therefore according to our listing policy tow different sections
  2. hours/prices Good spot, added the business hours and prices for sleeping (see comment above forJjtkk)
  3. AM/PM Standard is am/pm. I saw this morning an addition which was German style and changed it to am/pm. I read through and think i have corrected all
  4. Mobile home I checked the address and imho only the camping ground on Priwall is within the Travemünde town limits. There is a mobile home campground but offically it has a Lübeck post code.
  5. Kurtaxe You got me;)That's the tricky part as business travellers don't have to pay it, according to newspapers and some legal newsletters (same goes for city tax in Lübeck, Cologne and Berlin) but leisure travellers have to pay one Euro per day to use the beach. I will add a brief note to not complicate it to much. jan (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
@Danapit: I think your concerns have now been addressed, haven't they?
If so, would you please formally change your "Not yet" to a "support"? --118.93nzp (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Where do you get the weird idea that, outside of US articles, "Standard is am/pm. I saw this morning an addition which was German style and changed it to am/pm"???
In case you haven't noticed, Travemünde is in Germany, so why do you think we shouldn't follow our current policy of choosing between 12hr and 24hr formats by following predominant local usage? --W. Franke-mailtalk 19:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment on time format: I think time should be shown in 24-hour format in this article, per Wikivoyage:Time and date formats: "Use one of these formats: 09:30–17:00 or 9:30AM–5PM. Do not use both 24- and 12-hour formats within one article. Choose between formats by following predominant local usage. Ask yourself which format visitors will see in timetables, on shop doors and in newspapers." Is there something I missed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Ikan, shops that focus on German travellers use the 24-hour system. Business that focus on international business tends to use the 12-hour system. I have now standardised all entries to 12-hours as the english version is likely to be read by international travellers and less Germans. jan (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
A lighthouse that you can enter and look around functions as a museum, which go in See. Plus it makes sense to group similar attractions together even if they're technically different in scope of allowed activities. LtPowers (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
LtP: ok, i moved it to see. Any other spots? jan (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Jan, thank you for making the improvements. Regarding WoMo Stellplätze, I have found some on the internet that might actually be in Travemünde, but I've never stayed there: Park and sail and Wohnmobilstellplatz Kowitzberg and Stellplatz Fischereihafen. What do you think, are they worth adding? Danapit (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@Danapit, thank you for the links. I will add them. Was briefly in Travemünde and checked both, P+S is really basic but the other one is fine. jan (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Jan, thank you for checking and adding that. Basic: well, if you travel with a camper van, that's all you need, isn't it?
  • Support: hope the dynamic maps will show up all right soon, otherwise the missing map might be the only reason for opposition from my side. Danapit (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the map is not "Wikivoyage-style", and it displays overlapping icons and overlapping text. Not an example of our best work. LtPowers (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
To LtPowers: Do you still maintain your opposition to promotion because of the dynamic map?
If so, perhaps you would clarify whether you intend to oppose all further Starnoms that use dynamic maps, please? --118.93nzp (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
My concerns with the map have not been addressed; the icons still overlap unprofessionally and interfere with the text, and the map is not in Wikivoyage style. As to your second question, others have suggested that it's possible to create a dynamic map that looks good; I'm still waiting. LtPowers (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Valle de CocoraEdit

It's a little cheeky to nominate this just an hour after writing it, but I honestly think it's ready. It would be our second Colombian star (and by extension our second South American star), and it is a another really cool, weird destination. The vast majority of the information is firsthand from late 2012, but I found some price updates by reading 2013 blog posts, making this fully up-to-date. It also makes use of our new dynamic maps functionality, and is an easy one to do, since OSM already did the hard work of identifying the four marked locations, as well as the trails themselves (helped by GPS-toting mountain climbers). The one "weakness" of the guide is that it's quite short, but I don't think there is really anything else that needs writing. As a fun (I hope) and quick read, hopefully I'll get some comments here ;) --Peter Talk 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. I certainly can't find anything wrong with it. My one suggestion would be to try to expand the intro, but that's not a serious enough concern for me to oppose seeing a star on this thing. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support I'm only jealous that i didn't made it so far. jan (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The dynamic map is insufficient; it doesn't show the boundaries of the protected area, the campground icon is so close to the Acaime icon that I can't click on the latter at all (even at full zoom), and it doesn't grab me aesthetically. I don't think this map is an example of our best work. LtPowers (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The boundaries are left off for a reason: Valle de Cocora is more of a conceptual park, comprised of a complex patchwork of individual protected areas ("Reservas Naturales de la Sociedad Civil & Áreas de Conservación y Manejo") within the Distrito Regional de Manejo Integrado de la Cuenca Alta del Rio Quindío. That's a much bigger area than the "park" as understood in the touristic sense. See the map at bottom right this pdf. That's all of some (obscure) interest, but isn't really travel relevant, since all visits to the park are done along the paths as shown on the map, which are either fenced in from pasture or surrounded by thick enough jungle where you wouldn't want to stray. The campground and wooden gate icons are clustered like this only until Joachim fixes it (it's a temporary problem that cropped up just this week), which should be any day now. As to your general dislike of the look, I don't really know what to say other than to join the Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition and help develop a better style. They're the way of the future, señor. --Peter Talk 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The clustering problem is now fixed. --Peter Talk 22:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Indeed, but there are still some overlapping elements on the map -- one of the trails overlays the name of the river at the default zoom level, and two icons overlay the word "Cocora". And the map as a whole just seems to lack something... context maybe? It's just that looking at the map, I don't have a good feel for what I'm looking at except four points. What's the difference between the green trail and the brown trail? Are the POIs all there is, or does the park extend beyond in either direction? LtPowers (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until formatting has been fixed.

I'd fix the thumbnail images myself but I don't want to provoke a riot.

If readers bother to register a user name and then tailor their thumbnail sizes to their own particular preferences, I don't see it as proper formatting to then flout their expressed wishes.

Although pixel counts are easier to understand than upright factors, they adjust less well to user preferences. For example, suppose a picture contains some detail and by default is a bit too small, and you want to grow it by about 10%. Although "upright=1.1" and "240px" do the job equally well for the common case where the default width is 220 pixels, many of the users who set the default width to 300 pixels to work better with their high-resolution screens will be annoyed with "200px" because it will make the picture a third smaller than their preferred size. In contrast, "upright=1.1" will display the picture to them with a width of 330 pixels, and this is more likely to work well on their displays.

Leaving thumbnails without a designated size in pixels means that those readers who have not bothered/chosen not to change the default will see a display 220 pixels wide (170 pixels if the "upright" option is used). In general, it's best not to define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size, at say 260px, will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set in their user preferences.

Also, our dynamic map makers are making fantastic progress and this will be a benefit to all readers and editors.

However, right now there is a wee problem with the changed listing template introducing extraneous punctuation when it is used in-line in prose.

Eg: {{see | name=wooden entrance gate | lat=4.637916 | long=-75.486837}} now produces 1 wooden entrance gate. , complete with an extraneous full stop after the name. --W. Franke-mailtalk 16:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm actually not seeing the map at all, unless I click it to enlarge. In the article, I see a big white empty space. Another detail: is there a reason not to properly list Acaime as a lodging option, if they have dorm beds available? If you are indeed a hiker, it might be handy to know prices and so? Otherwise though, very nice article, looks like a great place too. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Tokyo/RoppongiEdit

It is my first nomination but I believe I added everything the article needed. I am not a native speaker, so there are no Stephen Colbert references and few traces of humour, but I hope it is an interesting read. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks quite good, but why are some of the "See" listings indented and others not? Also, in "stay safe," I think the relevance of the fact that some of the best clubs require the use of an elevator needs clarification. Finally, while I really like the interactive map, I think that for optimal usefulness, it should have street names in Romaji in addition to Hiragana/Kanji. Street signs in Tokyo do include Romaji, in any case, in my limited experience (I have not visited anything close to the entire city). So I think it could be close to a star, it's not there quite yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you for the feedback! The 2 sub-intended lists in "See" is for Hills and Midtown, the 2 complexes that each contain a lot of points of interest. I will check how this can be made clearer. Or should I skip the notion altogether? The goal is to allow people to see things they want in 1 complex before moving to the other. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see that now, but what confused me is that the subheadings themselves have numbers next to them. I think it would be helpful to use subheading notation (=== ===). Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost. It's great to see this article so much improved from when I last looked at it (it's attracted some weird editors in the past). There are still remaining details to hunt down: every listing should have either an address or a directions field entry, many eat listings are missing price ranges, and many eat and drink listings are missing hours information. There are quite a few listings without telephone numbers as well. That's OK if they really don't have a number, but I would assume that these should. The buy section looks a little thin, so if it's possible to add a few more interesting stores either inside or outside the malls, that would improve the article.

Lastly, it's really exciting to see the dynamic map in the nominated article! Having an experimental feature, though, will mean that this nomination may last for a time while feature issues are sorted out. The one thing missing from the map that strikes me as a major issue is that the boundaries of Roppongi are not defined (as we usually would using light gray versus dark gray). --Peter Talk 15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! OK, I will try harder to find the missing phone numbers/business hours, and look for interesting buys. Yes, I am aware that maps are experimental, and this nomination is also a way to get more feedback about the usability of the map experiment. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the map except there is no indication of where Roppongi is. Some indication of where it it in relation to the rest of Tokyo, either in the existing map, if possible (preferred), or in another basic map. The map in the main Tokyo article is also not sufficient for this purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Peter! Are there articles that have this type of map? For inspiration, and to check whether this is a widespread habit. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know the usual procedure on street maps is to grey out the area outside the area of the article, or use different colors, so one can see the shape and the boundaries of the district. Like this one [2]. The other option, if this is not possible on the dynamic map, is a blowup of the part of the district map which contains Roppongi [3] to just show Minato, with the extents of Roppongi delineated. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this will be terribly easy to do in the dynamic maps, but I think we'll need to. Showing the exact street boundaries is really important to help editors know where to place listings. Looking at the districts map in the city overview article helps, but isn't a replacement for this sort of visual information. --Peter Talk 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Great feedback for the whole Dynamic Maps Expedition! That won't be easy indeed, I had overlooked this requirement. By the way, feel free to add other requirements or desired features ideas. Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think before Tokyo's districts can be considered for star nomination, it's REALLY important that we close the districting discussion which is still on the Tokyo guide. I read the discussion on the talk page but it just seems to wane off in regards to the actual important topics of merging/reorganizing when the maps were introduced. Was that supposed to end the discussion? If we believe that the discussion is in fact closed, then we should take off the notice. If there are still districts that need merging/reorganized, please make them known. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not know this discussion! As far as I understand, the outcome is what is described in the "table updated 9 Nov." table, but the maps don't seem to match. I guess Roppongi/Azabu will remain a single article whatever happens, but a clear borders map need to be drawn, for us to be able to grey out the area that is considered out-of-scope. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • CommentNicolas, I'm afraid this nomination needs to be slushed now as its been a whole one year now since you nominated it and no discussion. --Saqib (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Beijing/DongchengEdit

After spending a week here in the center of China's capital earlier this year, I came home and reworked this one, expanding where necessary, updating what had been inherited from Wikitravel and not looked at since 2011. After several months of work, I now think this is as good as it can get and ready to be our first China star article (and a more-needed one I cannot imagine, except for maybe Shanghai/Huangpu). I would also eventually like to see it a DotM.

Some caveats: I may likely be adding some more pictures over time. I will also be writing a separate article on the Forbidden City, per other standalone articles we have on large and complex World Heritage Sites. For that one I will probably use the current banner image for this article, and replace it with something else distinctively Dongcheng like Tiananmen Square or a hutong in the Nanluogoxiang area. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well right away I see there's no Wikivoyage-style map, just a dynamic one with the dynamic map style that requires zooming and panning to be useful. Powers (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was the one we were supposed to use. Could you point me to an example to emulate? Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe all of our existing star articles have Wikivoyage-style maps. Washington, D.C./National Mall has a good map with similar requirements as Dongcheng. San Francisco/Golden Gate also has some good maps that show how multiple maps can be used to show different aspects of a district. Powers (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks ... looks like Inkscape and I are going to get to know each other even better than we do already. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet -- No lead, no star status. While some of our star articles have no proper lead section but the tradition needs to change now. The lead section is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead so it should be well written and summary the most important aspects of the destination and try to stand alone as a concise overview of the destination. --Saqib (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
How long should it be? One reason I didn't write one is, pace your point about it not being a part of every article, there's no guidance as to whether it should be a couple of sentences, a couple of grafs ... what's the ideal? Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK: I've written one now that was a few sentences long, based on the other star articles. Let's see what we can do about the map. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about Dongcheng so I'll leave review on those who knows the place but I took a quick look and I realized while the article is quite detailed but its not absolutely perfect i my opinion. For instance, Forbidden City is a UNESCO attraction in the district but nowhere mentioned in the entire article that its World Heritage Site. --Saqib (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think once about the Forbidden City's UNESCO designation when I visited. No harm to mention it I guess, but seriously I don't think the article is harmed in any way by its absence. Does UNESCO designation do something special for the visitor? Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I tend to put any World Heritage Sites I visit on my list of things to see somewhere ... on four of the five days I was in Beijing this spring I visited one, not that that's so hard in Beijing, and on my recent visit to London for Wikimania I went to w:Maritime Greenwich and Kew Gardens specifically because those were WHSes and I hadn't seen them on any previous trip to London (whereas the Westminster Palace/Abbey/St. Margaret's Church listing and Tower of London, the other two HSes in London, are standard stops on the tourist itinerary.

I will mention its status in the blurb; however, per discussion here I will be creating a separate Forbidden City page in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've responded there. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as to how it will take a while to create a good map, I think it would be a good idea to request that this be put on the slush pile. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


O'Hare International Airport (Second Nomination)Edit

At the risk of saturating this page with nominations, I think this is ready now to be our first star airport (and therefore something that can be used as an airport article exemplar). It was slushed before (despite only getting support votes!) for lack of a map showing area hotels and routes to them, but that is now not a concern, as the hotels have all been moved to the appropriate town/city articles, per policy. --Peter Talk 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. As I mentioned on the Airport Expedition talk page, I can't think of anything to complain about now and the new pictures really give the guide a nice, lively feel. Totally behind this one. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with one tiny comment: It strikes me as a bit awkward to describe a dinosaur skeleton and a fighter plane replica as "amenities", which to me suggests things like public bathrooms, benches, drinking fountains, diaper changing stations, etc. Texugo (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed! That looks like a legacy of the template change—that was a see/do section. --Peter Talk 23:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Might be better under "Wait". LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It sure looks complete to me, and very well written and illustrated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the article, but the Eat section rubs me the wrong way. I know Peter's no fan of chain restaurants, but this seems a bit too disdainful. My wife and I ate at Macaroni Grill when we passed through in 2010 and I thought it was a pretty dang good meal for an airport. LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't claim this article as my writing, sadly (just illustrations). (And it seems the intro was written before the Macaroni Grill was added by another user.) The Berghoff is genuinely worth seeking out, there's a Garrett's Popcorn that should now be added, and (the highly acclaimed Chicago Mexican chef) Rick Bayless has opened up a Mexican sandwich shop that is getting put in top five lists of airport restaurants worldwide. I think it's time for an update! --Peter Talk 05:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I've added Tortas Frontera and Garrett's, clarified Berghoff a bit, and altered the intro. Does it look better? You know Macaroni Grill better than I would, so please do fix that up if you have a better description in mind. Airport food has gotten exponentially better in the past decade—I would have never guessed that I'd be checking my smart phone while traveling to hunt down "top airport restaurants" in between flights! --Peter Talk 05:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I suppose it very well might be more oily than "standard Italian fare", I may not have the true Italian experience to counter that. But I don't think anyone goes to Macaroni Grill for authenticity. =) LtPowers (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • O'Hare_International_Airport#Get_around Peter: I'm a frequent flyer and i'm not a fan of US airports due to their complicated structure if you transfer between int'l and/or domestic flights. I think the section is a bit brief and maybe the flights section needs a table. From a travellers points i would find the article most helpful if i could easily understand how to transit. My only questions is in general, e.g. i arrive with Swiss and have a onward with United. Where do i need to go? Or if i arrive with US Airways and continue on United Express. Just a quick table to get an idea if air- or landside is possible? I stranded at the beauty once, so i know how polite but totally useless the ground staff at IAD is... jan (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the article and used O'Hare several times in the nineties but have not been back since and I am not a regular user of US airports. There is no details of transit arrangements, maybe just to say that there is no international transit without entering the country. Buy is very short - I would expect 5-10 lines on duty free alone. Add details of who can shop in Duty Free (international departures only?), how big the shops are and the range of products - are the shops in the various terminals clones or is one cheaper, bigger? How do airport prices compare with downtown? I am surprised that nearby makes no mention of places like Rosemont or Franklin Park. AlasdairW (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm, questions about international transit... I've never actually taken an international flight through O'Hare. I'll see if I can figure these out. --Peter Talk 06:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't know if this helps, but I took an international flight out of O'Hare and found it to be a miserable experience. Compared to the other terminals, Terminal 5 is a gray, soulless building with little ambient light, no decent food and no shops aside from a couple of Hudson newsstands and a single stand selling duty free items. Not even a proper shop, just a little stand. Other than to say a duty free shop exists, I don't think there's much else you can say. PerryPlanet (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perry, my experience with O'hell is similar but if you are not a regular in this airport, navigation is an issue (especially int'l-domestic). The airport is ranked sixth in the worst airports in the US [4] which is of course not an offical source but a good indicator what travelers think. jan (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The funny thing is that as far as airports go, I find O'Hare to be a perfectly decent place to wait for a plane - as long as you stay in the domestic terminals. Plenty of food options and if you get bored there's things to look at, like the dino skeleton or the walkway with all the neon. If it had free wifi it would be ideal. But heaven have mercy on your soul if you enter Terminal 5. PerryPlanet (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added a duty free sub-section to buy to describe the "somewhat limited" possibilities. This may be a bit of a negative review, but I think that some travelers will be expecting the supermarket scale duty free shops found elsewhere. Please alter this as necessary, especially if you have more recent experience of flying here. In researching this I also found some very limited free WIFI - a walled garden or rather walled flower pot that allows access to WP. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support though shouldn't the Airline Lounges be added to "Wait"?Altaihunters (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not now — Lead section needs to be expanded. Listings in Drink section are without descriptions. Too many listings under Sleep's midrange section. --Saqib (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite yet — I don't think we need a huge lead for most airports and this article has a well written and balanced "Understand" section.
What does grate, as with so many of our destination articles, is the silly and inconsistent way that many of the images have fixed image widths that are either too tiny for those with large screens and fast connections and much too large for those struggling in the boondocks with narrow notebook screens. For the latter traveller, many of the headings are also messed up by poor image placement and absolute sizing. Where images can not be left as thumbnails of unspecified width, a move to relative sizing is now long overdue. -- Alice 10:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be a policy change, and this is not the place to discuss policy changes -- only how the current article comports with current policy. Powers (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I beg to differ.
Our Prime Directive is that the traveller comes first and we already have a policy that we prefer thumbnails for a number of reasons. However much some folks huff and puff, I've yet to see the consensus, never mind a rationale for banning relative sizing - it's been used for many years by those who are knowledgeable about relative image sizing and wish to respect the preferences of our users. Star articles are supposed to showcase our best work and this article with its disparate fixed image widths simply doesn't. -- Alice 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that everyone would consider not pursuing this line of discussion here. If Alice would like to continue posting more about it here, that doesn't mean anyone else needs to reply, as this is a staple topic of hers that always has the same discussion. I also won't comment further about this tangent in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that discussion of relative image sizing does not belong here.
On the other hand, Alice does have a valid point; the current article has several different images sizes (five by my count), which looks odd and should be fixed. Pashley (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not think the current text covers international transit adequately. For one thing, it does not mention that having to go through customs & immigration to change planes is not just a local oddity; it is US gov't policy at all airports. It should link to Avoiding a transit of the United States.
I flew through O'Hare in late 2012, in from China, out to Canada. The experience was moderately awful with large crowds and long lines. There were different lines depending on passport. As a Canadian, I got about the same treatment as Americans but it still took over a hour to reach the passport-checker; I think it might be really awful for some nationalities. The actual staff I dealt with were fast, efficient and courteous, but there were nowhere near enough of them. Pashley (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Alice, I'm not suggesting to expand the "Understand" section. I'm fine with it. My concerns are with the lead section which barely have two lines. --Saqib (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It's good that we both understand our respective concerns Saqib. However, that understanding still does not change my opinion that I don't think we need a huge lead for most airports. The lead sentences for this one are already in the Goldilocks zone; if you think differently, perhaps you could highlight what is missing and should be moved from the "Understand" section, from other sections or perhaps from the article entirely? -- Alice 05:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is ready, too because it's the longest airport article if you look at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson, New York LaGuardia, New York JFK apart from Chicago O'Hare. Also, There has been four supports, one not now, and one not quite yet. It is thorough. The first one was not quite yet, the second not now, and the rest support. The status just keeps getting better and better. I think it's time. --BadgerPacker

I see some complaints about the lede for this article. What could or should be added? Why, in this case, are two to-the-point sentences insufficient? As the "Understand" section makes clear, this is not an airport that merits someone rhapsodizing about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not yet: I was ready to support this article for star status and was making edits to the Drink section based on comments above. Incorrect hours of operation were listed and there were no phone numbers provided. Furthermore, they did not use the proper listing template. Several other sections do not use the proper listing templates (which would be expected of a star article). I honestly don't think anything needs to be done to the lead, but there is definitely work to be done here. GeneralPericles (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this something easily fixable? I am trying to decide whether to slush it now or wait for a few days while it gets fixed. —Ravikiran (talk)
  • The sleep listings appear to be all over the place (there's a $95 hotel in the Splurge section, and I've found prices much lower than the ones quoted for some hotels). And I'm still not sure we want hotels as far as 5 miles away in the airport article. Powers (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • OK so it looks like there are outstanding objections that haven't been addressed. This goes to the Slush pile for now. — Ravikiran (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

FlyingEdit

This is a slightly mis-titled nomination as I'm actually referring to the four articles that reside within Flying. Their forebear, 'Fundamentals of flying' narrowly missed star status, but now that its content has been split, rewritten and mixed with 'Tips for flying', it is hopefully a far more coherent and easy-to-follow guide, worthy of this accolade. --Nick talk 00:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick, as you may have noticed we've already too many nominations on this page and yours one not even touched since you nominated it. I suggest you to please nominate an article one by one so that people may find it more convenient to make their opinions. --Saqib (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Slushing this as there has been absolutely no discussion on this for over a year. — Ravikiran (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


Mitzpe RamonEdit

I'd like to nominate this article, of which I'm probably the main contributor, for a star status. Note it's also an OtBP candidate. The only thing I can think of that is currently missing in the article are price ranges for most of the listings, which I do intend to add in coming weeks. I believe the English is just fine, but it'd also help if anyone thinks they can add some flourish. I'd be happy to get feedback about it. Tamuz (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Almost. Attractive article that makes me want to visit (despite the terrible things I see and read in the news) with an easy tone.
It'll be very nearly there when you've added those prices (don't forget to put the shekel symbol (₪) before the amount, contrary to usual Israeli practice but according to our current $ style guide). One thing that did jump out was the very heavy use of emboldening in the Makhtesh Ramon section.
The other thing I'd like you to consider is that, if people view your article on-line (rather than printing it out,) there is less ability for you and other editors to micro-manage the appearance of articles with exact image placement and widths or how text appears because of the different computer systems and screens (and for registered users, what skins and other user preferences they may have chosen). Many of our most experienced editors have not yet taken on board some features and facts about our operating software and platform. --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and duly noted. I'll work to improve the points you've outlined. One question, if anyone has any idea, about the static map there: users with a screen resolution of up to 1280 pixels in width will see the page a little messed up around the map image. Is there anyway to make the text wrap around the map when in higher resolutions, while skipping it for the lower resolutions? Maybe align=center for small and align=right for large resolutions? Tamuz (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There are HTML tricks you can use to stop text wrapping around images at all (and MediaWiki image display syntax to achieve very similar effects - the big drawback is that you lose the ability to click on the thumbnail image blow-up icon in the bottom right of your lovely static map). However, I don't think they're worth employing here to remove an artefact that only occurs at certain screen size and zoom combinations. --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost. A few non-standard formatting issues, such as the table at the top of the Do section, which is not something we've ever done before to my knowledge (and on my browser, the bottom outline of the table is partially missing). The bullets under "See" are not organized properly, resulting in the double bullet on "The Albert Promenade". I can't view the in-article dynamic map at the moment due to a bug, but it seems superfluous with the good-quality static map already in the article. There are an unusual number of internal (and even intra-article) wikilinks in this article; that's not necessarily bad, but it is different, and we should evaluate whether it's excessive or not. LtPowers (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you know that you can't view any in-article dynamic maps at the moment due to the way certain browsers refuse to display any non-secure content when you are using a secure (https) connection. However, if you click the (currently) horribly placed and entirely un-intuitive icon placed above the top right of the "banner" you'll be able to see it in a new (insecure) window or tab: Map mag.png. This, of course, is no reason to delay this article's promotion. Using Firefox 23.0.1 under Windoze XP SP3, I also don't see the bottom right-hand outline of the helpful table. --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the shape of the table, the central column is intentionally longer than the other two, since it has more bullets. If you think this unaesthetic, it can easily be changed. Generally, I'd be happy to find a better solution than this table, but as LtPowers pointed out, there's nothing of the sort in any other article right now, so I just improvised something. I do believe that something of the sort is necessary, since the Do section over there is pretty complex and needs some internal TOC. By the way, about the map, the static one is mainly for the wilderness attractions while the dynamic is for the stuff inside the town. And, LtPowers, I'll look over those things about the See section and the links and re-edit them. Thanks for your comments. Tamuz (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, the table problem is obvious from the code: You have a rowspan=2 on the middle column. That doesn't make the column any longer; all it does is cause the browser to expect an additional row underneath it that doesn't exist. Since it's expecting the cell to extend down into a non-existent row, it leaves off the bottom border. As for the necessity of the table, I don't think that Do section is particularly long or complex, and since it's not obvious that the table is an index or ToC, I think it causes more confusion than it resolves.
W. Frank, I'm well aware that I can view a dynamic map by clicking on the link, but that tells me nothing about how it appears in the article, which is of paramount importance. If it does indeed show a different view than the static map, then I would also need to see it to determine if it meets our map requirements for star status. LtPowers (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
LtPowers: you may make your assessment by logging out and then choosing a non-secure connection to display the entire article. Alternatively, you might accept that since currently, both the {{Mapframe}} and {{Geo}} templates have been given the same parameters of latitude, longitude (for the map centre), zoom level and layers that are shown, looking at a full screen map gives you sufficient idea of what the embedded map would look like if you don't want to go through that rigamarole while we are (hopefully) waiting for that bug to be fixed. --W. Franke-mailtalk 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That "missing line" thing in the table was known and intentional, but it was just an aesthetic decision so nevermind it. However, I still believe in the necessity of that sub-TOC, because different people would want different things: parents with children would probably want the Town attractions and the lookout points, hikers take more interest in the Wild section, and some of the tourists would stick to the Guided Tours. If the entire section fit into one screen-size there was no problem navigating it, but even with my 1080-pixel-high resolution it takes about 2½ screens (and there're a lot of people with smaller screen resolutions) of sub-sections and sub-sub-sections, making navigation a little hard. By the way, I do believe the same goes for San_Francisco/Golden_Gate#See, Yosemite_National_Park#Do and probably other articles; the fact it hasn't been done till now doesn't mean we shouldn't start; and since I probably haven't found the ideal way to do it, we can check and see if some other designs work better. (All that said, of course I won't object if there's consensus that it should still be removed) Tamuz (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Good points; I think your solution works and effective innovation that is not directly contrary to established policy should not be a bar to star status. More thought definitely needs to be devoted to how different travellers will see and use our articles. --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm seeing the dynamic maps (both the internal and external ones) with only Hebrew captions. Is it just me because of my IP location in Israel? Do you see them in English (or your local language)? Tamuz (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A: I'm in Glasgow, Scotland (and almost invariably use a Scots IP) and I'm sorry to say that I also only see Hebrew captions. Bit of a bummer, eh? Are the local street signs bilingual? --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with your location. The map material comes from from OpenStreetMap, whose maps in many cases are only available in the local script. However I've understood that OSM is a kind of a wiki, so the Latin transcription of the captions will probably be added by someone in the future. I just went and looked at Beijing and now some streets there do have their names romanized, while absolutely everything was written only in Chinese characters about a year ago. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No biggy, I just wanted to know. As it is, I'll gradually get around to translate the street names in OSM, which indeed is a wiki. Anyway, roadsigns in Israel are always in Hebrew, Arabic and English, as are the street signs in almost all cities, Mitzpe Ramon included I think. Tamuz (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Frank, I'm thinking of undoing some of your changes to See to make it look more or less like this version, for two reasons: (a) The crater itself (#4 on the list) isn't exactly a See item per se (being a large area, not an exact one-point attraction), however numbers 5 & 6 (the viewpoints) are definitely See items, directly related to #4, and therefore should be its sub-items on the list; and (b) The current phrasing makes it appear as though the Desert Sculpture Park and the Observatory are also viewpoints for the crater (they are in fact not far from the ridge, but aren't particularly good viewpoints, and I hadn't intended these items to appear as such). Any objections, anyone? Tamuz (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, you're the local expert and it's "your baby". I only changed the formatting because I assumed (wrongly?) that there was a distinction between "Prominent viewpoints from Mitzpe Ramon" and "Additional viewpoints outside of Mitzpe Ramon" (my italics added). It's looking good, eh? --W. Franke-mailtalk 23:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a distinction, only that the previous wording made it look like the Sculpture Park & Observatory were also considered "viewpoints", while in fact they are unrelated attractions. Anyway, I looked it over again and realized that this confusing wording actually came from my earlier edits, so now I changed it. And yup, I really think we're putting the final touches needed for Star status. Tamuz (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to ask your opinion on several subjects regarding that page, some of which were pointed-out in the above discussion. If you have any opinion, please write it here, even if your opinion is that things should stay the way they are now. Tamuz (talk)

PicturesEdit

Do you think there too many? Too few? Or is it good now? I've also looked in my smartphone and I think it's OK as it is, but I'd like to confirm that.

Personally, I think you're pretty much atthe "Goldilocks point" for a "...small, somewhat remote town..." --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

LinksEdit

LtPowers pointed out there's an unusual abundance of links. I've looked it over and removed a few, but not many. Regarding the section-links, I believe they make this article much more easy to use. Anyone thinks I may have overdone it?

Not me. --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Any notes about wordingEdit

Any notes about formattingEdit

  • Support I'm happy with any edits that further improve the article, but I'd like to go on record as supporting the star nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with no reservations whatsoever. Ibaman (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For this one, there seems to be a broad consensus about promoting. Please speak up if anyone has any outstanding objections. If not, I will promote this in the next day or so. — Ravikiran (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, but it's still not ready. There's no "Wikivoyage-style map" of the settlement (just the crater) and the second item in the "Go next" section lacks a link to another article. See, Do, Eat and Drink, and Sleep all need introductory paragraphs providing an overview of the offerings, including highlights. There's a "See map below" link in the "Get in" section that's broken. And I'm afraid the language in the article is a bit stilted and doesn't meet our requirements for star. There's no doubt this is a Guide, but Stars have higher requirements. Powers (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Slushing this then. Thanks — Ravikiran (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


El Camino RealEdit

This article recently made guide, and I believe it...could...go...all...the...way. Purplebackpack89 21:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Not yet —It is indeed a good article - but it's not a star. I haven't read through the article, but I'd certainly say this article is not ready yet. The first thing that came to my mind was this article needs to have a Wikivoyage-style map. It should also have detailed information about the places to stay and the restaurants. --Saqib (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, it has a map, and there was consensus on the page that we didn't need to mention every hotel or restaurant (of which there are thousands) along the route, merely link to the city articles that have them. I also question the validity of this vote, as the voter has not read the article. Purplebackpack89 21:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
No WV-styled map means not yet ready. --Saqib (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The current map is WV-styled, dude. It's just not at top. Perhaps read the full article before commenting further? Purplebackpack89 22:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it now but I don't want to comment further until a proper WV-styled map is not added to this article. We've got proper WV-styled map for our star status itinerary articles and for instance, see Along the Magnificent Mile, Loop Art Tour and Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour. --Saqib (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In the #Valle de Cocora nomination above and at Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition#Missing images and missing maps it has been stated that dynamic maps are acceptable maps, and while not everyone agrees, I would hate to see a precedent in which an article had to have a zoomable, dynamically updated map replaced with a static one. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
(ec) A dynamic map should be acceptable Purplebackpack89 22:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Extraordinarily detailed and complete description of an important route, and Purplebackpack89 has been very conscientious about soliciting and responding to feedback during its development. As has been discussed elsewhere, my opinion is that the dynamic map with listings and a GPX route is superior to a static map, and I would hope that we not slush this nomination because it comes during a time when Wikivoyage's guidelines on maps are in flux. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a really thorough guide, with exact directions to get to each mission. I also feel like you've addressed all of the points that were brought up in discussions about it. Kudos! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost. Oooh, been a while since we've seen a nice itinerary on this page. Anyway, this is pretty close and there's a wealth of great info in here, but the tone strikes me as a mite dry and encyclopedic, and there are statements that lack context. A good example of this is in the Mission San Francisco Solano listing: "This is where the Bear Flag Revolt took place in 1846." Well, what was the Bear Flag Revolt? And why should I be interested in it? I'd think of a traveler who knows almost nothing about Californian history (but wants to learn!) when writing this. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I fixed that particular one; could you enumerate additional examples on the talk page? Purplebackpack89 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Very detailed and interesting article! Jjtkk (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job done! Danapit (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The map is no good. Overlapping text, crowded icons, and no clear depiction of the route equals not a star quality map. That map is not an example of our best work. Also, there are too many images for the amount of text; they run down well past the end of the prose. That doesn't comply with our image policy. LtPowers (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware that there was no consensus about whether or not dynamic maps were acceptable, and it appears that that lack of consensus is one of the few things between this and star. This isn't a neighborhood itinerary; people need to be able to view the map at both the state level (6 zoom) and the city level (12-14 zoom). If we were going the static map route, we'd probably need 30 different maps! We need to break ourselves of the habit of applying the standards of a neighborhood itinerary for this article, and realize that dynamic maps are the way to go here. As for the image, I have a fairly wide screen on my desktop, and the images end midway through the "See also" in mine when it's full screen. On my desktop, it only reaches to the end of the blurb about San Fran Solano. I think it's important that all 21 missions be represented, so I'd support shrinking images, but not removing them. Purplebackpack89 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the images, I'd actually argue the exact opposite: I think for the purposes of a travel guide, this page would be better served by fewer, but larger pretty images than a bunch of little ones where you can't make out much detail. I don't think it's necessary to have every single mission represented by an image, in the same way that we don't need every single piece of artwork on the Loop Art Tour represented by an image. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Would moving the images of each mission to a gallery under the "Day" for those missions resolve the layout issues? Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Percy's Hole is a star article, and User:Pbsouthwood used galleries as a way of grouping images of related content into the appropriate sub-sections without causing layout problems. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Image policy seems to say no galleries :-( But we'd still have at least one mission per day, no? Purplebackpack89 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Per Wikivoyage:Image policy#Montages and galleries: "Image galleries are discouraged, and should only be considered for showing multiple examples of a specific topic". In this case, the three missions that correspond to an article sub-section would seem acceptable to me, just as the species examples in Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Percy's Hole were acceptable during its star nomination. Further opinions on the subject would be helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to galleries, although frankly I think there's a few "meh" pics on here we could do without. The shot of Mission San Diego has the facade in shadow (and we already have a nice banner of that particular mission), the pics of Mission San Gabriel Arcangel and Mission San Miguel are kinda cloudy and grey, the interior shots of Mission Dolores and Mission San Francisco Solano are dark and grainy, and the shot of Mission San Fernando is not very flattering, with the lower third of the pic taken up by asphalt. I would suggest cutting those out or replacing them. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
On my browser (Firefox 25.0.1), the last photo extends just past the top of "Go next," which I consider perfect. And I think it's actually great to have photos of all the missions, though if there are any better photos of any of them, by all means replace them. I generally find fault with galleries because the images are too small and the effect of mashing them together isn't great. If a decision is made to go with galleries, it will be important to maintain the separate images, so that they are available in the future and can be used/maintained in guides for different destinations. I think that's obvious, but I'm mentioning it just for the sake of completeness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing galleries with montages, Ikan. On the broader topic, we have allowed galleries in limited cases, and I think this might be one such case if it's important that every site be represented. LtPowers (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
If you can get a dynamic map that actually looks good, by all means. As I noted, this map has overlapping text and overlapping icons that look bad. I would not want this map representing our best work. LtPowers (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Powers, I don't know how to improve maps much beyond what I've done already. I'm a prose guy, not a maps guy. Well, I enjoy looking at online maps and drawing paper maps, just haven't got the hang of it here yet. Purplebackpack89 18:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any overlapping text on my browser (chrome). What I do see is overlapping icons, and icons covering text. The overlapping icons is a consequence of the number and spacing of the destinations, and the scale and size of the map and the size of the icons. I am not sure how this could be avoided by using a hand drawn map. The icons covering text could easily be eliminated in a custom static map, which would be good for an overview of the itinerary, but nowhere near as useful for actual navigation and route planning as the dynamic map. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point; it doesn't matter why the map looks bad; the point is that it does, and this isn't a star article until it has a good map. LtPowers (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Peter addressed to the issue that dynamic maps "look bad": "The icons covering text could easily be eliminated in a custom static map, which would be good for an overview of the itinerary, but nowhere near as useful for actual navigation and route planning as the dynamic map." No one denies your argument that there are aesthetic disadvantages in our current dynamic implementation, but you are ignoring the argument that dynamic maps provide HUGE benefits in terms of added ability for a user to customize the map to his needs, automatic maintenance as listings are updated, added functionality (show nearby articles, etc), and more. My personal opinion is that it would be a shame if we had to replace dynamic maps in our best articles with what I would view as crippled static maps, and I thus strongly reject that a dynamic map is not a "good map". -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
And you're ignoring aesthetics in favor of pure functionality. A good static map (or more than one) can obviate most of the need for user-customization while eliminating almost all of the disadvantages; that's clearly the way to go until the mythical "someday" (in which dynamic maps will look good) comes. LtPowers (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that you can't do it with just one. You'd need a static map of the whole route, and detail maps of the area around each mission, and probably the area around each bed-down. I don't consider the dynamic map to be so aesthetically displeasing so as to outweigh the advantage of having 96-97% fewer maps. Purplebackpack89 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Purplebackpack89 has raised a crucial point here, that is perhaps peculiar to itineraries, of which we haven't had too many StarNoms. If you're worried about conceding a precedent, Powers, perhaps we could agree that you every right to raise the same points about dynamic maps again with any future Starnoms that are not itineraries, if you withdraw your opposition to this Starnom? --118.93nzp (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about the aesthetics of dynamic maps in general, although I think you can make a case that a static map is more fitting for the purposes of an itinerary - especially an itinerary of historic sites, where the route isn't likely to change, so you don't need to worry much about updating the map (which is one of the main advantages of a dynamic map). A static map can be made to cut out a lot of the clutter of a dynamic map, thus highlighting the route itself (even with the dynamic map enlarged, I still feel like the route line is getting a little lost in the clutter). And you can have little static inset maps of the area around the individual missions within the body of the larger static map, for those cases where the mission isn't easy to find from the main road. I kinda like Pbsouthwood's suggestion below of having a static map in addition to the dynamic map; that might be a good way of incorporating the advantages of both approaches. PerryPlanet (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why "fewer maps" is considered an advantage, especially after also arguing that every site needs a photograph. If the map is useful, provide it; don't force the user to zoom and pan to get it. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I find the map quite utilitarian on my admittedly large screen. There are a couple of small points which I would prefer to see improved. The route line does not contrast very well, and at high magnification the line doesn't follow the road precisely. If this can be changed without undue work it would be an improvement. Perhaps an additional WV style static map could be provided to make the page look pretty, while keeping the dynamic map to actually find one's way along the route. For this application I think the number and placing of the photos is OK, but would not object if better quality shots can be found. I prefer them to be aligned with the subject text as is the case here. I also prefer the use of standard thumbnail size wherever there isn't a good reason to force the size. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As I've often noticed over the years, Peter (Southwood) has this nailed. I believe that the syntax of {{mapframe}} also allows for a static map image to be optionally linked. I'd also like to commend the collegiate style of the proposer (and author of much of the material), Purplebackpack89; I've watched him respond patiently, promptly and politely to the helpful criticism he's received over the last few weeks and I think this now makes a good exemplar of one of our better itineraries. --118.93nzp (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support -- lovely. I've lived in California for many years, and driven much of this, and I learned a lot from this article :) Comprehensive, interesting: nice work. -- Phoebe (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion summaryEdit

This nomination is coming to the end of its three weeks, and while it appears that there is consensus for pushing it to star there remain a couple of unresolved issues. The main one is that there is obviously disagreement about whether the map is acceptable for a star article, but it looks (to me) like concerns (pro & con) have been addressed in discussions, and essentially the discussion boils down to a difference of opinion as to whether a dynamic map should be allowed for a star article, with no actionable solution that everyone agrees on available - is that a fair summary? Second, it's not clear if the concerns about the prose have been appropriately addressed (@PerryPlanet:). Aside from those two issues, are there any remaining concerns to address before the nomination period ends in a couple of days? -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion about prose moved from here to the article talk page. One of the things proposed was an additional infobox, which I created on the article talk page, but left for someone else to place Purplebackpack89 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I feel the infobox was the only prose matter I brought up that was really addressed. Reading through it now, many of the listings still have a very dull, encyclopedic tone, with incomplete sentences that are strung together like a list of bullet points ("Founded in ____. Served as ____. Features ____. Renovated in ____."). The only instances of this that were fixed were those I pointed out as specific examples, but I thought I was clear that this was a problem throughout the entire article. It's not lively travel writing, which I feel is essential for a star article.
@Wrh2: my impression wasn't so much that the discussion was about whether a dynamic map should be allowed for a star article, but about whether the dynamic map currently shown is sufficient for this guide to be a star. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I do think that a static map would be more fitting for the purposes of an itinerary such as this one.
Also, I don't think we ever addressed the matter of the images. There was talk of putting them in galleries, as well as finding better versions for some of them. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't care if the map is dynamic or static; the problem is that no one has yet demonstrated (here or on any other article that I know of) a dynamic map that achieves a star-quality level of usability and aesthetics. LtPowers (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the above summary still valid? Is the dynamic map still unsatisfactory? Is that the only objection to starring this? — Ravikiran (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I share PerryPlanet's concerns about the prose. It's extremely dry and encyclopedic. Don't get me wrong; it's very well-written (for an encyclopedia), but it's not travel writing. There's not one word in the article about why a traveller might want to pursue this itinerary, nor any of the missions along the trail.
The map is no better than it was two years ago. In the default view, for instance, the "6" icon is placed right over the "Santa Barbara" caption; that looks unprofessional to say the least. And I'm still concerned about the number of images; I think if we need a picture of every mission, we should find a way to include them that doesn't take up so much vertical space.
-- Powers (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still not wild about the prose in this article. It seems a bit better than before, but it's still awfully dry. There are some bright spots now, though: the description for Mission Santa Barbara is nice and engaging while still getting a lot of important info in there. If all of the descriptions were written more like that we'd be on our way to a lively, engaging piece of travel writing. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'll go ahead and slush this. — Ravikiran (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

New York CityEdit

I think this article is a Star article. Do you? MacVersions (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Not yet. It's a fine overview article, but one of the requirements for Star status for a city article is that all district guides are at "guide" or "star" status. Currently, Manhattan and Staten Island are the only boroughs at "guide", and there are still plenty of "usable" and even "outline" pages at the district level. This is by far the biggest hurdle to getting NYC to Star; additionally, the Understand and Buy sections on this page strike me as a little weak for a city as large and complex as New York. I'm sure others will be able to come up with more specific criticisms, but the status of the districts is really the big thing here. If you're interested in getting these pages to Star, it'll probably be easier to start at the local level and build up from there; that's how most of our current Star huge city guides came about. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Lake TaiEdit

Can an extra-hierarchical region be nominated? Are the criteria different than for a normal region?

I think this one is close, though it lacks a non-dynamic map. Pashley (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This article has only one sentence each for "Get around", "See", "Do", and "Eat", with several other sections not much longer than that. IMO there's quite a ways to go before we can start seriously talking about Star status here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added some things, but I think the question of how much information this type of article needs is open.
Over at Wikivoyage_talk:Region_article_template#Rethinking_region_articles_-_request_for_feedback it has been suggested we "Make the "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink" and "Stay safe" headings in Wikivoyage:Region article template optional." That is for normal in-hierarchy regions.
For extra-hierarchical regions, the template message has "These extra articles provide only basic information and links to articles in the hierarchy. This article can be expanded if the information is specific to the page; otherwise new text should go in the appropriate region or city article." I think everything we need by way of basic info and links is there. Pashley (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The question here isn't how much information does this article need, it's how much one would expect of a Star-rated guide. A Star page is one where we expect the guide to go above and beyond the call of duty in providing a comprehensive and engaging travel guide; one that rivals and exceeds any other you'd find of that place. I'm in agreement with Andre here; this page feels far too thin on content to be considered a Star. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. While I see no objection to nominating an extra-hierarchical region, I'm not sure how we could consider this one for star level. Even if the article is complete in terms of linking, and even if we would allow for brief sections considering that this is an extra-hierarchical region (which I don't think we should) - it's still a region article. From a traveller's point of view, it would only be as usable as its linked destination articles. It's for that reason that we require star-regions to have all linked destinations/regions at guide level or higher, and all huge city articles to have their districts at guide level. Technically, I'd say Lake Tai is not even a guide article at this moment... JuliasTravels (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Extra-hierarchical region articles don't have statuses, as evidenced by the use of a single footer template. Thus, nominating one for Star is as impossible as nominating a disambiguation page for Star. That said, since some extra-hierarchical region articles can have extensive information and be treated as a regular region, perhaps we need to adjust the way we handle them. Perhaps we need a template that says "this is a basic extra-hierarchical region" for use on some, while using the standard region status templates for others. Powers (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Igbo phrasebookEdit

The phrasebook has been complete for a while and has matched all the criteria for a phrasebook. Igbo is the major language spoken in the oil-rich Niger Delta and extended to the Cross River forest. It is also spoken in Equatorial Guinea. Ukabia (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Not yet. I am not sure how those of us who don't know Igbo will judge the completeness of this phrasebook eventually. What I've read of it looks very attractive and informative and I congratulate you for that! However, I just did some copy editing, and it's clear to me that until I read through the entire phrasebook and edit the English-language portions of the text to be optimal in terms of grammar and syntax, I won't be able to support the nomination. To be sure, I haven't found any major problem so far and suspect I won't, but the Star level is a very high bar. I'll look through the rest of the phrasebook when I can, and will edit as I feel is appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the edits Ikan Kekek. As for judging the completeness, there are some guides on south eastern Nigeria that I could reference here if necessary, including one from the pages external links [1 Ukabia (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not yet. Agreed with everything Ikan said above; also, granted they're not as essential for a phrasebook as for other article types, but could we perhaps include a few more pictures? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ruta del TránsitoEdit

I'm just putting this here as apart from wording tweaks (which I as the principal author and a second language speaker of English am not the best person to make), I can't think of anything that could be added or changed to improve upon this article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm out of town right now and will look this article over more closely when I return home. But right off the bat, Star articles require static maps. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This doesn't strike me as star quality. The lead section is essentially empty. There's no information on why anyone would want to follow this itinerary. There's no description of sights or anything that might interest a traveler. The banner image is less than stellar. The prose is merely adequate; it's informative but not engaging (nor "tight, effective, and enjoyable"). There isn't even an English translation or explanation of the itinerary's name. Powers (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that it has quite a long way to go. The intro should say in a sentence or two how the route is travelled and how long it takes. If I have one week in the country could I do it? There are no indications of costs or anything like enough details of the transport - if they are not on the web give the names and phone numbers. AlasdairW (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

IndianapolisEdit

In terms of quality, I think this fits well. @SelfieCity, Traveler100, AndreCarrotflower: Libertarianmoderate (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a good article, and is at guide status. But a quick scan through quickly reveals that it needs work before becoming a star article. For a start, it has too many listings in my opinion (which maybe should mean districtification or some cleanup), and a lot of these don't have coordinates. If this is going to be a star article, all of the business listings in See, Do, Eat, Drink, and Sleep should have coordinates. However, the article is well-formatted, so that is a plus.
But there are some other issues as well, I'm sure, so I actually think this would make a better destination of the month at the moment, and then perhaps in the longer term become a star article. Selfie City (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Indianapolis was up for DotM a while ago and ended up getting slushed. If you want a rundown of what improvements the article needs, that's a good place to start. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's close but not there. :/ I've had districtifying the city as a project for years--it's such a mammoth undertaking. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with the comments made above; more work is necessary before Indianapolis can be promoted to a star. All listings must have a marker and contact info, attractions must have Wikidata/Wikipedia references, and districtification is likely necessary. Yes it would be a mammoth undertaking, but the recent example of Brussels proves it can be done step by step.—The preceding comment was added by 82.132.185.65 (talkcontribs)
Yep, definitely needs work, of the kind already mentioned. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Quy NhonEdit

Amazing article. Fun, lively, and very, very informative. It exceeds all the star criteria and compares very favorably to star articles we've read and used.

It has two wonderfully-detailed maps, both of which are better than anything on the internet (it's crazy, but as the article itself says, all the other maps are just wrong, including Google maps). The prose is effective and enjoyable (trust me, it hooked us into driving hundreds of miles out of our way to visit; now THAT's effectiveness!). The grammar seems very good to me.

The listings are spot-on; we visited many of the places listed, and in every case we saw, the descriptions were thorough, realistic and accurate, and details like prices and locations were perfect.

The history section is wonderful because it gave us the context to understand what we were seeing; without it, we would have been totally clueless and missed the deeper points behind different attractions. We researched Quy Nhon on our own, and there's very little information about it (at least in English) anywhere on the internet. It's crazy, but this Wikivoyage article is the best and only good source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history!

And the photos are incredible: very useful to get a feeling for the place, and extremely beautiful and artistic.

The article is by far the best guide to the city that exists anywhere online or offline. My husband and I were perplexed that it has a "usable" guide status. "An adventurous person could use this article"...? It's true that perhaps you have to be adventurous just to go to Quy Nhon, but that belittles the article needlessly. I'm new on Wikivoyage (used it a lot, but not a writer) and my opinion doesn't matter, but we decided that perhaps there are so few tourists who actually know Quy Nhon that the article has been overlooked, so we decided that - as someone who actually has used it in the city itself - we'd like to nominate the article for star status. Our recommendation counts for little, but the article stands on its own merit.

I posted on the Quy Nhon talk page, the traveler pub, and put a nomination on the article's banner. Please tell me if I should do anything else. Thank you. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like a very interesting place & it is indeed a very good article.
However, I think it needs quite a bit of copy editing. Mostly minor stuff like eliminating <br> tags (just use a blank line), eliminating unnecessary blank lines, etc.
To me, the use of bold text seems seriously excessive; I'd eliminate at least 70% of it. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the use of bolded text is really excessive. And the formatting, particularly in the See section, can be rather clunky and awkward. However, other than that, I'm hard-pressed to think of any other real critiques of this guide. I really enjoyed reading this one for the in-depth look at a part of the world I know next to nothing about. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to see maps included, but there are serious issues with their readability. I'm not sure whether this is enough to hold up a star nomination, but it's a serious problem, I think. Powers (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Just speaking for my husband and myself, the maps are extremely useful. No issues with readability. We're in our 60s and sensitive about readability issues, but we had no problems. The maps are a godsend, because there are no tourist maps of the city (even from nicer hotels) and other sources on the internet have maps that aren't detailed or are just wrong. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm impressed. I cannot read the map legend for the city map at the size it is in the article. If I click on the map I can read the legend but still can't identify the numbers in the icons. Powers (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
For me, it's large and very easy to read all details. Unfortunately, my eyesight isn't impressive; I didn't do anything special, just clicked the map a few times and saved the big size 3008 x 2647. I can zoom in and see crisp detail on my smartphone. The listing numbers are very clear. My husband and I saved both the city and the region maps and used them non-stop on both our phones every day while there. The city map is very detailed, has every street, every site, every restaurant. A godsend in a city where there's no other reliable information. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


  • There's certainly the bones of a Star article in here, but it needs work before it gets a support vote from me. The concerns pointed out by the others are well noted - especially the abundant boldface text, which is a real eyesore. Additionally, though I know I'm quite the one to talk about this, I find the History section to be overlong and encyclopedic. There's a fine line between, on the one hand, giving travellers a rich abundance of background information that gives them a feel for the place, and on the other hand weighing the article down with a tedious history lesson of dubious import to modern-day visitors. Additionally, the unnecessary row of empty space between many of the listings needs to be addressed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself here, but I was actually surprisingly okay with the length of the History section here. I think it was because it's very focused, in spite of its length; it specifically deals with only three subjects, ties each one to what modern travelers will see, and leaves it there. But I agree that a little trimming back couldn't hurt. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a good article, but it does need some technical edits before it would be a star. In addition to the comments above, the listings in Buy - Stores look wrong Big C dimensions don't make sense: "18,000 m² (19,000 ft²) building". Coopmart claims to be the only supermarket, but Big C is listed above. AlasdairW (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The area looks like a typo. I just looked it up and saw that 18,000 m2 is about 190,000 ft2, not 19,000. I changed it. I feel qualified to do that much of a change, at least. As for Coopmart being the only supermarket and not Big C, that's true as far as we saw in our visit. From what we saw, Big C is a big store outside the center with household products and bulk packages of dry food. Coopmart sells fresh food, meat, etc., in addition to household goods. For me, that makes Big C a hypermarket and Coopmart a supermarket. So I agree with the article's description.Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought a lot about the comments you all made about the length of the history. As members of the board of editors, you know better what's good for a travel article. So I can just give you my view that as a traveller who actually used this guide in the city, I'd suggest that the history is fabulous as it currently is.
    I'm not a history buff at all, and my eyes glazed over a little when I saw it, too. It's not a city like Singapore or Ho Chi Minh City, for example, where a traveller can easily find information if they want. With Quy Nhon, there's no other information in English anywhere on the internet. This Wikivoyage article isn't just the best source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history, it's the only source. Some people travel to a place and don't care about the historical context of where they are; that's their choice. But with no other information available, it seems that to delete the best and only source about a region would hurt those who want to understand the context of where they travel.
    I agree with PerryPlanet that the history it's good that it's tightly focused on 3 specific periods which are very relevant in understanding Quy Nhon today. For my husband and I as visitors there, I can confirm that the details from the history were very helpful as travellers and we would have been blind without it. The few other Western travellers we bumped into did in fact have no idea about what they were seeing or what they were doing, and they were very happy - and relieved - when we introduced them to this article. Also, the article is well written and easy to read, in my opinion, which helps a lot.
    I can't emphasize enough that nobody in the area speaks any English at all, there is no written English information of any value in the city or on the internet, and tourist sites have no English (they actually have almost no Vietnamese either). The Champa archaelogical sites have no information, no guides, nothing; without this article, you'd have no idea of the history and you'd leave just thinking that it's a nice pile of bricks (which is more or less the description of the few foreign travellers we met). There are so many connections in the city to the Tay Son rebellion and the martial arts fighters, for example the statues on the beach, many pictures hanging in buildings, cafes, paintings, names of streets, students practicing martial arts everywhere, but we would have missed it without this guide. With the Vietnam War, knowing that the beach where we strolled had massive camps of refugees who had to flee their homes just 50 years ago because of U.S. pacification gave a depth to our visit that made our trip much more worthwhile. Another example is that the nice beach hotels popular with foreigners are located among the southern cliffs which American warships attacked based on information Korean soldiers found about Viet Cong troops, but even the foreign managers living and working in those hotels had no idea.
    To me, that's not of dubious import or tedious; rather, it's the really interesting information that makes a travel guide valuable. It's very relevant to our experience as travellers today, it makes for a rich, fulfilling trip instead of just a drive-by, and it'd be a pity to cut it out. - Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Goodness, this is such an interesting discussion but could you tell me please, what is my role supposed to be here? As a traveller who has used Wikivoyage in many, many cities, I believe this article is as good as any of the star articles in Asia, and better than most of them. If the goal of a Wikivoyage article is to be the only guide necessary for a traveller, this article is it. That's why it seemed so odd to my husband and me that the article has a little sign thing that it's only "usable" for "adventurous travellers", so we just wanted to point it out and suggest it be starred. But I'm not on the board of editors like you folks, so I'm feeling a little out of my league and not qualified enough to try to improve it. Is this like a hearing where I'm now supposed to advocate on behalf of the article? If so, I'm probably not the best person. Maybe the people who wrote it are more qualified like AlasdairW, PerryPlanet, Pashley, VeeWin, Traveler100, Ikan Kekek, Seligne and Dragfyre, Wikivoyage anonymous user 14.183.106.38. I can only give you our point of view as a travelling couple that this is one of the best articles on Asia in Wikivoyage. Sincerely, - Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Linda Beth 123. I'm not a major contributor to this article; I've just done a bit of copy editing and such. For example, I just deleted a bunch of unneeded "br" codes and other extra spaces. I think you've done a wonderful thing by pointing to this article, which looks excellent indeed! It's quite a content-laden article, so I don't think I'll have time to read it in full today or in the next few days, but I think that, in any case, the others' remarks about how it's short of "Star" status are a great thing, not a bad thing, because they point forward to how to make this article a Star, something that is much less likely to have happened in the near future if you had not made this nomination. One thing to keep in mind about Star status is that it means that an article is more than an excellent Guide article, but is nearly perfect in all respects. Pointing out ways in which readers consider this article to currently fall short of that extremely lofty standard shouldn't be seen as the least bit dismissive of you. It's wonderful that this Wikivoyage guide was so helpful to you and your husband in your travels! That, more than whether the article is or is not currently at Star status, is really the most important thing, and the level to which we should aspire for all articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ikan Kekek. I think the content of this article is fabulous, but it's over my head to discuss about br's and bolding. It already was tough to figure out what mdash means in the nomination checklist and to change every ndash/nbsp to mdash before nominating this article. Rating articles can create issues, but if you're going to do it, then travellers like me will believe that a rating of "usable" or "star" reflects the quality of the information; a "usable" rating on an article makes people believe it to be less trustworthy, a "star" rating more reliable. So it it seems that this - quality of content, information, reliability - should be the sine qua non of a star article, and that great content should be presented with smooth writing, informative and beautiful pictures, and good grammar. Beyond that, formatting certainly matters, but it's secondary and not the focus, don't you think? Some copy-editing can make a high-quality article fit whatever formatting standards you have, but no copy-editing can make low-quality content helpful.
I'm more familiar with TripAdvisor; contributing there is a little more accessible for us common people than this here :-). The truth is that, at least in Asia, the TripAdvisor hotels overview and a quick scan of the listings is significantly better than Wikivoyage for a traveller to get a feel of where to sleep; in many cases, it's also better for restaurants and tourist sites. Even Wikivoyage's star articles in Asia just don't compare. This Quy Nhon article is one of the only places I've found where Wikivoyage surpasses TripAdvisor for both breadth of selection and depth of information about hotels, and in every other section outside hotels, it's obviously no comparison and the information in this Wikivoyage article makes it by far the best guide to the city. It convinced us to go hundreds of miles out of our way to visit, it guided us while we were there, and our travels are richer for it. That's why I pointed it out and nominated the article for a star, so hopefully others will find it, recognize its usefulness and have a more rewarding travel experience thanks to it. Ok, that's enough from me. I did what I could. Thanks again to all of you for your help. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Linda Beth 123, I'd actually be really interested to see some specific criticisms of other articles about Asia that have "Star" status but aren't so helpful. That's important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I wrote much of the current version of this article. I was thrilled to see that it's actually helped people enjoy the area. It's an honour that the article is being considered for a star. Please let me know all your suggestions for improvement: I'll do all the work necessary so that Quy Nhơn can become the first star article from Vietnam.
  • Bolding (Pashley, PerryPlanet, AndreCarrotflower): My fault for too much bolding. I was following wv:bold and this comment by LtPowers that readers should be able to skim and get the ideas without reading each and every word. I overdid it. I'm sorry. Actually, I'm happy to take much of it out: it's awkward to write in a way which creates good, self-contained highlighted clips but is still smooth prose when reading the full text. Please let me know how the current version does in striking a balance between highlighting important points but not being overwhelming.
  • Maps (LtPowers, Linda Beth 123): I think I understand why Linda Beth sees the details, but Lt. Powers doesn't. Linda Beth mentioned that she clicked several times and downloaded, so I'm assuming she went through to the originals. The original region map is 2,000 x 1,393, and the city map 3,008 x 2,647; all details are visible on both. But the previews default to 800 x 557 and 681 x 599, respectively, and it's fuzzy, especially the city map, so I see Lt. Powers's concern. I tried uploading different sizes myself to Wikimedia Commons, and per wv guidelines both maps are fully-editable SVGs with all information organized into category folders, but I wasn't able to control the wv default preview size. I'm happy to do whatever's necessary to improve it, but I'm unsure what would work. What do you suggest?
  • Big C, Coopmart (AlasdairW): Nice catch. It was a typo: 18,000m² is about 190,000 ft², not 19,000. Thanks. Coopmart is the only supermarket in the city, but Big C is listed above Coopmart because of alphabetical order. Please let me know how you'd suggest I improve it.
  • History (AndreCarrotflower): I think this comes down to each person's philosophy of—and reason for—travel, as well as the specifics of each place. Here's what I think in this case. First, as Linda Beth 123 points out, there is no real information in English about Quy Nhơn and the region, and what exists is often wrong. In the city, no one speaks English. Moreover, some of the details of the history are de facto censored in Vietnam itself, from the 11th-century Champa and their modern descendants up to the war in the 1960s-70s. So for both language and political reasons, travellers won't find much information on the internet or in the city itself. Second, the focus is exclusively on the three periods where Quy Nhơn played a critical role in important parts of Vietnam's history; it's not a complete history of those periods but is just limited specifically to Quy Nhơn's role. And as Perry Planet points out and Linda Beth 123 personally confirmed, each history is closely tied to what modern travellers will experience during their visit today. Finally, there's the issue of who actually visits Quy Nhơn. Many foreign tourists, particularly those staying in the city itself and not the southern bays, fall into one of three groups: archaelogical buffs, Vietnamese-Americans visiting family, and visitors who were connected to the 1960s-70s war (either people who served in Quy Nhơn themselves or their family). The history in wv can't—and shouldn't— be complete enough for someone deeply interested in a particular topic, but given the scarcity of other information, I tried to make it broadly informative for each of those groups of possible readers, as well as for travellers who (presumably like Linda Beth 123) simply want to understand better the historical context of what they see and have no other source available anywhere. Please let me know what you think and how you'd suggest to improve it. - VeeWin (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I am pleased to see such in-depth discussion and responses here. Thank you to User:VeeWin and User:Linda Beth 123 for their attention and thoughtfulness. Regarding the maps, yes, my original complaint was about viewing the map in the article. We generally prefer maps to be minimally readable without clicking through to an enlarged version; this allows the web page to be printed with usable maps, among other benefits. The amount of information in the city map is enormous, so I admit it may not be possible to make it totally readable on-screen. It would at a minimum require editing the map image to make the icons bigger, but the text probably needs to be bigger too. Unfortunately, there's so much text in the legend that this could quickly snowball to the point where half the image is legend. I will admit it's a tricky balancing act. I was wondering if anyone had any other thoughts about the readability of the map relative to star status. Powers (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment about map resolution, LtPowers. The region map seems fine, but regarding your comments on the city map, I'm a little confused now. I followed the guidelines on wv's Maps page, specifically this guideline to make a width of 3,008 pixels. It recommends an exact resolution of 3,008 x 1,709, or 3,008 x 3,418 for "really big maps that are more square than rectangular... and can then be printed as two pages." I took the 3,008 as the fixed requirement and built the map around that. However, when I tried at 3,008 x 3,418, there was a lot of unnecessary height: it's an odd-shaped peninsula and doesn't need such height. So I cropped out rice paddies, etc., to show only the city which travellers would experience, and that's how it came to the current dimensions of 3,008 x 2,647. I'd guess most travellers today would just download it on their phones and use it as a guide while walking around, so I tried it on a few phones—both good ones and cheap ones—and at this resolution, all the details are very clear and easy to read even on bad phones. Given wv's emphasis on printing, I printed the map out on paper as well per the Maps guidance, and it seems good to me... For comparison, I looked just now at several star articles. Small towns and regional overviews are visible for the same reason the Quy Nhơn region map is visible: there's less detail to show. But city street maps which cover more than a small area aren't visible to me except at higher original resolutions. For example, Ann Arbor has a map which can't be read at all at the width of 350px in the article. I tried printing the web page just now, and it's completely unusable; even street outlines can barely be seen. It default previews to 800 x 502, at which size it's still illegible even on my high-resolution laptop. At the largest non-original resolution of 1,280 x 804, it's still completely unreadable; in comparison, at the largest non-original size of 1,164 x 1,024, the Quy Nhơn city map listings are readable clearly, and numbers can be read although they're small. The Ann Arbor map isn't usable on laptop, phone or print until I get up to its original resolution of 4,000 × 2,511, which is much wider than the 3,008 guideline on Maps. As another comparison, picking a star map of a city in Asia, Ubud, its map is sized at 600px in the article itself. At that width, it's not really legible on my high-resolution laptop, and is illegible on my phone. I just tried printing, and it can't be read and is unusable. The default preview is only slightly bigger at 681x599, and is similar: very hard to read on laptop, impossible on the phone. At 1,162 x 1,024, it's legible but tough to read the numbers on my phone, and unclear when printed on my setup. It's only when moving up to the original resolution of 3,412 x 3,008 that the Ubud map becomes crisp and easy to read... I thought static maps are encouraged, and in this case of Quy Nhơn it seemed particularly relevant given incorrect information in maps from other sources. It would be a shame to have just had a low-detail region map, so I made both the region map and the city map, and I tried to follow the guidelines. I'd be happy to improve it in any ways you would suggest, but I'm a little unclear about what to do now, so please let me know what you think. VeeWin (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping others might chime in; it could be that my concern is overblown. The Ann Arbor map is indeed totally unreadable. It was one of our first Star articles, dating back to 2007. There were concerns expressed about the map at that point, but I'm not clear on whether they were ever resolved. Powers (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just used this article after spending 5 days in Quy Nhon, aug 2018 wish I had found it earlier but will get the most out of the next few days here. It is accurate informative and I read it end to end . So many poor guides, references and travel info on the web. this article smashes them As a user I vote for star status . Thank you

"Just" needs coordinates on listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is overwhelming: the pictures, the diagrams, the maps, the text, the listings, everything. As a result, it looses the reader-friendliness that an article should have. Is there really this much to say about the place? My vote would be to slush, considering the discussion that took place above and the article itself. It's not a terrible article, just that it's too overwhelming to be reader-friendly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Basically, are the any objections to slushing this one? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
You know what? No-one is supporting this (excluding the nominator). The only time the word "support" is mentioned is when someone says that they are not willing to support the article in its current state. So I'm going to go ahead and slush. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Windsor (Ontario)Edit

Years ago Stephen Colbert on his Colbert Report show once said that Windsor was the armpit of Ontario. I don't know if he's even been to Windsor, but I'm pretty sure he's not been to Sarnia, Hamilton, or Sudbury or he wouldn't have said that. Windsor used to be a blue collar town closely tied to Detroit and all the pros and cons that go with that. Windsor has come a long way baby. It's still no heaven for hipsters and can't compete with the cultural Mecca's of Vancouver, Toronto, New York, San Francisco, or Austin, but it just may in time as the Internet levels the playing field. Or not. I just went over the whole article. Please review as you see fit. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Thanks for making a nomination, and a good one too if I may say so. This is a good article with plenty of listngs but an overwhelming number, either. However, for it to be nominated it needs some work but at the same time is fairly close to star status. Quite a lot of listings lack coordinates and there are minor formatting issues here and there. There's also a listing with just an external link, and nothing else.
We should remember though that we don't nominate articles based on the city's culture, either now or in the past. Different cities are popular with different people. We give the status on the basis of the article's quality, not the place itself.
Also, just a quick note: there's an at least seemingly contradicting statement in the article which says that it is multicultural and then says it has small town charm. Could this be tweaked a little so it doesn't sound like a contradiction? Wouldn't affect star status much but would be a good thing to do. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I have done not a little tweaking on the page and it keeps coming closer and closer to deserving Star status, but not yet. No Star article in Wikivoyage has such a tiny Get Around section or such a long and itemized Go Next section as this (it was even a "nearby" subsection, totally off-MoS - I tried to find a solution - but it's not right yet). Major cleanup and moving to Leamington and Kingsville and other articles of Essex County is needed. The Understand section could use some improvement, a History subsection. Let's keep working. Ibaman (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: A "Nearby" section, which is used rarely, serves a different purpose from "Go next". A "go next" section lists the next town's Wikivoyage destination articles. A "nearby" section covers small outlying villages which aren't contiguous suburbs, but which are listed here as they lack their own articles. This applies primarily to small cities and towns, surrounded by rural villages which merit only a {{listing}} or two each. Wikivoyage:What is an article? expects destination articles to be of a reasonable size suitable to be carried in travel baggage, so doesn't require the creation of a separate article ("go next") for every tiny village. "Nearby" therefore contains listings; "go next" contains links to adjacent destination pages and itinerary. K7L (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
That said, Essex-Kingsville-Leamington have their own articles, so any individual listings in and around these specific cities should be moved out of Windsor (Ontario)#Nearby into the corresponding local destination article. K7L (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected :) but still, not yet. Ibaman (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't want this to be a discouragement to the article improving, but can we slush this one for now and renominate this article when it improves? Otherwise we may just sit around while we "wait for improvements" that don't come to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I wish we can hear other Wikivoyagers' opinions. As for myself, I won't stop tweaking. Ibaman (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think we should visit this nomination later — I just don't think it's necessarily ready yet. We can always give it time to develop. But yes, about reaching other Wikivoyagers — I've posted about star nominations in general to WV:Requests for comment, and the extreme opposition to my suggestion to remove star status altogether (in the pub) has actually brought attention to the star nominations. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No. I just started on cleaning up many, many punctuation, capitalization, and formatting errors, and done spelling errors. I found festival dates from years up to six years ago. This article does not "... follow the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule." It should have been cleaned up before the nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Then it sounds like a slush to me. I'll go ahead and slush this one when I have the time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

North VancouverEdit

This article meets all the criteria. dowling002 (talk)

  • Not yet - It's cool that you like the article and nominated it for Destination of the Month and Star status, but as someone who's contributed quite a bit to the North Van article, I don't think it's at Star-level. A few things off the top of my head and from a quick glance are:
    • The Do section needs some work -- two festivals have no info and the third is missing location info, not all the hikes have adequate information, many of the other subsections are missing info that would make them more useful for the traveller
    • The Buy section isn't standard
    • The Connect, Stay safe and Go next sections need additional info or tweaking (e.g., no mention of Wifi, rec center or library computers, raise awareness that it's wilderness/back country very quickly if you go hiking)
    • The static map doesn't show all listings
    • A lot of the article reflects my style of writing and spelling, which is a hybrid of Canadian and American English, so it should probably be reviewed for consistency with the Manual of Style
I think it's a really good article (although I'm biased) and possibly the most complete travel guide to North Van out there, but I don't think it's up to our Star standard yet. -Shaundd (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Not star. For a start, I don't even see a hand-drawn map, and I think a star needs one. It's perfect in every other way, although I just scanned through the article. Selfie City (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: a consensus was reached here that a static map isn't useful for city articles without sub districts because the Eat, Sleep and Drink listings change too frequently to make updating static maps practical. ArticCynda (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, okay, ArticCynda. Of course I wrote this quite a long time ago. Selfie City (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems that some of Shaundd's concerns have been addressed, but there are still some coordinates missing and some formatting issues. For example, none of the festival listings have coordinates, and the same is the case with one of the trail listings. The Connect section could do with more information, and there's also a lot of bold terms in the "get around" section. I'm tempted to say that these issues are an easy fix, but considering the above votes and my suspicion that they're not such an easy fix means that this nomination should be slushed. There are no supports, but maybe we can reconsider this one in future? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: slushed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

BuffaloEdit

Maybe I'm biased (who are we kidding here? Of course I'm biased), but if there's anything keeping us from elevating this article to Star status, I can't imagine what it might be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. This is really an excellent set of guides. All of the district pages are marvelously detailed (seriously, the descriptions here might give the Chicago pages — my traditional gold standard for Wikivoyage guides — a run for their money!). It's clear that a lot of hard work and enthusiasm went into the creation of these guides, and it seems only right to bestow a star upon it. If you haven't already, I would recommend going through the district pages and making sure the content in there is up-to-date (admission prices haven't been raised, restaurants haven't closed, etc.). There are a couple of minor things I would like to see addressed before the main Buffalo page becomes a star, but neither of them are serious hurdles:
  • I would like to see district names on the district map. The current color-coding is fine, but a little extra reinforcement wouldn't hurt. Plus, it would help those who are colorblind.
  • The opening paragraph of the Understand section is uncharacteristically dull for this guide. Not that there isn't a place for some of these facts in this guide, although I think we can do without the long list of awards — I don't think what the New York Times had to say about Buffalo six years ago is that noteworthy, nor is an award bestowed literally almost twenty years ago now.
Other than that, nothing comes to mind. Fine work! PerryPlanet (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A few small items that might be worth addressing:
  • In the Buffalo#Architecture section, the "Buffalo Architecture and History" link, while valuable, seems like a violation of WV:XL.
  • While the "See" section notes that more information can be found in the district articles, there isn't any indication what district each museum can be found in ("Located in the XYZ district, the ABC & DEF museums...").
  • Given the article's length, a few more pictures or some infoboxes might be helpful. There are several sections where you can scroll through 2-3 screens and see nothing but text.
  • There should probably be an "Itineraries" section to specifically call out articles like Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side - while that article is linked in two other places I think it would be best to also have a separate section like we do with Chicago#See.
Nice work! -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Responding to some of the points brought up thus far:
  • District names on the map - it might be difficult to find a place for the labels in the case of Allentown and the Delaware District and the Elmwood Village: districts with long names that, on the map, are taller than they are wide and not adjacent to any water or gray space. It's a good idea in theory, though, so if anyone can manage the logistics of it that'd be great.
  • "Buffalo Architecture and History" website as violation of wv:xl - I think this might very well be a case of "the exception that proves the rule". This website is undeniably a greatly valuable resource for architecture buffs, which make up one of the largest niche tourist markets for Buffalo. Yet there's far more information on that website than could ever conceivably be summarized in the Buffalo article, any of the district articles, or even a hypothetical Architecture in Buffalo travel topic.
  • Dull lede in the Understand section, clarifying to which district articles the name-checked attractions in the See section belong, and an Itineraries section - points are well taken; I'll get to work on those ASAP. (I especially like the latter idea, given that I have brainstorms for about a half-dozen more Buffalo-related itinerary articles.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
With the district names, you could try shortening them (such as just Allentown or Allentown/Delaware). I also think the map would benefit from such additions. James Atalk 02:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - While useful suggestions have been made, I'm not sure anyone would have complained if you had upgraded this one unilaterally ;-) The quality is obvious, and it has been clear to me for a long time that you are the most eloquent writer on this site. I would welcome more images, too. The sheer amount of words is somewhat... overwhelming, especially on mobile. Without wanting to suggest deletions, and with a lot of admiration for the work, I will say in general that this is a little overcomplete for my taste. At least, for a travel guide; I imagine it is the perfect expat guide. I'm only saying this because I find it important that this kind of guide does not become the new benchmark for great articles. It holds literally dozens of places of worship and dozens of laundry services. It list a bunch of colleges and schools, with information about their history and such, but without information about the relevance for travelers (e.g. summer courses, short language courses). There are many eat listings, most with rather lengthy descriptions; it's hard to scan the articles for the best places to eat without spending some serious time reading. About safety, the Buffalo-article states that "Follow general precautions that would apply in any urban area (..) and you should be fine pretty much anywhere." And that's indeed the main message I get from reading the stay safe sections in all the districts - so they could be much more compact, or in some cases even be left out, for me. Again, I'll gladly admit that some of this is a matter of taste. As for wv:xl; unfortunately, value has never been the determining force in our linking policy. I have no objections to the link (and many others), but technically, there's no reason a valuable site for architecture buffs is any different from links that hugely benefit history buffs, shoppers or who-ever. The only thing that puzzles me, is why Eat, Sleep, Buy and worship listings all get such extensive descriptions, while Drink-listings get nothing but an address and a phone number? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's not conflate the Buffalo article with the district articles. I'll be the first to admit that the district articles are not perfect and are probably overly wordy, but they contain all the information a Guide-level article needs, and if we decide that promoting a Huge City to Star means holding its district articles to the same standard, we'd have to demote most if not all of our Huge City Stars.
The reason I feel that Buffalo Architecture and History should be an exception to the usual wv:xl procedure is that, inasmuch as Buffalo has a great deal to offer visitors in any given specialized niche, it's architecture. While we obviously have shopping districts, Buffalo wouldn't be the first destination on anyone's mind who's travelling for the explicit purpose of shopping; while there are obviously historical sites in Buffalo, they're not prominent enough on a national or international level to draw huge numbers of people from outside the region on their own merits. On the other hand, the list of reasons why Buffalo is an unusually important city for its size in the domain of architecture is long enough that architecture buffs make up a significant proportion of tourists here, so IMO it seems fine to offer a little more in the way of detailed information for that particular group.
As for your questions about the Drink sections, the short answer is I'm not a drinker myself and don't have much use for nightlife. I can give enough general information about the bar scene in any given area of Buffalo to fill out the introductory blurbs at the beginning of each district article's "Drink" section, but I think it's better to leave descriptions of the individual listings to someone with more expertise than myself.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course - and as I stated, I fully support the upgrade even without any changes. I just feel that districts are at the heart of any guide, and this is the most obvious place to comment on the general approach of the package of articles (individual district nominations will stand alone even more). As for the link, I should perhaps have said history buffs or shoppers in other destinations. Looking at the link however, I too find it very useful and I'm happy to support allowing this one per consensus, even if it's not in line with policy. It's weird anyway that suggested reading in terms of books or movies to watch is fine, but websites are by definition unwanted. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not that they're unwanted, per se; it's a slippery slope, though. It's much easier to ban them all than to be able to define which ones are acceptable and which ones aren't. Oddly enough, I think we might allow bare URLs to valuable online resources on par with books in information value, so long as they weren't linked -- but that would be just silly from a usability perspective.
  • Not Yet.
    1. While I share Julias' concerns about length, I think most of this article (as opposed to the districts) is fine. Some of the Eat listings go on a bit. (The name-dropping in the Charlie the Butcher's entry is particularly egregious.) There's a tricky balance to strike in travel writing between explaining what makes something worth experiencing and providing an overwhelming amount of background information. I fear this article is just a bit on the high side. Some of the more tangential (but interesting) tidbits could be moved into infoboxes.
    2. I also agree that the external link is disallowed by policy and shouldn't be in a star article. I would welcome proposals that would allow highly valuable links such as this while keeping out the rabble, without greatly adding to editors' workload. (The links to buffaBLOG and the Guide to Buffalo English seem to have the same problem.)
    3. The Drink section, by contrast to Eat, is crazy short. Are there no chain bars or coffee shops of note? No individual shops worthy of calling out as destinations? And while I know it's a well-known chain in Canada, seems like Tim Horton's would merit at least a mention given its proliferation in the region. =)
    4. A few formatting issues: the titles of television series should be italicized, not quoted. Template:SeeDistricts should be used below each section header rather than the custom text in bold.
    5. The lede section is pretty short considering the length of the rest of the article. I would like to see some of the city's biggest highlights called out here. The same goes for the district listings.
    6. I totally understand the impetus behind putting the suburb listings in the Districts section, but I really think they belong in Go Next.
    7. Speaking of Go Next, I believe by policy these are supposed to be one-liner listings.
    That's it for now. It's really close, but I don't feel comfortable holding this up as a star just yet. -- Powers (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Where are we with this one? I has been several years since there was any comment here. To me it looks like there are some unresolved issues in the comments above.

For the question about linking to the Architecture & History website, I'd say that is fine. See Talk:Shanghai#Policy_question_for_listing for two somewhat similar cases. Pashley (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. It's been almost two years since I chimed in here, and since then my thinking has changed a bit on a lot of the sticking points, most notably when it comes to external links. I think the link to buffaBLOG can definitely be jettisoned, as it's not nearly as popular a source of local music news as it was when I first included it, and The Guide to Buffalo English is outdated to the point of near-uselessness. Buffalo Architecture & History will still hurt a little bit to excise, but after the current phase of my work on Buffalo winds down (shortening blurbs in the district articles and reorganizing the district hierarchy), I intend to shift focus to itinerary articles of walking tours for architecture buffs (I already mocked up a first draft of one), which will cover more or less the same ground as BuffaloAH. I also would have no problem shortening the blurbs in the "Eat" section (indeed, I'm already hard at work on that task in the district articles) and adding length to "Drink". I feel like I do have to continue to push back about listing the suburbs under the "Districts" section (having them in "Go next" would be problematic since none of those places can really hold a candle to what's already in that section in terms of visitor interest, yet they obviously deserve to be linked from the Buffalo article in some form or fashion), and the length of the blurbs in "Go next" (they can be shortened a bit, I guess, but reducing each to one line would make the section near-useless). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the people who brought up opinions in this nomination (obviously, besides AndreCarrotflower) are not even editors on Wikivoyage anymore. Should we perhaps decide not yet on this one and start a new nomination on a clean slate? So much is included here that, for anyone to express any new opinions, they have to read through the whole discussion, which I don't want to do and I don't think anyone else would want to do either. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, let's do that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I won't be able to do that now, and I'm not completely sure when I'll have the time. I might try this evening (Pacific Time), but we'll see how it goes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

KraainemEdit

This article has recently been updated with all the template modifications (most notably for public transport) and appears to meet all the criteria for star nomination. What do other Wikivoyagers think? ArticCynda (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Not yet. It is a city article, but understand has a districts section like a Huge City. I think that these would be better renamed "localities" or something, and the map changed to just show the border of the districts, not shading which makes it difficult to read the map. Alternatively this could be shown on a small static map, and the dynamic map without the shading moved to the standard section of Get Around. Carrefour is mentioned 8 times in the article, but does not have a listing. Kraainem Shopping is not "free" unless the shops give stuff away. AlasdairW (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: Thanks for the feedback, I added Carrefour as listing along with other supermarkets in a new section, and removed the (very unfortunate) "free" designation for other shops.
I lack the skills to make static maps, could you produce one for Kraainem, please? ArticCynda (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I have never made a static map, and I don't have the time at the moment to try. AlasdairW (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
ArticCynda trusted me to support this nomination and do what I can to get it through. Therefore, I hope in the fairly near future to read through it and get an opinion on its nomination. Considering the user's ban for their antisemitic comments, etc., I would like to check that through, but when I did a quick search for either "Jew" or "Jews" (I can't remember which, maybe both) in the article, nothing came up that seemed like harmful language. I would like to see this become a star article, especially since ArticCynda is de facto no longer an editor here and because it's definitely a good article written by a good contributor who unfortunately went the wrong way in the end. Selfie City (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
By the way, by reading AC's first comment on User_talk:ArticCynda#Blocked, you will see what I mean in my above comment here. Honestly, saying I appreciated ArticCynda's work on Kraainem is true but at the same time a stretch from his/her point of view. But still, I'd like to see this become a star considering the article's main contributor will no longer be able to improve other articles on the website. Selfie City (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • So I've taken some time to read through the Understand section and I've developed an opinion. First, it's detailed, overall quite well-written, and clearly one of Wikivoyage's best articles. The districts section works with the article, and I think this is a reason for it to be a star, not for it to stay at guide status. But still I am going to vote oppose until some changes are made. Here are the changes I think should be made:
    • Shortening basically everything would be helpful. Tourists will not want to spend hours reading the article; they want to find quality with some quantity but not too much.
    • The article is not poorly written, but at the same time the writing style indicates that the writing quality could be better. Here are a few examples:
      • "The Second World War put a temporary stop to the development of South Kraainem, but from the 1950s the deforrestation accelerated and had completely urbanized the area by 1967." For a start, I'm not sure the spelling of "deforrestation" is right here, and also it's not the deforrestation that urbanizes an area. This may seem like nit-picking but if this is going to be a star article it needs to be the best of the best and, since we're the sister website of Wikipedia, our articles should be very well-written.
      • "Kraainem has 5 districts, each with a distinct personality." Personality has the word person in it. City districts are not people. Character is a better word here.
      • "Upscale residential and commercial district around the Dumon Square with expensive flats, and a large shopping district with countless overpriced boutiques." The now-stereotyped ArticCynda edit that I've often called "lively travel writing gone too far". It brings memories of other statements AC made like "more money than brains" and "thriving on ... unemployment", and travelers who have been reading the Brussels article as well may think our whole travel guide is written like this.
    • I think these are fixable, however, and in the longer term I can definitely see this going in the star article direction. I sincerely hope that no-one tries to stop the nomination purely on the basis that AC wrote it; that's a very unfair view since ArticCynda put a lot of work into the Kraainem article that should be appreciated. Selfie City (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't necessarily agree that "personality" cannot be used as a word to describe a district. Inanimate objects and concepts are described using anthropomorphic metaphors all the time. Gizza (roam) 02:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but at the same time "character" seems like a better word to me. But anyway, if you read through the understand section you will get my general message (that the article's writing quality is not bad but could be better). Selfie City (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the very detailed and unprejudiced analysis of the article, Selfie City. I really appreciate the efforts you've put into supporting Kraainems nomination. I agree with the points you made, including that the language could be further improved, and recognize that its current state is a best effort of a non-native English speaker with inevitable linguistic flaws. Ideally, the article should be copy-edited by a native English speaker. I personally still don't see a problem with referring to some shops as overpriced (particularly since at the time of writing 554 other articles on WV also make use of the word to refer to restaurants, shops, services etc.) but if there is a consensus on removing it from the Kraainem article then I don't object if it is considered in the best interest of the article's quality.
P.S.: Selfie City, I intended to leave this message on your talk page to express my appreciation, but it appears to be protected from editing, hence I left it here. Feel free to remove it after reading. Thanks! — AC
Yes, I was getting quite a lot of vandalism to my userspace. Therefore, it's now protected so only autoconfirmed users can comment there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Well written article. Ran a quick google search, and by far the best travel (free) travel guide to this city. One remark: perhaps there are too many illustrations in this article. It is likely not necessary to have a picture for each See listing, and doing so will be detrimental when printing the article. —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.185.65 (talkcontribs)
Some of the pictures are just of fairly boring looking houses too. I don't think there are too many, but that they are unnecessarily bunched in the 'See' section, when they could be spread more liberally around the article.
The way the districts have been handled, sticking them under 'Orientation', makes sense, but are we really sure they're necessary to list, either at all or in that formal list + coloured map way? It's only a town, a village really, of 13,000 people, so the districts themselves are tiny, are never going to be articles, and navigating such a small place shouldn't pose much difficulty.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Significant parts of this article were written by a user whom we know to have inserted factually wrong stuff deliberately into articles to push an agenda. I would moderate the vote if we had somebody on the ground who could go check, but we don't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think the personal views of AC should influence this article’s star nomination, but at the same time this article does need to be well read and checked for antisemitism and the like. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This is not about the "personal opinions" of AC. It is about us knowing that no9t all written by this editor is to be trusted and said editor being (one of) the main author(s). If we had somebody local who could check this would be much less of an issue, but frankly they could be making up a bizarre war and inserting it in WV for all we know... It might not preclude guide status or even featuring, but star status is definitely a bridge too far... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we slush, then? I doubt that this will be nominated to star status now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I doubt any support votes will come out for the Kraainem article now, but I'll wait a couple more days before slushing just in case. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yellowstone National ParkEdit

This is a long article, with plenty of information and a static map. I think the article actually needs to be shortened a little, and some listings need coordinates, but it’s still a good article and worth nominating for star. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Like Indianapolis, Yellowstone is a former DotM candidate that got thrown on the Slush Pile, so the discussion there should give a good indication of what needs to be fixed. (That was a while ago, though, so the situation may have improved in the intervening time.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The issues there seem to line up pretty well with what I think. The number of listings is overwhelming and coordinates are needed for some listings. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
My vote would be needs work, although I'd have to mention that since June 2012 around the time of the failed DOTM nomination, this article has increased by almost 20,000 bytes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Will now slush; no one has come out in support of this nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

BouziguesEdit

There has been discussion over this one for some time and we're finally getting to the point where it can be nominated for star status. So what do we all think? I think the position on Talk:Bouzigues so far is positive overall. If those who supported there could just come over here and vote support too, that would be great, but don't worry about long explanations or anything like that, since your time is limited. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I think it could still be better, so whether it's good enough to get star status I'm not totally sure. Erring on the side of not yet. I would say it is almost certainly the best visitor guide to Bouzigues in English out there, as immodest as that sounds. If there are improvements people suggest, I won't have time to implement them immediately.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. Any things that you think would help it get to star status? I'll add them myself, if you want. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The stuff that's in the talk page and not yet crossed off, basically. Not a lot. You are more than welcome to go over the article, and make those additions and any other improvements you can think of. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: not yet. This hasn't moved forward in the last couple months, but when the checklist is complete, we can start a new nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

CalgaryEdit

I have not read through the article, but it's a long, detailed article with plenty of content. Seems to be a good choice for a star article. It's currently at guide status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support --Traveler100 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No doubt a great article! I haven't looked at it in detail, but there are a few general issues which I think could be improved:
    • Many lists are longer than 9 items. We should either brake these lists into sub-headings, or remove the least important venues.
    • Some of the sub-headings are non-conventional and overlapping, making them a bit confusing and difficult to use. E.g., some mid-range eateries serve international cuisine, and vice versa. Perhaps the subheadings "International", "Take-out only restaurants" and "Bed & Breakfast" could be integrated into the budget/mid-range/splurge eat and sleep subheadings?
    • The images are rather unevenly distributed with few in the first third of the article, and none in the last third. Perhaps they could also be made a bit more varied, as about half of them portray the skyline, and and the rest mostly portray the zoo or the stampede grounds.
    • Many listings lack opening hours and price information etc. Perhaps we could add Template:Eatpricerange and Template:Sleeppricerange-boxes.
    • Since most of the article is from 2014 or before, some information is probably dated. It could be a good idea to at least update the listings.
    • Is there any tourist information office we should list?
MartinJacobson (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Dividing restaurants or accommodation by type (for instance, splitting sleep into "camping", "B&B", "motels", "economy limited service hotels" and the like) is valid and may well be preferable to a split by price range. The city tourist info site is https://www.visitcalgary.com and much of what's in this article was written by User:Country Wife, who did an impressive job of polishing this article for Destination of the Month before riding off into the sunset, never to be seen again. It might be worth rechecking prices, hours and other info in individual listings as the bulk of the work was done soon after the big floods of 2013. Overall, though, this is one of our better articles and is worthy of promotion. K7L (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
K7L you're absolutely right that divisions by accommodation/cuisine type are fully valid! But to clarify, my point was rather that it might be easier for readers if we used one mutually exhaustive and mutually exclusive system of organizing the venues, rather than having multiple different systems. I.e. that the article uses either type or price range, but preferably not both.
However, since the original nomination I see that a lot has happened with this article. First of all, there is a current discussion on districtifying the city and turning it into a huge city. As a huge city, all its districts would have to be at guide status for the main article to be worthy of star status, which would require a considerable amount of work. Secondly, Ground Zero has been doing a lot of improvements to the article lately, but did not, after careful reading, consider it worthy of star status and removed the starnom tag. Thus, there is no consensus behind a promotion to star status. I therefore suggest that we formally slush this nomination for now, and reconsider it once its districts are all at guide status. MartinJacobson (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the removal of the star nomination tag in the edit history. Really, there should have been discussion here before that tag was removed, but I agree with you that considering the above, it should be slushed. I'll wait a couple more days for any more input, though. @Ground Zero: Any thoughts? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I did remove the star nom because I thought it was obvious that an article that was so out of date and with so many formatting flaws (time and date, capitalization) could not be a star article. I am surprised that it was nominated when it was in such poor condition. The very first paragraph focused on events that took place six years ago! I did a major overhaul, so maybe it is closed to being a star. I haven't been to Calgary since 2001, so I'm not the best person to evaluate if it is up to date now. Ground Zero (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it's fine. I got totally the wrong picture. Accordingly, I'll slush this from star status immediately. An article with those kinds of problems probably shouldn't be featured. Thanks for cleaning it up, though! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Walt Disney WorldEdit

Failed nomination to remove star status

Has been some time since this was made star status; what is required of an article has changed in particular coordinates of listings. Time for review of the articles.--Traveler100 (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Following articles need coordinates for see, do and eat listings: Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom, Walt Disney World/Disney Springs, Walt Disney World/Epcot, Walt Disney World/Hollywood Studios and Walt Disney World/Magic Kingdom. —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talkcontribs)

Powers did a great deal of work on the Walt Disney World articles, so it would have been courteous to ask him whether he could help with these updates before nominating the articles for destarring. Article histories also show work by the very helpful JakeOregon, who may want to help with this, too. I don't think it makes sense to nominate articles for destarring only on the basis that they are star articles that have not yet been geocoded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I was working on the principle adding the tag to the article would bring it to the attention of the interested people but you have a point, pinging @LtPowers:. As for destaring, we have 23 star articles and 285 guide articles that need coordinates by by June 2019. As the November 2018 cotm show, even with a number of people working on the subject, it is going to be a challenge to get all these done. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Especially if the locations are clearly indicated on static maps, I think that's not a good reason to destar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a good argument, if others think the same then can remove these from destart nomination. Is the general consensus for Isle Royale National Park. However these maps are 8 or more years old, I assume some rides have changed since? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm being convinced that the number of star and guide articles without coordinates means we should de-star just because of a lack of coordinates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The maps haven't been edited to reflect changes in rides? That could be done. Just ping the usual suspects. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Some progress has been made but still a good number of listings without coordinates. The maps are from 2009, cannot believe things have changed since then. I guess this is the big question of once a star always a star or should article be reassessed after a few years. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Coordinates aren't essential. Just list whatever changed that isn't in the static map and request an edit. I can't believe the changes are so numerous that the few static map experts on the site couldn't take care of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

South BostonEdit

Hello! I have been chipping away at this for awhile, and it feels like I've gotten it to a much better place. I don't know if it's star stuff just yet, I doubt the writing is up to par mainly. (It's kind of why I started contributing, to work on my written communications skills. But then all the other cool things you can to play with here keep distracting me!) Also, not sure about the whole map situation. Is it cool to have only a dynamic map in a star article? Any feedback or pointers (especially on writing) would be very welcome. I'd love to incorporate the feedback as I keep chipping away at these Boston articles. It looks like most haven't been updated in 10 years!

  • Is the writing any good? (tips to improve?)
  • Are dynamic maps cool, or do we need flat ones for stars?
  • Can you star a bare-ass district, or should we wait until all Boston pages are up to snuff?

Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Answering your questions in order:
  1. Copy-editing a Star nominee is a fine-toothed comb kind of thing, so based on my admittedly less-than-thorough reading of the article just now I can't give you a definite answer of whether it will need to be edited more. I can say that there aren't any major glaring problems that jump out at me. The tone seems right: informal, informative without being too encyclopedic, no misspellings or grammatical mistakes that I could find.
  2. We currently don't have any Star articles with dynamic maps, and whether a static map is a requirement of Star status has been a matter of dispute pretty much since we first introduced dynamic maps. It's been a while since the issue has come up (as you can see, Starnom is a lonely place these days), but IIRC a slight majority of our users are in favor of allowing dynamic maps on Star articles, at least in some cases. But the anti-dynamic map minority is large and vocal enough that it really can't be called a consensus per se. I wish I had a better answer for you, but that's the scenario.
  3. Finally: yes, it absolutely is possible to Star-ify a district article for a city where not all districts are up to snuff.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the response Andre! For me personally, building static district level maps isn't an interesting problem to solve. Plus it would be odd to have a static and dynamic map of the same content, no? On the other hand, if a printable guide is the primary goal, a flat map seems necessary? Anyways, I'm sure I'm rehashing old arguments at this point, I'm fine leaving this as a guide until map-consensus is reached. I would still be interested in any feedback on how to improve the writing, still think that's the real weak point. Thank you all! --ButteBag (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
In addition to printability, static maps have a huge advantage in readability and customization. It's difficult to suggest that an article with only a dynamic map represents our best work, same as if we had an article with auto-generated text. Powers (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
While I don't want to derail a star nomination to re-litigate the dynamic vs. static map debate, it should be noted that there are a number of editors here who hold the opposite opinion regarding whether a dynamic map is "our best work" - I'm obviously one of them, and would consider removing a dynamic map and replacing it with a static map to be something that would significantly weaken an article and overall make it a far less useful tool for travelers. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha, thank you for the feedback! But "dynamic map" === "auto-generated text" is a little bit of a Straw Man for me. Is there another thread where this map discussion is taking place? Happy to post there. Anyway, I'd still love some feedback on how to improve my poor writing abilities if anyone has the time. Thank you in advance! --ButteBag (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think your writing is anywhere near as terrible as you think it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@ButteBag: The subject of dynamic vs. static maps is a hotbutton topic that hasn't been re-opened in a long time, but for some of the original (& heated) discussion you can review Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition#Missing images and missing maps, which is probably the most exhaustive debate on the subject of dynamic maps - you'll also find other threads on that talk page that are relevant. You can also review Wikivoyage:Star nominations/Slush pile, in particular Wikivoyage:Star nominations/Slush pile#El Camino Real, for discussions of whether an article with a dynamic map can be a star article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, and pointers to previous discussions. Looks like I really kicked the hornets nest on this one! --ButteBag (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I should apologize for lumping all dynamic maps together. My complaint is not with dynamic maps per se, just that the current implementation leaves a lot to be desired aesthetically. If a dynamic map can be devised that resolves issues of overlapping labels, excessive detail, crowding, and such, then I'd be happy to support a star nomination for its article. But no one has yet shown me such a map. Powers (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I put my map-thoughts here. I've also added a few missing blurbs to the South Boston article, and some other boat information I just remembered. I think it's pretty complete now, please let me know if there is anything I can improve. Thanks again, everyone! --ButteBag (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: after a couple years with no discussion, it is clear that this nomination is not moving forward. I will consequently move it to the slush pile. If anyone feels like restarting, please do, as I am sure South Boston is a good article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

BostonEdit

OK, let 'er rip! I think I've basically covered everything I can think of. Got a WV styled static map in the commons as an SVG. Following the manual of style to the best of my ability. (Although I'm sure a typo or two has snuck in.) All boring lists have been prose-ified, with judicious use of bolding for the more important bits around town. I would like to add a few more pictures as the summer goes on, but I think the article is pretty pretty pretty good as it stands. What does everyone think? Anything I can improve? Thank you for your feedback! --ButteBag (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Haven't given the article a thorough read yet, but something that immediately jumps out at me is that some of the district articles are still at usable status. The requirements for a major city star article is that all districts be at least guide status, so those are going to have to be improved first. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, shoot! I knew there must be something missing. Please let me know if there are any other issues with the article itself, I can fix them while I'm improving the districts. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've got them up to guide status now. Please let me know if I've upgraded any in error, or if you notice any other issues with the Boston article. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Very solid stuff. I remember being underwhelmed by the Boston guide the last time I gave it a good look (I think this was about a couple of years ago), so it's pleasantly surprising to see it in such great shape now. I'll try to give it a very thorough read when I get the chance, but there were a couple of things I noticed off-the-bat: 1) some of the listings in Downtown and Charlestown lack coordinates, and 2) although they're not technically district articles, the adjacent cities listed in the districts section (Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline) should also be tidied up (I notice a lot of dead links in Cambridge, in particular) and upgraded to guide status, since (as the Boston page points out) casual visitors think of those places as part of Boston too, and every great Boston guide must have great coverage of those cities too. On a similar note, the Freedom Trail itinerary should also be spruced up and upgraded.
On a more general note, I would recommend digging through some of our other major city Star articles (e.g. Chicago and San Francisco) to get a sense of what we expect from a city guide of Star caliber. We hold these up to very high standards, and doubly so when it comes to a major destination like this, so don't be surprised if the feedback you get on this gets extremely particular. I'll also add that I've never been to Boston, so we should definitely get a second (and third and fourth and fifth) opinion from someone who has. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
On an extra note, did you remember to post a note in the traveler's pub to draw attention to this discussion? PerryPlanet (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, before I started, the Boston article felt so out of date as to be considered misinformation! I have been constantly referencing the ORD, SFO & DCA star articles as I went, I often find examples more enlightening than documentation. It's very tricky to balance the facts a traveller needs to know without going overboard on details, while adding the complexity of phrasing it so that someone might actually want to read it.
I don't mind getting into the weeds either, as long as we don't lose the forest for the trees. I had noticed the Chicago districts are stars themselves without having lat/long for every POI. Maybe that was then, and this is now; so if that is the only criticism of Boston, I would happily take it! (Also: to be clear none of the Boston district articles should be considered stars, they don't have hand drawn maps and are not qualified.) --ButteBag (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I only bring up the coordinates because the lack of hand-drawn maps in the district pages makes mapping them in the dynamic maps even more important. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm wondering if there are any comments on the Boston article itself? I'm in the process of updating the Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline articles now. That was the only feedback so far about next steps to take for granting star status. Does that sound right? Thanks for your input! --ButteBag (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Wondering if anyone has had time to review Boston yet? The summer is well underway, and I'm getting pulled onto other tasks, but I've been cleaning up the Cambridge / Somerville / Brookline articles so Boston can be eligible for a star. Just wondering if there were any comments or feedback on the main article?
It also looks like someone corrected some of my typos and misspellings, yay! They also removed (in my opinion) some "lively prose", boo! Not sure what the actual "prose" criteria is, or how/if to rectify the edits. Thanks for your help! --ButteBag (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to revert or revise any prose changes that you feel damage the tone. Powers (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @ButteBag: I think the article looks great! A few suggestions:
    1. I find the links for the "Central" district confusing. (This might be true of other star articles too...I find Chicago's district links similarly confusing.) There are five links, with little indication of how the reader should choose which one to click on, but once you do click on them you realize that they only go to two articles. Instead of having a one-liner description for "Central", I would suggest splitting it up into a one-liner description for "Downtown" and another one for "North End"—then there could just be two links, and the reader would have a way to decide which one to click on.
    2. It might be nice to have an indication of the locations of North Station and South Station (maybe addresses or cross streets?)
    3. The article says "It takes about 15-30 stressful minutes to transfer between the two stations." Could that sentence be adjusted to say how travellers should transfer between the stations (subway? bus?)?
I've never been to Boston, but these are the thoughts that occurred to me when I looked through the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean the descriptions of each "Go next" destination should be shortened per 1-liner listings, and I would agree with that, but only slightly, as in skipping through the section, I think most of the descriptions are quite good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and also the way the sections are divided. And also the number of destinations listed. I know Boston's a big place, but perhaps it should be slimmed down to just the most popular destinations in the area. Otherwise, a pretty good article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: - you've got to keep in mind that just because most Wikivoyage articles are a certain way, that doesn't mean there's a policy that says they have to be. For instance, I don't know where this idea came from that says descriptions of cities listed in "Go next" sections can be no longer than one line. There's nothing about that in the manual of style. All the mos says is "provide a brief description", without defining what "brief" means. Similarly, the mos also does not say anything about whether "Go next" sections should be divided into subsections. In cases where the mos is silent, such as how to structure the "Go next" section, we should assume it's up to the author's discretion and judge based on what works best for the individual destination, which in Boston's case seems to point to the section being longer and more detailed than usual. And where the terms used in the mos are ambiguous, such as "brief", we should assume that a certain degree of leeway exists. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that listings should be only one line in length. Contributors should be free to add some more if they like, but I think the number of destinations listed there shouldn't be too long. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The question we're trying to answer is whether Boston#Go next runs afoul of mos, and it doesn't look to me like it does. If you personally think that "Go next" sections should be limited to a certain length, then let's first talk about gathering consensus to amend mos, rather than attempting to enforce a policy that doesn't exist yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
My criticisms of the article are not really about mos. I simply think that an article with so many destinations in that section should not become a star article until some are removed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. Large cities like Boston are excellent bases for further exploration. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I guess. But couldn't some things be merged into one listing, or whatever? I might give it a try. Don't worry, I wouldn't remove anything important or relevant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, but in the case of Boston, you might ask User:ButteBag if you're about to do anything major. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
No, nothing major. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I've made the "New England" section of "Go next" more compact. It's better, but could perhaps be even better. I think, though, I'll switch to weak support because the content of the Go next section seems worth reading. All of that section seems useful to the traveler. Definitely a couple very interesting infoboxes as well — like the theft and the molasses flood. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
To the degree that policy makes it possible to do so, we should avoid thinking in terms of one-size-fits-all standards that we apply to all articles across the board, and instead think in terms of what works best for each specific article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey SelfieCity, I guess I don't follow. Looks like in Go Next, the New England sub-section has 4 long bullet points with multiple "things" compressed into each. Seems harder to parse, and inconsistent with the other bulleted points. I'd rather they were all redone in the same style or were left the way they were. What do you think? --ButteBag (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmmmm, yeah I also had them organized closest -> furthest from Boston by time (not distance). So we lost that. Plus now the states are emphasized (more likely to have heard of), and not the destinations (less likely to have heard of). Yeah, I'm not wild about these edits, sorry to say... --ButteBag (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I'm still not wild about the length of the section. I think it ought to be shortened some more, if possible, not to fit a particular standard but to make the section a reasonable length. This is why I made these edits. Feel free to adjust as you see fit, but articles shouldn't be dominated by a list of other places to go, but instead they should be about the specific place (in this case, the city of Boston) with a short section at the end for other cities. I don't see why we need to have listings for places as far away as Canada, for example.
Basically, I don't see why we need a whole essay about other places to go. I understand there's a lot of possibilities, but I think it's best not to overwhelm the traveler with loads of places where you can "go next". I think 10 possible destinations should be the maximum for a city of this size. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
City its size? It's the largest city in New England. I again disagree with you. The length of the section is IMO totally fine. And to me, the whole point of a "Go next" section is to give readers choices. The more choices, within reason, IMO, the better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree a lot of choices in "Go next" is good, as long as they're divided into subsections in a sensible way, which these seem to be. I've often wished that an article had a longer "Go next" section, but rarely felt like there were too many choices.
The three suggestions I mentioned above still stand, but otherwise I think this looks like an excellent article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oh, I still think it's a good article. Just potential improvements. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course, User:ButteBag if you really want to revert the edits, go ahead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My apologies for side-tracking this discussion with a relatively unimportant issue, but again here (unfortunately) I do not see consensus. Therefore this ought to be slushed; however, feel free to renominate this article. Result: lack of consensus, so it remains at its current status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)