You should also make sure you understand our copyleft and policies and guidelines. Scanning the Manual of style, especially the article templates, can give you a good idea of how we like articles formatted.
As to licensing: it's a mixed bag as to whether the difference in licenses between Wikipedia and Wikitravel is a good or bad thing. It's a bad thing in that it's difficult to copy stuff from one site to the other. It's a good thing because it's difficult to copy stuff from one site to the other. It would be just too tempting to copy over all Wikipedia articles about places + all articles about modes of transportation + all articles about luggage and somehow suggest that that was a travel guide.
A final note: you can't copy an article from Wikipedia to Wikitravel if anyone else besides you has worked on it. But you can use that article as the basis of a new travel guide on the same subject.
Anyways: thanks for dropping by. I'm interested to see what contributions you have to make. --Evan 22:08, 20 Jan 2005 (EST)
 Pisew Falls
- The reason it was still a "stub" is because it didn't have a complete outline, with all the sections we usually put on a national/provincial/state park article. I've added the missing section headers, which may give you some suggestions for what else to add to the article. It isn't essential that the sections all be there, but if (for example) there is nothing at all to buy at the park (not even souvenir snow globes) it's usually best to say that, rather than not having a "Buy" section and leaving people to wonder. I've upgraded the article to "outline". It's very close to the next step up ("usablecity" - there isn't a separate status indicator for usable park articles); the criteria for that are spelled out at Wikitravel:City guide status. I look forward to seeing what more you can do with the article when you get back! - Todd VerBeek 15:55, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
FYI, Wikitravel guidelines consider any place you can't spend the night (whether camping, in a hotel, etc.) an "attraction", rather than a "destination". The difference is that a destination gets its own article, but an attraction is supposed to be included in an article for wherever you would sleep when visiting it. For example, you can't sleep at the Statue of Liberty, so regardless of how popular it is, it's part of the article for New York City instead of being the subject of its own article. While I agree with this policy in principle, I think it falls apart a little for remote parks and such which are bigger "destinations" than the nearest city would be. So to avoid anyone questioning whether this is a valid article subject on the grounds that "you can't sleep there", it might be a good idea to include some "Sleep" options in the article, even if they happen to be outside the park boundaries (such as those in Sassigiu Rapids). After all, without that info listed, it really isn't "usable" for travelers planning a visit to the park. - Todd VerBeek 21:53, 17 July 2006 (EDT)