Discussion is underway about a potential site-wide License upgrade

Wikitravel:Star nominations

From Wikitravel

Jump to: navigation, search

This is where we determine whether an article is ready for be classified as Star status. Even though the criteria are fairly objective, it's good to get some additional eyes to look over a page and confirm that it's ready before elevating it to Star. For reference, here's the general description, from Wikitravel:Article status:

The article is essentially complete. It meets all of the above criteria. It follows the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule. Prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable. It has appropriate illustrations, such as photos and a map. Enough breadth and depth of material is presented that anyone familiar with the subject of the article would have little to point out as absent. Future changes to this kind of article would reflect changes in the subject (e.g. a museum closes, a hotel price changes, a new airport is built) more than they'd require improvements in the coverage.

Objective criteria for Star status varies depending on the kind of article it is. For more concrete guidance on this, see:

If you feel that an article currently at Star status is no longer worthy, or never was to begin with, this is also the place to nominate to de-star an article.

[edit] Nominate

Star articles: Last minute checklist

  • The article must be complete — See definition above.
  • Grammar and spelling must be perfect — See definition above. Prose should be stylistically superior and effective.
  • Illustration: the article should be appropriately illustrated with pictures and a Wikitravel-style map, with all attractions marked.
  • Listings should be in alphabetical order — geographical order is also acceptable if it is deemed better.
  • No duplications: a listing should appear under one section only — if there is ambiguity, put it under the section that it most applies to.
  • Time and date formats: Use: M,Tu,W,Th,F,Sa,Su; "...daily" not "Daily..."; "midnight and noon" not "12AM and 12PM"; "AM PM" not "am pm". (Examples: "M-F noon-11PM" and "9AM-9PM daily").
  • Section introductions are not mandatory but should be present when they serve to improve a section.
  • Use "—" (mdash) for breaks in thought.
  • Use abbreviations for addresses, e.g., St, Ave, Ln, Blvd.

You can nominate any "guide" quality article you think is ready to be declared a "star". Please do not nominate an article if you know that it falls short of the criterion above — refer to the info box for a last minute checklist. If there are other nominations on this page, add yours to the bottom of the list. The basic format of a nomination is as follows: 

===[[Article name]]===
This has everything we're looking for,
plus a swell kitchen sink. ~~~~

Having done this, please replace the {{guide...}} tag with 

{{starnomination}}

at the bottom of the nominated article. You also need to post a note at the Wikitravel:Travellers' Pub to publicize your nomination — remember to tell people that partial critiques and even just a few quick words of support are welcome. These steps help draw attention to the article's nomination, improving the discussion as to whether it should be awarded star status.

[edit] Discuss

Please comment on whether you agree that the nominated article is ready, with a bullet point (*) and your signed opinion. If you think it's ready, a simple "Support" will do. If not, explain what you think is missing or not up to standards. You don't have to leave a detailed critique to vote on the star — partial critiques are welcome, and feel free to just voice your support for the hard work someone else has done. 

===[[Article name]]===
This has everything we're looking for, plus a swell kitchen sink.  TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* The sink isn't properly formatted, and there are no "budget" places to sleep. ~~~~

After three weeks of discussion, if a consensus is reached, then that an article becomes a star, and the discussion should be archived. Note that a consensus means that all outstanding objections should have been addressed and dropped; if issues remain then the discussion should either continue or, if they cannot or will not be addressed in reasonable time, the article should be added to the slush pile. Regardless of the outcome, it is useful to copy the nomination discussion to the article's talk page.

[edit] Nominations for Star status

For an archive of previous successful nominations please see Wikitravel:Star nominations/Archives.

[edit] Big Bend National Park

Howdy, all. I'd like submit for nomination a destination dear to my heart: Big Bend National Park. Hopefully everything is up to snuff. Army of me 00:59, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Support. It's been a pleasure to watch this article grow, and I can't see any obvious room for improvement. I hope I'll get to put it to use soon! --Peter Talk 12:15, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Support. Fantastic article! I'm always finding reasons to be proud of our park articles. However, there is one thing - the star criteria for a park says that the article must have a Wikitravel-style map (this was established when Zion was promoted to star), rather than the regular NP version. If you want, I can make this map, because this article is truly exquisite. PerryPlanet Talk 13:13, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
I was wondering about that. Do you know where that discussion took place? IMO, the detailed NPS park map with all the trails is going to be more useful than a WT-style map, and it's Public Domain, so it's not like there are any licensing issues. --Peter Talk 13:17, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
Ironically, I think I used some of those same arguments way back when...The discussion is here: Wikitravel:Star nominations/Archives#Zion National Park. I don't want to hold Big Bend back from star status for this minor issue either, but it became such a big deal when Zion was up that I figured it would come back... PerryPlanet Talk 13:59, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure the NPS map is readable at printed size, but I'm also not sure I'd hold the article back from Star status just for that reason. LtPowers 13:22, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
If you are up to creating a WT-style map, with at least the trailheads marked (if not the trails)—awesome. It might be necessary to use more than one png for such a map (e.g., northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest). But like Ryan said in this discussion, I don't think it makes sense to substitute a WT-style map that is less useful than the NPS map. Per a strict reading of the star status criteria, use of an NPS map could be a disqualifier, but a WT-style map could satisfy the requirements for star status without being up to the NPS standards!
It would be great if we could grab the vector version of the NPS map and alter the colors to our preferred style, maybe remove the vague topographical definition, etc. But unless someone here has access to a vector graphics editing program that can import NPS pdfs (like $600 Illustrator [1]), then that won't be a realistic option. --Peter Talk 15:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
Just tested, and Inkscape can open it without problem. The entire background is one easily-removable element as well. - Dguillaime 17:05, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
Aha, so I was raising a fuss for no reason ;) I'll whip up a WT-style map from the NPS pdf today. --Peter Talk 18:23, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
That was extremely easy! I'll play around with the map a bit more, to remove some of the less important info, make the more important info more visible, alter some more of the colors for visibility, etc. --Peter Talk 18:38, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Support. I love this part of Texas, and this article is excellent — it feels comprehensive, provides exactly the right level of detail on everything, and is thoroughly enjoyable to read. (And FYI — I have access to a copy of Illustrator should it ever prove necessary.) Gorilla Jones 20:55, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Support. Good news on the map discovery, that's handy, I would have not supported without a WT map (no other guidebook would go to publication with a NP map just because it's easier :) Peter, are we not using green for NP map backgrounds anymore? – cacahuate talk 17:03, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Support Fantastic guide, and as for the map I have a feeling the standard dark green, would make it confusing to read, but maybe we could test it? --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:57, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
It's not the dark green used for city parks, it's green like this one :) – cacahuate talk 18:27, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm no fan of that old neon green, but I've put up a quieter green version for comparison here. --Peter Talk 18:59, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Love it.... perhaps you should propose that as the new standard on the htdam talk page – cacahuate talk 20:08, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
  • It's a great article, and as someone said, it really is an enjoyable read. I just have one question: I have seen previous discussions about the need for linked articles to be at guide status. Does that still stand? There are some red articles, but more importantly, the cities Study Butte-Terlingua and Lajitas, which are mentioned repeatedly as the places to "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" are only outlines... Is that an issue? ChubbyWimbus 02:33, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
    • I think that usually means linked in a "regions", "cities", or "other destinations" section (that is, sub-articles that would point back to this one in breadcrumb navigation). LtPowers 11:10, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Walt Disney World/Hollywood Studios

I believe everything in this section of Walt Disney World is now covered. This is somewhat of a test case, as your comments here on what might be missing will hopefully make it easier to get the other WDW articles up to star quality. I'm a little worried if the prose is up to snuff, but I tried to make it as engaging as possible. It has a full map and I'm trusting my grammar skills not to have missed anything obvious. I'm available to make changes as necessary. LtPowers 17:03, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Support - I'm pretty impressed with this, and it seems like most reservations brought up at the last round (before distrification) has been addressed, especially with the great map! Get all the districts up to snuff, and we might start luring in a new demographic to our quest for world domination, google willing. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:26, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
Support. I'm impressed exponentially with this. I'm positively sure that a Star nomination for this article will push both the main Walt Disney World article and all the other subarticles towards being Stars. Jonathan 784 22:27, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
Comments.
  1. I'm not sure about the '$', '$$', symbols on food and drink. I don't think that is what we currently use for price ranges, is it?
  2. I see the red hands, but I have to refer to the stay safe section in a different article for the rules? What if I just printed out this one for my day at this park?
  3. I don't like the merged See/Do sections. Surely there are some things in the park to be seen - shows etc, and other things to be done - rides etc, according to our criteria. Why merge them here?
  4. I think exclamation marks are a little overdone - too many for one article, and I think words like pretty cool, and neat, sound a little odd, without really meaning much.
  5. Some parts read a bit like a Disney brochure. We don't refer to the traveller as a guest in other articles, should we here? Star Tours an experience like no other for Star Wars fans? Hmmm.. - perhaps in the 80's. --inas 00:38, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
  1. I've gone back and forth on them. There are pros and cons both ways. The pro side is that these match up with what guests will see in their guide maps at the park, and they make it easy to tell at a glance how expensive a place is. It wouldn't be hard to go through and replace them with price ranges if deemed necessary.
  2. You could make that argument for a lot of things, like the Advance Dining Reservations, weather tips, Fastpass, etc., which would mean duplicating large portions of Walt Disney World in each of the five district articles. We could do it, but it would become a nightmare to maintain. I thought we usually tried to not duplicate information where possible.
  3. Brief discussion occurred at Talk:Walt Disney World#See/Do. Shows are, strictly speaking, under "Do" along with rides according to our criteria, so the See sections would be rather barren. It would also disrupt the grouping by area organization. Still, this is something that could be done if deemed necessary.
  4. I was starting to run out of adjectives. Specific suggestions for replacements are welcome.
  5. Strictly speaking, the statement about Star Tours is true, 80s or otherwise. There are no other Star Wars theme park rides, certainly not in a motion simulator. As for your first comment, I'm not sure what you mean. Parts of the Chicago guide read like a Chicago brochure, too. With similar goals, that would seem to be inevitable, wouldn't it?
-- LtPowers 06:41, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

I think a star article should adhere to our policy, and be an example which we want to be copied and emulated. Perhaps we want this article to align with the Disney guide, but if we do, I think it should remain a guide. To become a star it should exemplify our guide style. I think this reasoning applies to the joint See/Do, and the prices as $$ signs. Maybe they are a good idea here, but do we want that style deployed widely? If not, we shouldn't use it in a star article - at least until there are enough stars to make it clear that this is an exception.
I'm not saying the article shouldn't advocate visiting the park. I just think referring to visitors, travellers, us, as guests sounds like a guide produced by the company. I don't think the Chicago guide sounds like it is written by Chicago tourist info.
I was just giving Star Tours as an example, but saying that it is an experience like no other for Star Wars fans has an implication far greater than the fact that it is the only Star Wars licensed ride, IMO. --inas 07:19, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Nominations to remove Star status

Whenever possible, articles should be fixed rather than "de-starred". Only nominate articles which cannot be easily elevated/restored to "star" quality. Replace the Star status tag on the article with {{destarnomination}}. Vote "Star" or "Not Star".

[edit] Failed nominations

See Wikitravel:Star nominations/Slush pile for nominations that failed or were withdrawn. Articles should only be renominated when they address criticisms from the previous nomination. Please add the {{starpotential}} to the top of the article's discussion page.

Retrieved from "http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Star_nominations"