From Wikitravel

This page contains an archive of the nominations for articles that were successfully promoted to star status or demoted to guide status. For an archive of articles that were nominated but require further work please see Wikitravel:Star nominations/Slush pile.

[edit] Upgraded to Star

List here nominated articles that successfully made it to Star status

[edit] Isle Royale National Park

Previous unilaterally-applied Star, going for confirmation. Anything that's missing from the article is probably also missing from the destination. :) - Todd VerBeek 10:45, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

• Support. - Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:06, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. This is pretty much the template of what a perfect national park article should look like. Jpatokal 21:15, 15 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. Great article. -- Ryan 13:11, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
• Comment: I was wrong about my "anything missing from the article" remark above; I just got back from 10 days hiking from one end of IR to other, and I have stuff to add. :) - Todd VerBeek 18:03, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. I don't think "nothing missing" is a necessary condition :) Hypatia 21:07, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. What Hypatia said. -- Colin 19:39, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. very nice articleBerru 13:15, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Singapore

So I'd like to nominate Singapore as the first "Huge city" Star -- which means that not only the main article but all its districts need to be in tip-top shape. Note that all listings now use the new HTML listing format, so if they don't display according to the MoS, you can blame Evan, not me. =P Fire away! Jpatokal 21:26, 15 June 2006 (EDT)

• Support, but I think it lacks one thing — a map of downtown, something that helps me get from, say, Raffles to People's Park on foot. Pashley 03:23, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. This is the template for how to set up a city article. The map on Singapore/Central looks sufficient for the needs of most travelers (in addition to the many other maps). Great photos, too. -- Ryan 13:11, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
• My error, not finding the maps. Pashley 10:58, 22 June 2006 (EDT)
  • No, the guide's error for putting it in a bad place. I've been thinking about ditching the Central sub-region entirely and merging the little info it has to the main page, I'm not sure it adds much value. Jpatokal 12:18, 22 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support! V comprehensive article Tsandell 15:25, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support! Excellent article Jan 13:29, 28 June 2006 (EDT)
• Previous comment removed -- Colin 22:59, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
• Actually, the stated criteria for a "star" city article require only that any district articles be "guide" quality. When I drafted these criteria, I figured some leniency ought to be given regarding the imperfections of sub-articles. I haven't had a chance to go through the main article carefully yet, but from what I've seen, perhaps with a little MoS proofreading, it has my support. - Todd VerBeek 22:20, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Thanks! I'll limit my critique to the actual article then. -- Colin 22:59, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support, absolutely, great content. --Terence Ong 06:57, 6 July 2006 (EDT)
• Support. Great one... love the place. -BratX.
• Support. Awesomely done! 66.9.126.26 19:10, 24 July 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Yosemite National Park

• The information in this guide is very complete, and it includes detailed information for every heading. The map could be better, but the existing map is still useful. -- Ryan 14:20, 4 November 2006 (EST)
• Support -- Colin 15:39, 4 November 2006 (EST)
• Support, with a qualification. One minor addition to "Get in" I'd like to see, after which I would unequivocally support it: what's the best way to get there via plane (i.e., what's the nearest airport with commercial service, how far away is it, on what roads)? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:27, 4 November 2006 (EST)

  I've added a By plane section using information from the nps.gov site - hopefully that's sufficient, but any other feedback is appreciated. -- Ryan 16:55, 4 November 2006 (EST)

  Looks good to me. Unqualified support now. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:56, 4 November 2006 (EST)

• Support. -- Tim 17:04, 4 November 2006 (EST)
• Support. Really a great example of a park guide. And nice work on the get in by plane section. Maj 17:17, 5 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] Santa Fe (New Mexico)

• Great article with lots of detailed information, and Mark has done his usual wonders in cartography. -- Ryan 14:20, 4 November 2006 (EST)
  • I think it's largely there, but of course I'm biased. :-) (Thanks, Ryan.) One question: should there be a "Stay safe" section? It isn't routine for a "Small city" to have one, and Santa Fe is a small city (population under 70,000) despite its celebrity. However, if there's a consensus that such a section belongs, owing to the vast number of people that visit, I'll add one. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:37, 4 November 2006 (EST)
    • Since "stay safe" is an optional section I don't think one should be required here - not having such a section doesn't (IMHO) prevent this article from being a "star" article, but adding one would only be a good thing. -- Ryan 15:58, 4 November 2006 (EST)
• Support -- Colin 15:39, 4 November 2006 (EST)
• Support. excellent map and good use of photos! Maj 17:17, 5 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] Finland

• Can't really think of anything major missing anymore, although the History section is kinda dinky. Even the linked cities and destinations seem to be in decent shape. Jpatokal 10:38, 26 November 2006 (EST)
  • As regards "linked cities and destinations," there are some possibly significant loose ends in the "Get in" section (particularly under "By boat") that should be tidied up, IMO. Otherwise, I agree, this is an excellent country article. I think I could support it without those repairs; I know I would support it once they are made. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:54, 26 November 2006 (EST)
    • I've added outlines for Hanko and Ivalo, which were the only redlinks left. Anything else? Jpatokal 13:28, 26 November 2006 (EST)
      • You might also look at Naantali and Kapellskär, which are referenced lower in the section. Can't see anything else. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:32, 26 November 2006 (EST)
      • Kapellskär is in Sweden, so it's not really applicable. Naantali does deserve an entry for Moomin World(tm) if nothing else, I'll write it up when it's not 3 AM here anymore... Jpatokal 13:37, 26 November 2006 (EST)
        • Added. Jpatokal 00:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)
          • Satisfies me. Support. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:27, 27 November 2006 (EST)
• Support, with comments
  1. The status rating says that it should have different choices for which regions or cities to visit ("usable" status or better). Does this mean "1 or more" have usable status or "more than one"? Finland appears to have only one region beyond usable, though it has several cities beyond usable.
  2. It would be nice if the the Åland region were upgraded to outline.
  3. Would be nice if the ferries listed in Get in/By boat contained more than just a web address.
  4. If there are more pictures that could be added, I think the article would benefit.

  -- Colin 01:42, 27 November 2006 (EST)

  • Ferry section rewritten and more pictures added. Jpatokal 04:03, 27 November 2006 (EST)
• Support - nice article with decent pictures/maps and very good content. -- Tim 18:58, 30 November 2006 (EST)
• Support, but the following are "would be nice" items:
  1. The quickbar image is nice, but doesn't seem to conjure thoughts of Finland for me. Is there a more iconic image that could be used?
     • Well, Finland really is "the land of 10,000 lakes", so it's actually very representative scenery and kinda iconic. Other options include Helsinki's Cathedral, which already has a prime position in that article, and the sauna pic further below, which would be kinda weird for a country article. On the German WT, they've got a picture of some red houses in the countryside, but I'm not sure that says "Finland" more than it says "somewhere in northern Europe". At any rate, you're welcome to trawl through my pics and look for something better, but while pics like this or this may be arty and accurate, I'm not sure they're very attractive! Jpatokal 23:22, 30 November 2006 (EST)
       • I'll obviously defer to the Finn as to what's the best image for Finland, although from an aesthetic standpoint I like the image of Lenin looking backwards as well as the picture of the dock that's centered, stretching out into the lake. -- Ryan 02:46, 1 December 2006 (EST)
  2. The "—" character in listings has been copyedited a lot lately based on Wikitravel talk:Manual of style#One-liner listings, so we may want to update this article to conform.
  3. The "Learn" section is currently just two links. It would be good if there were at least descriptions of the links, and preferably some information about learning opportunities in Finland.

These are minor nits - this is a really good article. -- Ryan 21:36, 30 November 2006 (EST)

OK, so I'm going to star-ify it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:23, 15 December 2006 (EST)

[edit] Dalian

• Extraordinarily complete guide, with multiple maps for a little-known destination. Paul has put in great effort on this guide. — Ravikiran 18:39, 18 November 2006 (EST)
• Support. Great article. My only reservation would be due to the author's comments on Talk:Dalian about splitting the article into districts - if the article is going to be split into districts then we should postpone this nomination until that happens, but I don't think a split is necessary. -- Ryan 19:56, 18 November 2006 (EST)
  • The article has now been split into districts, which look good to me. My only reservations would be:
    1. There is no "Contact" heading for any of the districts. I personally don't think that not having that heading should prevent the article from becoming a star, but the Wikitravel:District article template includes it for reasons that I've never fully understood.
    2. Many of the accommodation and other listings are missing contact information. Based on Paul's comment that some of this information isn't available I don't think this should prevent the article from becoming a star, but it would still be nice to have.

    -- Ryan 21:21, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Doesn't the contact header within district articles serve as a place to list internet cafes, telephone shops, or post offices so we can contact the world? -- Sapphire

Yes, but I've never understood why it's a required part of the district article template but not (for example) the small city article template. I'm not sure that it's important enough information that it needs to be included for all district articles. -- Ryan 21:39, 30 November 2006 (EST)

I don't think it a necessity for every district to have a contact section either, but there should be, at the very least, a "Contact" section on the main article to explain area codes for land phones and cell phones, and postal codes. I support. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 21:45, 30 November 2006 (EST)

I thought I had included a contact section (I could have sworn I mentioned the post offices at least) but evidently my brain was playing tricks on me again. Anyway, I have now added a section, and I'm pretty sure I didn't just imagine it this time. --Paul. 00:16, 1 December 2006 (EST)

• Needs a pass through with a close eye to commas and missing phone numbers and hours. And Wikitravel:Time and date formats.-- Colin 16:53, 22 November 2006 (EST)
  • I just made a sweep for typos and punctuation (avoiding for the moment the usual issues of "English English" vs. "American English"), and that should all be in good shape. As for hours, if the information isn't available, no penalty for not including it. Support, and kudos to User:Paul. for a fantastic job on a little-known place. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:43, 16 December 2006 (EST)
• Well I've split the article into regions now (I'd been busy working on maps and completely forgot about it), if it seems like overkill I can always roll it back. I'll do a copyedit for commas and time and date formats, as far as phone numbers and opening times are concerned, however, I've filled in everything I can but some of the information simply isn't available from here in the UK. --Paul. 11:14, 24 November 2006 (EST)
• Support, unless folks think we need to wait on more info for listings and/or for the districts to settle down. Great work though! Maj 23:45, 26 November 2006 (EST)

So, I'm going to apply the coveted designator shortly, unless anyone objects. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:47, 16 December 2006 (EST)

[edit] Berneray

A comprehensive article (the exception being get out) that has decent pictures and is well written. Maybe needs a map? I'd also like to see some smaller destinations make star - an article doesn't need to be gigantic to be star! -- Tim 04:58, 2 December 2006 (EST)

I'm afraid a map is, on purpose, a definite requirement for a Star article. Jpatokal 06:17, 2 December 2006 (EST)

I've now drawn and added a map to help the article along. --Paul. 13:43, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Excellent. I can only think of one more complaint: can you explain what exactly "machair" and "crofting" are? Jpatokal 22:55, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Crofting is I think a traditional type of farming, but I can't be more specific than that. I have no idea what a machair is, that term baffled me when reading the article. Unfortunately I'm not a Hebrediean, I just like making maps. --Paul. 23:20, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Crofting can be most succinctly described as subsistence farming on someone else's land. Machair is a former beach which is now a suitable for growing vegetation. I agree that both could be better described in the article. - Todd VerBeek 18:25, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Hello from Berneray! The map is uncannily good. I have edited 'crofting' and 'machair'; hope they are clearer. -- Jkirriemuir 10 December 2006

• I seem to detect an incompatibility between the statement "Outdoor activities include boat trips to nearby islands and to see the seals close up, windsurfing, canoeing, and kayaking" in "Do," and the "Get out" statement that Berneray is the end of the line and the only way out is the way you came in. Please resolve this (ideally with more information about those "boat trips to nearby islands" -- how do you arrange them? what islands? what's to do on the islands? etc.) after which I'll vote to support; the rest of it looks good. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 00:16, 3 December 2006 (EST)

I'd love to see more small destinations make star status. However, I don't think this article is ready yet. This article needs some addresses and phone numbers for listed items; a good scrubbing of the prose (count the number of punctuation mistakes, for instance); phone numbers aren't in standard format; and a lot of information is just left out. Do we need to break down this region article into separate village articles for each of the 5 villages listed? I think that it's exceptional when we don't do that, and we should be extra careful in those cases. Here's a troubling quote: There are many historical remains and sites, dating from Viking times and before, through to more contemporary structures. A guide book (£1) is available from the shop and information centre which details and maps some of these sites. Sorry, but "buy the one-pound guidebook" is not my idea of a star guide. --Evan 08:05, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Evan, the entire island has a population of 126 — breaking this into villages is not likely to be very useful. Jpatokal 08:17, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Agreed, Jani, unless the villages are sufficiently distant, distinctive, and noteworthy to merit their own articles. It doesn't seem to be the case with Berneray. This island may be the exception that proves the geographical hierarchy rule. However, that's going to require some careful management, then -- what does this strategy mean for how we do addresses in listings, for example? --Evan 08:28, 3 December 2006 (EST)

"What does this strategy mean"? IMO, it means the approach is successful and correct: drive the elaboration down to the lowest level where it makes sense. In this case, Berneray is that level. Check the dimensions as well as the population. You're talking about an island smaller than some city neighborhoods -- not even districts. Further elaboration is almost like giving an individual house an article. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:18, 3 December 2006 (EST)

You misquote me. I said, "What does this strategy mean for how we do addresses in listings?" I agree that the level of detail here is correct, but I was being much more specific in my question. If we conglomerate a number of villages (hamlets, really) into one article, like we (correctly IMHO) do in Berneray, do we need to specify where each listing is -- say, adding the name of the hamlet after the street address, if it exists? I think my point in general is that our Manual of style doesn't treat this kind of region directly, so it's difficult to say whether our guide on Berneray meets the MoS exactly. --Evan 12:46, 4 December 2006 (EST)

In this instance, I don't believe the village names are needed to locate the establishments; I'm not even sure if street and house numbers are even applicable in all cases. An "address" should be whatever the locals use to distinguish this place from that place, or to tell where something is located; whether they follow national postal-service standards shouldn't be an issue. As for the MoS, if the inclusion of the village or neighborhood were necessary to locate a place, it could be added in parentheses as "extra directions"... or simply accepted as part of the address, much like the NE/NW/SW/SE designations for Washington, D.C. are. - Todd VerBeek 18:25, 4 December 2006 (EST)

This article should not have been nominated for a star till the listings and info are more complete. The Get Around section just has two lines. There are no options for eating/sleeping. However, the images and map are very good. Punctuation needs to be dealt with.

Huh? There are half a dozen Sleep options listed, but there's only one Eat listing because it's only one standalone restaurant on the island. I don't really see what else could be added to Get around either as there's obviously no public transport, although it would be nice to know if taxis/rented cars are an option at all. Jpatokal 11:38, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Population figure updated. Breaking it into villages is pointless as they all merge into one here anyway. People are located by their name and house, not by "village". Added nearest taxi company. My punctuation is indeed lousy and hope someone else can make better. -- Jkirriemuir 10 December 2006

• I think this is a swell Off The Beaten Path destination (I nominated it), and I think it's a nice "guide" article (I did a fair amount of the online research and MOS-ing for that). But I don't think it's a "star", even with the map and the recent proofreading. The problem isn't the depth or breadth of the listings; I believe they're darn near exhaustive. It's the first-person guidance. The original author contributed a fair amount of the been-there info that a really good Wikitravel article needs, but I think it needs more of that in several areas (e.g. Yeah, what about those viking remains? Or car hire?) to really say that this article is really all-that-and-a-bag-of-crisps. - Todd VerBeek 22:12, 4 December 2006 (EST)

• Some of the B&Bs do not have a location listed. Phone numbers should be begin with a + for international dialing and be formatter per Wikitravel:Phone numbers. The Eat listing needs some pricing info. The reference to Angus MacAskill should be reworked since the text seems to imply I should recognize the name, and I don't. -- Colin 02:26, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Formatted phone numbers. Reworked MacAskill. Added some eat listing pricing info. Added information about car hire, driving obstacles, walking on Berneray. -- Jkirriemuir 10 December 2006

• I wrote the article so can't vote/nominate. One thing would like to stress after reading some of the comments is that, indeed, Berneray is devoid of lots of man-made facilities e.g. loads of places to eat, shopping arcades, whatever. That's what makes it attractive to a lot of people. -- Jkirriemuir 10 December 2006

• • Actually you can, and I think your latest round of edits has addressed pretty much all the complaints made above? I certainly can't see much that could be improved. Jpatokal 08:16, 10 December 2006 (EST)
  • Agree with Jani on all counts; your vote counts as much as anyone else's. Support -- my previous comments have been addressed, and there may not be a destination on all of Wikitravel where the ratio (article content/size of destination) is as high as this one. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:00, 15 December 2006 (EST)

• More. Added cycle hire details. Added more about crafts. Made some corrections. The point about lack of Viking info was fair enough, so added loads of information on the historical sites and remains that are scattered across the islands. Removed pointless bit about the guidebook. Added detail about Giant MacAskill. Added detail about events, where to find out about them when on Berneray. Added more detail about getting to other islands and what to do there. Added stuff about crotal(litchen). Added notes about silence/noise. Added two more pictures, and a link to the online weather readings. Okay, I really am running out of information to include about Berneray! -- Jkirriemuir 10 December 2006

Support, but the Get Around Sections needs to be edited. Maybe a walking trail or s'thing could be mentioned. And Get In is kind of dinky too. Upamanyuwikitravel 06:45, 15 December 2006 (EST)

• Support - I think I'm done messing around with minor cleanups (I hope they were all cleanups and not downs, anyone feel free to re-correct anything that I changed... but I think this article is in amazing shape, so hopefully in 2 days we can give it a new shiny label... Cacahuate 05:11, 16 December 2006 (EST)

• • I've added some more to the Get In section (another resident suggested that the latitude and longitude are v helpful to boaties). There's no recognised walking trail. Altered a few very minor mistakes that had crept in. Shown it to a few other Berneray residents who also can't think of any more stuff to add. -- Jkirriemuir 16 December 2006

• Support. I have been to Berneray several times, and this is a good useful article. A few minor points (these can be ignored) - It is a pity that the spelling has been americanised, as this might deter local distribution of paper copies; The blackhouses might get more of a mention, as many visitors spending only an hour or two look at them; The first photo is of the snow, which is not typical (<10 days per year), maybe this should be swapped with one of the others to avoid giving the wrong first impression, or another view of Backhill or the beach could be used. AlasdairW 18:08, 17 December 2006 (EST)

See Wikitravel:Spelling regarding the American vs. Commonwealth English spelling... Cacahuate 02:54, 18 December 2006 (EST)

What about 'Nutter on a beach' on John's website - if you think it's a better intro pic maybe he'll upload it for us... Cacahuate 03:06, 18 December 2006 (EST)

If you are refering to the picture of cows on a beach, it may be useful in future, but not here - they are on the beach on the island of Vatersay near Barra. I was thinking of one of the ones on isleofberneray.com of Backhill, or simply changing the order of the existing photos. AlasdairW 18:02, 18 December 2006 (EST)

No, I was referring to the one with the lone person on the beach, but actually I like the one you just mentioned better, gives a nice sense of place. I'll email John and ask if he'll upload it, I think that would make a nice intro pic, then we can move the snow one down a bit. Cacahuate 01:56, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Added more about blackhouses, plus a picture of a restored (and lived in) blackhouse. Added picture of Backhill at top (it has my house in it! Centre, slightly left, the white one with a weaving shed between it and the sea), and moved picture of snowy Berneray further down. Spaced out the pictures in the article more sensibly. Jkirriemuir 19 December 2006

And once again, thanks for all the work! Gotta put it on my list to visit now since it's taken so much of my attention - sounds like a nice place.  :) Cacahuate 07:10, 19 December 2006 (EST)

• I hate to rain on the parade, but I've reverted this article's status. "See" and "Do" in this article don't match our Manual of style for attraction listings. I realize that Berneray is going to be exceptional because of its tiny size, but that means we have to be extra careful and make sure the exception is an exemplary exception. --Evan 11:12, 20 December 2006 (EST)
  • I object vehemently. You are applying City criteria to something that, as any number of people have tried to explain, is far more like a Park than a City -- and by Park criteria, See and Do are just fine. Please explain why this set of standards is appropriate, as well as why you chose to make this action unilaterally after a great deal of discussion had already gone on and a consensus had been reached. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:24, 20 December 2006 (EST)
    • Star articles aren't a popularity contest, Bill, and if the article doesn't match the MoS, then it's not a star. That's the whole point of the article status system. "Star" == "perfectly matches the MoS". A consensus was not reached, either: I already gave my objections, above, and it should be obvious from my changing the article back to "guide" that I don't agree with this star status. The article is not fine as a "national park" -- it's not formatted as a park. Is this an exceptional location? Yes, indeed. We don't really cover teensy-tiny islands very well in the MoS. Does that mean we throw any old style into it and call it a star? I don't know. Personally, I'd much rather have some minor variants on Wikitravel's MoS become stars, so we get used to it, before we throw in a really, really different. --Evan 11:37, 20 December 2006 (EST)
      • Balderdash. You have selectively omitted a key bit of the Star nomination language, which I quote here with emphasis added:

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. {...}

The entire thrust of the very extensive discussion above is precisely that Beneray is such an exception. Why is that so hard to comprehend? We built the provision into the guidelines, for durn good reasons I would add; let us now do as the provision says. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:45, 20 December 2006 (EST)

well, i reluctantly just 'mos'd' the remains section, which can be roll back too... I agree it was better before. While I think that sticking to the MoS is very important, I think that dumbing down an article to conform isn't pushing it towards star any quicker. The list format suits attractions that have phone numbers and things, but for a pile of interesting rocks it's much more interesting in the format that it was in. Before you were able to follow it easier and it would be much easier I think to have used it as what it is - a guide to see the sights. I think Star Status should be for articles that are as good as they can be considering the location being written about, not for the best article that fits within the still relatively newly established guidelines. Cacahuate 11:51, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Agreed with Bill and Cacahuate. Evan, you're out of line here. Jpatokal 12:06, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Bill, I agree that Berneray is an exception, and that star articles should handle exceptions. The problem with the Berneray article isn't with the article -- it's with the MoS. Berneray is so much of an exception that it's not proving some rules and following others --it's messing with all of them. Its size and scattering of hamlets make it a challenge to the geographical hierarchy; its lack of street addresses makes it a challenge to all our listing formats. Its remote location and nature challenges which of the article templates to use. I'm really amazed with the amount of work that's gone into this article, but I still have serious reservations about it. We're breaking too much new ground with this article, and I'm really, really not happy with calling it a star. --Evan 12:25, 20 December 2006 (EST)

I repeat: balderdash. I have never seen a rule, anywhere, that is actually "proven" by an exception; that is a figure of speech with a widely understood meaning -- a meaning that, I continue to insist, is entirely applicable here. If the "proves the rule" language is causing problems, then let's fix it, but that's a separate issue. Meanwhile, the process has been followed and the grounds for an exception (as permitted by both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines) are entirely in hand and justified, at rather extraordinary length. This is a Star article, period. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:42, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Maybe it's a good opportunity to come to a consensus on what is the criteria or template standard for a place like this. I'm working on some others at the moment anyway, such as Havelock Island and some places in Mozambique that are going to come up against similar issues, so it would be nice to have a standard to measure them against... maybe Berneray can be or become that standard. No sense in just saying 'it isn't a star', let's figure out (again) how to make it one. Cacahuate 12:36, 20 December 2006 (EST)

I'm going to just take a tactical retreat here. I've rolled back my changes and yours, but if you think the changes were worth it, please feel free to reinstate them.

I have to admit that I had no idea as to the finality that people ascribed to the star status. I think it's unwarranted, and I think that the process here is just getting ironed out. However, I made a mistake in overruling the decision made here, even if I think it was wrong and that consensus wasn't reached. Star status means a lot to me, but I guess that means that I need to pay more attention to this page, rather than changing the decision made by people already. I'm sorry for the problems. --Evan 12:49, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Thank you. I, for one, appreciate this "tactical retreat" very much. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:51, 20 December 2006 (EST)

But it is still a good point - the MoS isn't clear about things like this... not that things need to be settled at this exact moment, but it would be nice to know what kind of formatting is going to be acceptable for the future... Evan obviously feels strongly against this format, so something should be figured out... Cacahuate 13:02, 20 December 2006 (EST)

[edit] Zion National Park

Really comprehensive guide, with lots of info, maps, and great pictures. PerryPlanet 22:37, 5 February 2007 (EST)

• Don't support. While it is no doubt a very good article, crucial listings are missing. Sleep/Eat info does not follow the MoS. Upamanyuwikitravel 09:41, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• I echo PerryPlant in my support of the article! FrankEM

• This information about Zion National Park leaves no "Stones Unturned" Very well done and has enlightened me to the wonders that lay in this Desert Oasis!--Bomabro84738 20:33, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• Support as long as a few people who have been there agree that it is very comprehensive... Having not been there, it looks great to me. Good pics, good maps. A few minor things:

• Hours for the liquor store at the Best Western would be nice, and a phone # if they have one. The article says that it's in Springdale but the listing isn't on that page at all.
• Are the Coral Pink Sand Dunes not in Canyon Country? If so, maybe move up with the other parks in the "Get out" section.
• Where does the "information" phone# go to in the get in by bus section? Is it for Greyhound or one of the unnamed tour agencies?

Otherwise I think it looks pretty darn good... Upamanyu, I've cleaned the article up a bit, have I addressed your concerns? ::: Cacahuate 02:52, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, support. You've really done a good job, Cacahuate. Upamanyuwikitravel 05:12, 9 February 2007 (EST)

I hike and live there and I think the information is correct. I think all is fixed now. :)FrankEM

Good eye Cacahuate. I checked around, and the phone# is for the greyhound service in Utah. PerryPlanet 16:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Any other comments or dislikes? So far it's looking like all are in favor... - Cacahuate 13:54, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Looks good. 1 small snag - sleep is looking dinky. strong support - Upamanyuwikitravel 07:36, 13 February 2007 (EST)

• Don't support. This is an excellent guide but still has faults that keep it from being star quality. The maps aren't Wikitravel maps, but copies of the public domain maps from the parks system. No vector graphics source for the maps. Also, the hikes under do (which I think are listed out very well) could use some directions to the trailhead, rather than just naming the trail. There's no address, hours, or contact info for the Zion Human History Museum under "Buy". No hours or prices for the Castle Dome Cafeteria. No prices for the Red Rock Grill. The paragraph on camping at Lava Point should be a listing, or integrated into the "Backcountry" section. The camping listings should be in the new listing format. I think the problems with this guide could be fixed quickly, though. --Evan 08:01, 13 February 2007 (EST)
  • I think I got everything you mentioned Evan, save for the maps. PerryPlanet 20:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)
  • I think this is ready now to be a star. It'd be nice to have the trailheads marked on the map, but I don't think perfect trail maps are necessary. We can leave those up to WikiOutdoors. --Evan 17:06, 22 February 2007 (EST)

• Don't support. Excellent article, except for those maps. That is however something that can be addressed. The US National Parks Service has got a lot of GIS data online for Zion (Search Zion at [1] or go directly to the Zion directory [2]). Boundaries, camps, trails etc is all there. Getting that into SVG format and into a png that looks like a wikitravel map will take a little bit of time, but it will be a lot easier than creating maps from scratch. Two questions: 1) Is the park boundaries really that regular? It looks like someone just drew a couple of connecting straight lines to define the park. 2) Can someone confirm the legal status of using the GIS data on the NPS site. Can we create derivative work and license it under CC-BY-SA?

Yes, the park boundaries really are that regular.

I'm not sure "Wikitravel-style maps" are needed for an article to achieve Star status. Look at Yosemite National Park, the only map on there is a road map of Yosemite that is a public domain image from the NPS site. And yet, Yosemite is a star article. I'm not saying the map issue shouldn't be addressed, but I'm not sure if it gets in the way of declaring Zion a Star article. PerryPlanet 21:03, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Agreed. There's a real issue a s to what maps are appropriate for a Park article, and there may even be reasons to prefer an NPS map if one is available (assuming copyright issues don't interfere, which I'm still not convinced is true). Explicitly accepting them would be a change in policy, which should not be made cavalierly, but can be made if appropriate. To assess the appropriateness, I suggest that this part of the discussion continue at Talk:United States National Parks, where I've broached the subject. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:25, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I'll add some additional comments to Talk:United States National Parks. I really like this article and will change my vote from Don't support to Support if we can reach consensus that NPS maps are OK, or if we deceide they are not OK and replace them.

• Support. The article has a useful map that is licensed in the public domain; there isn't anything in the criteria that says a map has to be SVG or Wikitravel branded, but there is nothing stopping us from adding such a map in the future. Regarding other issues that have been brought up, the star criteria is that an article "is essentially complete", but not necessarily perfect. The star nomination process is a great way for us to make minor corrections to already great articles, but I don't think a lack of perfection should be a reason for failing a nomination - delay maybe, but not fail. -- Ryan 23:32, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I think the level of quality would be: as good as we can get it, or as good as we know we can do. We're under no time constraint to get these guides out the door, and there's no pressure whatsoever to put "Star" stickers onto each and every article nominated. A lack of practical information that keeps travelers from using the guide (like missing listing info, addresses, hours, prices) isn't just nit-picking. It's the basic level of quality that travelers expect from any travel guide.

The map needs to be practically modifiable, and it needs to match our map style (just like the text needs to match our text style). I think it's pretty clear that such maps are better than public domain ones that we borrow from government sources; I think we also have existence proof that they're not impossible to make. The NPS ones are fine until we get a real Wikitravel map done, of course. I'll update the star criteria to make this clear.

Let's not get confused about the symbol and the thing symbolized. If we put the "star" badge on an article that does not meet real star standards, we don't make that guide any better; we just cheapen what star status means. If our star definitions are unclear, it's important to keep in mind the essential definition of a star travel guide: that is, it's equivalent or better in quality than top-rank proprietary travel guides. --Evan 10:14, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• Support. An excellent article. I don't think that we should set the bar too high for maps - what is important is that they are of high quality and provide all the information you need. I think this particular main map is very good and probably provides more information than would be provided on a homemade png one. The updating of the star criteria to specify png maps is of course open to debate.... -- DanielC 17:12, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• Don't Support - and only because of the lack of a WT map... I think Evan said it well above, we're only cheapening Star Status by making these kind of exceptions, and across several recent conversations there seems to be a movement to tighten up the statuses and what they mean a bit... Guide is being applied a little to loosely, guide should be something that is as good as an LP or Let's Go guidebook article... and Star should exceed it, and be perfect in every way - Stars are examples of what a Wikitravel article can be in all its shining glory, and I don't think that, ultimately, we're aiming towards borrowed maps - yes they'll do for now, but I think only as far as Guide Status - Cacahuate 04:50, 17 February 2007 (EST)

• I think I look at the problems everyone is having with this article, beside the map and they are all fixed. I am lost on this whole map issue. Those are the maps the NPS uses and they are accurate.FrankEM

Don't support - Sorry for changing my opinion yet again, but I don't support it simply because it doesn't have a Wikitravel map. Once s'one makes that, I'll support. Upamanyuwikitravel 10:59, 18 February 2007 (EST)

• Question - May an article stick around here for slightly longer then the normal 14 days? Seems that there is general consensus that this is star quality except for the maps. The map issue can probably be resolved within a week.

I was thinking the same thing... they often sit around an extra week anyway before somebody notices and does something about it... especially for this case, I would say yes, let's just wait until you finish the map... barring any further objections, I think everything else has been addressed, and when the map goes up you can also slap a {{starpark}} label to the bottom - Cacahuate 12:07, 20 February 2007 (EST)

• Support - I have updated Zion with WT maps, just need someone familiar with the place to check if those maps are accurate. Hiking trails still need to be added to the Canyon map, but that will happen soon. --NJR_ZA 16:57, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Excellent, I'm so glad we were able to work this out and not hold back this article solely for the map! And we did the right thing by waiting for the map instead of ignoring for the sake of a new star. I'm gonna gonna promote it now, since all things have been addressed and no further objections were raised. - Cacahuate 17:37, 22 February 2007 (EST)

[edit] Ann Arbor

Possibly the tidiest editing job I have yet seen on Wikitravel. Every entry is properly formatted, informative, and appropriate, and the sections are all comprehensive without being overkill. The only drawback is sparse imagery, but it does have not one but two maps, and the single photo could easily be moved to the top of the page if necessary. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

• Support. I don't see any obvious room for improvement, with the possible exception of the image issue you've pointed out. Also, way back when I visited while looking at colleges I seem to remember that Stucchi's ice cream was a big deal - is that still operating in Ann Arbor? -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

A friend who graduated from UM a few years ago confirms that Stucchi's is still a big deal. I'll try to extract data from her. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

• Almost support - I've added a few images, but I think it needs more to give a good visual sense of the place. A better opener image would be nice. I sent an email to User:Haem85 to upload the SVG if possible of the map, so that we can make sure everything listed in the article is on the map... and so that future changes can be made. It would also be nice if the listings were templated (are we making this a requirement yet?). I'll continue looking through it more soon, out of time now... but looks pretty darn good... – cacahuate ^talk 02:24, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Glad to hear that people are enjoying the article. I've been waiting for warm weather to get here to take some more pictures around town, with a couple of shots in particular in mind, and yes, I'll be glad to upload the SVG when I get a chance. -- Haem85 21:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

If you have the time Haem85, can make sure that everything listed in the article is located on the map, since you seem to be really familiar with Ann Arbor? That's the main thing that I think might hold back this article from reaching star status at this point... – cacahuate ^talk 02:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Everything? Okay, but I'm gonna need a bigger map! ;) Actually, given space constraints, I'm not sure it's feasible to include everything (I'd point out that Penticton and Santa Fe don't either) but I can certainly add to it if there's a need. Or, alternatively, redo the map and make it much larger so that I can fit more attractions on. We'll see how much time I have. :) I'd actually like to get up a town-overview map as well, anyway, so maybe I'll make cartography my goal for this weekend. — Haem85 17:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Hehe, well yeah, supposedly all things should be on there. if you're map covers the main parts of the city (I'm not familiar with the town) then it's probably fine... if something is on the outskirts of town I think it's ok not to be on the map. But certainly everything that falls within the boundaries of your map should be noted on it. If that map is just small portion of the town, then yeah, a broader map would be awesome! Glad to have you here now since you're obviously really familiar with the town! – cacahuate ^talk 20:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, it took me long enough, but I've finally uploaded a (much) bigger version of the previous downtown map, with all the attractions in the area marked. If anybody has any tips on how to crop an SVG file in Inkscape, I'm all ears... otherwise I'll just upload my ragged-edged non-cropped version. -- Haem85 18:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think templated listings are a requirement, as long as the content in the templates is there and formatted correctly. Thanks for the images; they meet my semi-objection. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Given past controversies on Star articles, it would be nice to have more people voting here, I'm not sure we should pass articles through when only 3 people are involved... – cacahuate ^talk 18:13, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

• Support I agree that more images would enhance this. Also agree on the tight editing. Along those lines, what's with omitting "St." for streets? A minor quibble, but seems inconsistent, even with referenced articles for nearby towns. Did we stop including IATA: xxx and ICAO: xxxx on airports? </quibbles> OldPine 18:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

• Support – with the addition of the fabulously updated map by Carson, I think this article is worthy of star status. I would still love to see another image or two that sum up the town added, or that show downtown... something like this perhaps (though I've asked permission for that image and no response yet), but I don't think it's a deal breaker. Now's a good time to dissent, dissenters. We've already been thru the 14 days now, but maybe we should hold off a couple more and solicit more opinions. – cacahuate ^talk 22:43, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

• Don't support (yet). I agree that this is one of our best articles. Other than the following quibbles, I think that this article would make a very good star. Below are the few things I think still need cleaning up. --Evan 10:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Most of the hours in listings don't match the MoS. "Open from 5PM-10PM Monday through Thursday, 5PM-11PM Friday and Saturday, and 4PM-9PM on Sunday." should be "M-Th 5PM-10PM, F-Sa 5PM-11PM, Su 4PM-9PM".
  • Many of the prices in listings don't match the MoS. "Admission $1" should just be "$1". Comments should be in a "priceextra" field or in parens, italicized, after the price.
  • The "public sculptures" listing should be broken into separate listings. If it's necessary to bundle them together, they could be in a separate subsection of "See".
  • The "Lurie Tower" and "Alley mural" listings need to be brought into line with the MoS.
  • The University of Michigan museums need to be separated into their own listings. Again, if necessary this could be a sub-section of "museums".
  • I don't think "take a walk through downtown Ann Arbor" is appropriate for "do". Sightseeing should be under "See", shopping should be under "Do".
  • There are a lot of bookstores listed under buy. Could they be pared down to a more selective list? (Not crucial.)
  • "Eat" needs more of a general introduction. The "Bagel Fragel" note needs to be in its own listing.
  • I don't like the "Local Favorites" section. Which locals? Whose favorites? "Lots of locals go here" should be part of the description of each restaurant, not a separate sub-section.
  • I'm not sure we should bother with a "Stay Safe" section if it's just one sentence. (Not crucial.)
  • I'm concerned that the "Sleep" section has very sparse information on most of the hotels. (Not crucial.)

Just FYI, I think (!) all these issues have been addressed now (thanks to everyone for your help on this!), except for two: the bookstore list (they're one of Ann Arbor's big "things", so for a variety of reasons I'm reluctant to trim it down, but if it's really unbalanced, I'll grit my teeth and try to decide which ones should go :) ) and the hotel list (I agree that it needs to be beefed up... might be a job for someone with more access to hotel info than I have!). I'm planning a massive photo blitz for this weekend, which will hopefully redress the image imbalance. BTW, am I correct in noticing that the new templates don't actually allow bold/italics/quotation marks inside the listing fields? — Haem85 13:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the length of the bookstore list is reasonable for A2. - Todd VerBeek 17:45, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

• Not sure. That's one. big. map. :) (Just go ahead and upload the SVG, untrimmed. Future editors can also crop it when they expert to PNG.) The Eat and Sleep sections aren't broken down by price, but by menu or by location. I understand the reasons for doing them that way, but aren't the price categories part of the MoS? And the Star criteria say that following the MoS is required unless there's an exceptional reason not to. - Todd VerBeek 11:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT) Support. There's still room for some improvement in a few places (as noted by Evan), but perfection is not a criterion. - Todd VerBeek 17:52, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

• Not until the eat and sleep sections are split into budget, mid range, splurge rather than by geographical or type. For an article to be a star, it's Layout and listing formats either match the manual of style exactly or are the exception that proves the rule. So until that's done, we can't star this. But apart from that, this is star material! -- Tim (writeme!) 17:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Support - my main objection has been rectified. -- Tim (writeme!) 07:23, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't see that necessarily as a disqualification in this particular case, because Ann Arbor isn't really a "big" city, and the template for the "non-big" city doesn't require this breakdown. I agree that the list of eating places is long enough (in no small part because of its college-town status) that the TTCF principle argues for doing it, but if the other issues that people have raised get addressed and this is the only one that remains, I don't see it as a show-stopper. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

• Support but that map png is too big—I find it hard to use because it requires so much scrolling. Would it be possible to enlarge the symbols a bit (maybe 2x) and then export a smaller png? --Peterfitzgerald ^Talk 18:00, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah! It hadn't hit me that I could decrease the size of the output (duh). I'm not sure if I can increase the size of the symbols (at least, not if there needs to be one for every attraction) but I did reduce the map by 1/3 and I think it helps. Reducing by half seemed a little too hard to read, but I can probably shrink it a little further if it would help. — Haem85 18:43, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I still think the symbols could be enlarged, even in the crowded downtown area, by 1.5–2 times. That would allow you to decrease the map export size even more. But then again, while this would be optimal, it's not crucial. And I don't know of any good way to increase all the symbols without going through the mind-numbing tedium of going one by one... --Peterfitzgerald ^Talk 18:51, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll give it a shot :) I'll try it on the downtown area and see if everything fits. (I just want to be sure there's room in case anything else needs to be added later.) After all, what's a little mind-numbing tedium between friends! ;) — Haem85 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Another option would be to break the map up into sections, maybe a zoomed-in map of downtown and maybe Kerrytown, and another smaller-scale map showing the outlying listings. - Todd VerBeek 19:02, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

• Bump. This has been under discussion for quite a while, and a great deal of effort has been expended to address the issues raised. Can anyone see reasons now not to star it? If not, I'm going to do so. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:44, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

I just finished MoS'ing the hours... but many of the bookstores and a few drink listings still don't have them at all... I've been meaning to call and get them, but never get around to it before closing time. Maybe someone on the east coast can take a few minutes for a few phone calls? – cacahuate ^talk 04:30, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

As I discovered when Star-ifying Santa Fe, those are two classes of places that may not have fixed hours... -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:01, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

• And it was so! Congrats to all those who helped Star-ify this article. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:15, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Chicago/Bronzeville

Some of the other Chicago districts might be on their way to stardom, but I think Bronzeville is already there. I really can't think of anything else that would improve this article, aside from maybe a few new photographs that I'd like to take when back in town (but the ones in the article are more than adequate). I think the article is perfectly formatted according to the MoS and there isn't anything missing that I'm aware of, aside from some run-down establishments that I wouldn't want anyone to visit. But who knows, perhaps the prose is not tight enough. Please let me know what you think! --Peter ^Talk 21:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Extremely nice article. I didn't see any obvious areas for improvement after glancing over it, although the "Do" and "Buy" sections (and maybe some of the others) might be improved by adding an introductory paragraph that gives a general overview of what the scene is like. Otherwise this looks good, and the map looks particularly great. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:32, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

  The newly-added intros are great - a quick overview that gives an idea of the highlights. Full support from me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Exceptional work on an undeservedly over-looked destination. Remarkably thorough - I'd be very surprised if a better guide to Bronzeville existed in any form. And that map is a stunner. I'd love to see this article supplemented with a walking tour. Gorilla Jones 21:44, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Just a little update, in case other people are watching this discussion and haven't made up their minds: I have added short introductory paragraphs to all sections, but am holding off on a walking itinerary. I haven't walked around the sites myself (I've only visited with a car) and I'm just not sure how long a walk it would be. --Peter ^Talk 16:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd really like to see all of Chicago become a star, not just a few districts of it... Jpatokal 22:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Patience my friend. Marc and I are working hard to make the whole city a star, but in the meantime I could use the positive reinforcement for some of the districts I have slaved over. --Peter ^Talk 22:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Excellent article. — Ravikiran 01:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Last call for comments before we star this one - 14 days are up today. Gorilla Jones 16:36, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

• Support. I just made a pass-through to fix a few remaining typos, and came away impressed by the tremendous work you guys did on this. Make it so! -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:26, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Chicago/South Chicago Shore

OK, after my 20-odd nit-picking edits today and a thorough map update, I think this article is finally up to star status. Again, there are a few photos I have in mind to add/substitute, but I'll have to wait until I'm back in the area to take them, and the article doesn't need them anyway. For some reason, I'm not quite as satisfied with this district as with Bronzeville—if you figure out why this is, please let me know! --Peter ^Talk 02:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused here. We have two districts of Chicago currently nominated for star status, but the article for the city itself is currently only tagged as usable. Looks guide-ish to me, but I don't know the area well enough to judge. Checking three districts at random, I got two guides and one usable. Could we get to the point where we have one big star for the whole city? Pashley 08:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

We downgraded the main Chicago article at the outset of dividing the city into districts. I think the content of the article itself is solid (having written a lot of it), but the grading criteria for Huge City articles says that for a Huge City to be a guide, all of its district articles must be at least usable, and for a Huge City to be a star, all of its district articles must be at least guides. So we have one district left to make usable (Chicago/Southwest Side), and then we need to push the rest forward to guide status and do a little more work on the main article before we make it a star (which is our goal). Gorilla Jones 09:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Support. The depth of information is terrific (without being excessive - I like that you pruned a couple of the more mundane listings), and the descriptions give a sense of insight from an insider. The map covers a lot of ground and does so well, another impressive job. I'd like to see a more compelling opening - it's pretty dry until the descriptions of Oakwood and Kenwood in the neighborhoods section. And it's not clear if we can visit any of the listings in Kenwood architecture - I assume not, since you tend to be thorough with these things, but I think it should be explicit. Are there opening/closing hours for Jackson Park and/or the places within, like the Japanese Garden? (Is that free?) Is the University still doing DOC films? As I recall, those are free or cheap, and tend to be great selections. Gorilla Jones 10:40, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Excellent article. Also support the strategy of a huge city achieving stardom district by district. — Ravikiran 01:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Last call for comments...no dissent so far, but it would be good to get more opinions on this one. Gorilla Jones 12:22, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Umm, temporary don't support. I want to address Marc's points before this gets starred, Doc films should really be in there. I will do this today and, provided there aren't any other objections, will drop my own and star the article before the 14 days are up! --Peter ^Talk 17:05, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, this article is ready. Speak now or forever hold your peace, until you feel like revising the status. --Peter ^Talk 21:04, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Better late than never. Keep up the good work guys! – cacahuate ^talk 02:14, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Yep. Thanks for chiming in! Gorilla Jones 02:34, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Chicago/Near South

Ladies and gentlemen, the latest offering from the Chicago district factory, featuring lost treasure, lurid tales, and a shiny new map by Peter. I'm pleased with the way the article covers five of the biggest tourist draws in Chicago (the three museums, Soldier Field, and McCormick Place) and situates them in the midst of neighborhoods with more to be discovered, which print guides haven't done. Although it's always possible that something else may pop up, I believe the Buy/Eat/Drink/Sleep listings are comprehensive, save for places I decided not to list.

What do you think? Gorilla Jones 08:58, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

• Support. It's a fun read and I'm pretty sure nothing worth writing about has been left out. --Peter ^Talk 02:27, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
• Support. Looks fantastic! The only thing I noticed was that the picture of the dolphin show is a little dark, but I don't think that's reason enough to disqualify the article for Star status. PerryPlanet 20:49, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
• Support. Very impressive guide. -- Tim (writeme!) 08:16, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
• Support. One suggestion for improvement, however, would be to highlight the neighborhoods on the map - it wasn't clear to me where Printer's Row and the other neighborhoods were located, and since many of the attractions are listed by neighborhood that information would be helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:48, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Good idea; I might try and do this with all the Chicago district maps, come to think of it. --Peter ^Talk 13:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

• Marginal. This is a really good article, properly formatted, etc., but one weakness is TMI -- Too Much Information. Some of the attraction entries are ponderously long and really could use some tightening up. I'm not sure whether that's a disqualification as far as Star status is concerned, but I'd like to see some improvements. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 15:15, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure that I see what you mean. The museums listed rank among Chicago's most visited sites, and probably do deserve a significant mention. The Prairie Ave section of town could probably have its own itinerary article, if written by someone particularly knowledgeable; moreover, I think good information about this area is essential, as the only other option for a visitor would be a guided tour. But which entries in particular are you referring to? --Peter 15:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

That hadn't occurred to me, but I'm generally willing to believe that anything that's written well can probably be written just as well in 3/4 of the words. I've tried to tighten some of the longer sections. Gorilla Jones 16:24, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

An example is the entry for the Marshall Field Jr. Mansion, which occupies an awful lot of space for an attraction that isn't even open. There are others that are similarly verbose. Yes, describe the museums, etc., but for all but the most exceptional/distinctive entries, many of the details of things like history can and should be entrusted to the referenced links, unless there's something about them that the traveler needs to know (for example, IMO the Shedd entry really does need to be as long as you have it, since the whole thing is useful to the traveler). If an entry gets beyond about 5 full lines of text, there's a TMI possibility, IMO; if the entries routinely get beyond this limit, TMI is very likely. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:35, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I've chopped out 2100 characters. I hope that helps. How much history to give, though, is tricky. We supply those external links, but aren't we supposed to be producing guides that can be used independently of them? A little bit of history is sometimes useful to sell the place as a worthwhile destination. (It is to me as a traveler, anyway.) Regardless of WTP, not everyone who uses these guides is going to be able to click through; nor, in some cases (as with Field Jr.), does the external link give the whole story. Gorilla Jones 16:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, that helped. Support now. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Albuquerque

I think for the most part it's ready. It's got a map now, all of the listings follow the MoS, and being someone who lives in ABQ I can assure you that it covers everything. I admit some of the listings still need a bit of work, but they can be taken care of quickly. PerryPlanet 15:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. It feels comprehensive and it's well-organized. Great images, too. I would suggest leading with that beautiful balloon photo instead of the bland, slightly-tilted skyline panorama. The 'See' and 'Do' listings could be alphabetized, and it'd be good to have more listings for specific 'Buy' places. (Whereas there are more grocery store listings than you really need.) But none of that gives me any serious reservations. This is a really nice article and one of the best we have to offer. Gorilla Jones 09:58, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

I might as well just get rid of that downtown pic. Our skyline isn't really anything to behold, lol. And I organized the See/Do listing alphabetically. PerryPlanet 14:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Great! Gorilla Jones 16:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Wonderful article and a map so street-filled it would inspire awe and fear in the heart of any would be mapmaker. Practically deserves a "speedy star." My only suggestion is to move the left-aligned images over to the right, as they can cause some strange formatting issues when displayed on different display resolutions—on my screen the "Do" header is floating around the middle of the page. --Peter ^Talk 17:57, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

I see what you mean with the "Do" header. What if I just adjust the picture a bit? Does that help? PerryPlanet 20:28, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes that did help. I still prefer the images on the right because that allows me to skim articles quickly down the left side, but if you prefer to keep them as is, please feel free to do so. Great article! --Peter ^Talk 22:01, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Practically a perfect example of how a large-but-not-huge city should be treated. One minor quibble: the "in-line skating" and "mountain biking" sections under "Do" are curiously wimpy compared to all the good stuff around them. John, you're the local; what do you suggest for these? They're leftovers from a very early version of the article, and IMO could just be deleted unless there's something notable about doing these particular activities in Albuquerque. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:44, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, there's really nothing notable about either of those activities in ABQ. I guess mountain biking has it's place, but whatever we want to say about bike trails we could just fit into the "By Bike" section of Get Around. PerryPlanet 04:04, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've changed it, I think it looks pretty good now. PerryPlanet 14:15, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Chicago/Near North

Probably the most-touristed area of Chicago, particularly for shopping's sake. We have a ton of Buy listings (which weren't easy to come by on my empty wallet and absent fashion sense) and jam-packed Eat sections as well. I work around here, so I walk past many of these places on a fairly regular basis, meaning that I'm confident the listings are reasonably up-to-date. (And I realize I'm jinxing myself by saying so.) If nothing else, check out the gigantic raft of listings that Peter's map has to contend with. Gorilla Jones 03:21, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

• Support. This was a tough article, but I feel quite confident about it now. Critical feedback is definitely appreciated, though, because this is arguably the most important district article in Chicago—I'd like to see it done perfectly. --Peter ^Talk 21:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Beautiful article. Great pictures, good listings, great map! PerryPlanet 23:04, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
• Support. You fellows did an great job. Wish I could do as well! 2old 10:28, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Last call for comments. Please chime in if you haven't already. Gorilla Jones 23:50, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Yep, another beauty from the Star factory twins. MoS looks perfect, pictures complement the article, and you even give advice on free internet at the Apple store... seems you've thought of it all – cacahuate ^talk 00:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Chicago skyline guide

I was not planning to nominate this because I felt too unsure of what travel topic stars are supposed to look like. Indeed, I was more worried that it might get voted for deletion as a non-article. But I figure that as long as we're reviewing travel topic star-ification, we might as well have more fuel for discussion.

This topic is fairly narrow, and while it still might be a stretch to say that this article covers the topic "fully," there are certainly no obvious omissions and any more coverage would be over-saturation. Listings match the MoS, but layout? It is not possible nor desirable to try and come up with a layout in the MoS for every type of travel topic. In any rate, this layout makes sense to me.

I'm curious to see what opinions are on this one; in my view there aren't really any changes that could significantly improve it. --Peter ^Talk 22:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. In terms of the description of what a star topic should look like, the article appears to cover the topic well enough (although you might need someone with at least some knowledge of Chicago to confirm that though!), the listings match the MoS and the layout used works for this article, which is what matters - travel topics are incredibly diverse so there's no sense in creating a standard layout. The annotated photos of the skyline are the equivalent of the required map. -- Tim (writeme!) 13:05, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. The article seems to do a great job of covering the subject, at least as far as I can tell having never been to Chicago. All the buildings listed appear in at least once of the pictures, so it looks pretty complete. The only thing I can suggest is to find addresses for the Dirksen Federal Building and the Metropolitan Correctional Center. PerryPlanet 16:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Good catch, I've added the addresses. --Peter ^Talk 17:26, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. I live in Chicago and know this subject reasonably well — and this article covers the topic better than I know it. Good mix of data and trivia, a great idea well-executed. As the article acknowledges, though, there are a lot of new buildings going up right now — the photos will have to be refreshed every so often. Gorilla Jones 19:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Support. Great job. It will benefit any visitor (like me). 2old 10:30, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Chicago/Bridgeport-Chinatown

I feel like there just aren't enough star districts for Chicago, so here's one more. --Peter ^Talk 21:08, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

• Support, after taking a quick skim, I think it looks great! All the listings look complete, the maps and pictures are good, and there's lots of good info. Though, It does surprise me that there's only two places to sleep in the whole district, but if that is indeed the case then very well. (And no, there's just aren't enough star districts for Chicago. :-) I wouldn't want to see you stop until the whole city is one big, glorious, shining star!) PerryPlanet 13:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Nobody embodies the MoS more than Gorilla Fitzgerald – cacahuate ^talk 19:00, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Yup, this is a comprehensive one. Gorilla Jones 14:10, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Any more comments before this one is called? Both of us are grateful for feedback... Gorilla Jones 20:20, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Along the Magnificent Mile

You'll never guess which city this itinerary covers. This is the most heavily touristed part of the city. The itinerary includes a marvelously detailed street map by Peter, and of the three districts it references (Chicago/Near North, Chicago/Loop, Chicago/Near West Side), one is a Star and two are Guides. What say you? Gorilla Jones 01:50, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

• Support. I suppose this superb itinerary (supplied by Marc) will not soon superannuate nor see its supremacy superseded or otherwise become supplanted by superior star-noms. So let us not superimpose superfluous supplications for supplementals, lest they suppress our support of star status for this splendid, superlative piece. I'll stop now. --Peter ^Talk 03:06, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

• Support. I says the same support for said supreme article. Such superlative skyscraping structures! PerryPlanet 13:13, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
• Support, but would it have been possible to stop sooner? :-) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:23, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Well written and sounds like it gives a good quick snapshot of what the city is about... we need more itineraries like this for other cities... and as far as I'm concerned any article that references Adventures in Babysitting is a shoe-in for star status – cacahuate ^talk 18:18, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Interestingly enough, there is only one other article to reference this 80's classic, and it is indeed already a star... Conspiracy afoot? --Peter ^Talk 04:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)

• Support. Another fine article by the Dynamic Duo. 2old 15:24, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Last call on this one... Gorilla Jones 17:47, 15 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Charlotte/Uptown

I feel a little weird nominating this, considering I have never been to the South, much less Charlotte, but I'll go ahead anyway.

A little while ago, the Charlotte article was nominated for Star status, and despite having good info it failed the nomination due to a number of large issues. Recently, I took a look at it and while the overall city article is still suffering from those same issues, a lot of the district articles are in great shape.

So I bring you Uptown Charlotte, a fine article that really only needed some MoS touch-ups and a map to whip it into shape. PerryPlanet 16:22, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Great article, nice work on bringing it into the MoS mainstream! Our Charlotte guides are really pretty fantastic, and it's nice to see the city moving closer towards stardom. Only one cavil, not big enough to keep me from supporting: I would like to see some more travel-relevant information in the understand section to give travelers a quick overview of what downtown Charlotte offers to the visitor. --Peter ^Talk 03:56, 4 November 2007 (EST)

• Support. Looking good! There's something that bugs me a little about the buy section, but I can't say what I'd do to fix it... hmmm... nonetheless, nice work! – cacahuate ^talk 02:42, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I agree that the Buy section looks rather confusing. I was a little disoriented by it when I did the map. I've just edited it for a slightly different layout, does this work better? PerryPlanet 20:37, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Ya know, I'm wondering if the listing of all the businesses in the shopping centers is a bit much... especially with no descriptions... I think definitely McDonald's, Starbucks, etc should go... maybe it would be better in paragraph form listing the special things like Dean & Deluca, rather than look like a mini-yellow pages of the shopping center? – cacahuate ^talk 00:08, 7 November 2007 (EST)

• Almost support, and thanks to Cacahaute for saying what I planned to. I'd drop things like Dunkin' Donuts from the restaurant listing, and try to scrounge up hours for more of the restaurants. I'm concerned that the Buy section is so much lighter than the rest - virtually no phone/hours/address listings, and the descriptions are thin. Overall, though, this is a good, confidently written guide. Gorilla Jones 00:43, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I've made some big changes to the Buy and Eat sections, does this work? PerryPlanet 13:39, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, it does. I would also suggest removing the pharmacies, and only list grocery stores if they sell something special (i.e. rare imported food) or are basically the only food option in the area, which obviously isn't the case here. Otherwise, looks good. Gorilla Jones 23:25, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I dunno, why don't we keep the grocery stores and pharmacies? If people are staying in Uptown, they might want to know where these sorts of basic services are. I know I would sure appreciate information about a grocery store. PerryPlanet 23:01, 9 November 2007 (EST)

My experience - and others who know more should disagree - has been that we generally don't list grocery stores unless they provide some unique service that sets them apart from other grocery stores. We provide listings for restaurants because we know this particular restaurant is good, but unless they're also serving take-out lunch, one grocery store's Doritos are as good as the next store's. It keeps Eat listings from getting cluttered and places more focus on the unique places. Travelers looking to stock their hotel room with a trip to the grocery store are on the rare side and don't necessarily need our guidance to do it. But that's just my opinion - it doesn't hold up my vote of Support. Gorilla Jones 22:54, 10 November 2007 (EST)

• Support When I was driving to the South on a semi-regular basis years ago, Charlotte was my first spot to take a driving break. The article is much better than I remember Charlotte actually being. You may want to consider moving the Speed Street info from Charlotte to Charlotte/Uptown. NASCAR is VERY big in this area and should have more mentions in Wikitravel, including the United States page. If you just had a photo of the Abe Lincoln statue standing in front of the Statehouse, the article would be complete. I always parked in front of Abe for a short snooze, that's snooze not snort. 2old 15:18, 7 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Chicago/Uptown

Might be best to table the O'Hare nomination until those concerns are addressed - so here's another to chew on, as Chicago can't let Charlotte have sole Uptown supremacy. We've got Charlie Chaplin, Al Capone, Hillary Clinton and The Clash in there, which covers rather a lot of ground. Let me know what you think. Gorilla Jones 13:44, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, back off Windy City, Uptown belongs to Charlotte, no one else! (LOL, just kidding) I love this article. It's very well written and very thorough, it makes a great read even if you're not traveling to Chicago. I absolutely cracked up when I read this line:

With some effort, you can mentally reverse the decayed grandeur and imagine the station as it was in 1923, when it replaced an inferior structure built by some dink named Frank Lloyd Wright.

Man, I was howling when I read that. Now I did notice a couple of very minor issues...

• In the intro there's a minor grammar error: "Years of cheap living created a diverse community that's still resident there today".
• There was no hours for the Vinh Phat BBQ, Gigio's, or the Grace African Restaurant.
• The Dong Thanh, Thai Pastry and Spacca Napoli weren't listed on the map.

Other than that, it looks perfect. SUPPORT. PerryPlanet 18:43, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks. Grace African Restaurant is quoting our review on their website - that's awesome. I called around to add the missing hours. I don't see the grammar error - 'resident' can be used as an adjective as well, if that's what you're referring to. I'll trust Peter to cram the missing listings into the map. Gorilla Jones 19:21, 1 December 2007 (EST)

• Support. This is one of my favorite articles now on WT—nice work Marc. I'll be sure to get Spacca Napoli on that map (not sure how missed that), but Dong Thanh and Thai Pastry are both located within the buy listing, Tai Nam Market Center. This is already indicated in the "directions" tags in the listings, but perhaps there is a way to make this more clear? --Peter ^Talk 11:17, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Nah, don't worry about it. I think if I had actually bothered to read the listing, it would have been clear to me. :P PerryPlanet 12:58, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Final call on this one... Gorilla Jones 17:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Chicago/Pilsen

We don't have any star articles on the West Side of Chicago, only North and South, so I'd like to put this one up for consideration. Pilsen is off the beaten path for most travel guides, but it has an attraction that should be high on any visitors' list (National Museum of Mexican Art), and I think we've covered the art galleries, the shops, and the restaurants quite thoroughly. I had a lot of fun there, although Peter's map will make anyone else's visit a lot easier than mine was. Your comments, please... Gorilla Jones 18:17, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Another beautiful Chicago article! You guys have raised the bar for what Wikitravel guides can become. Now just a couple of things (and I was more careful this time around): I didn't see hours for El Paraiso Bakery, and no prices for El Paraiso Bakery, Panaderia Tortilleria Nuevo Leon Bakery, Tacos Palas, and Cafe Mestizo (the last one might not be a problem as it's down in the drink section, but the other two cafes have prices so I guess Cafe Mestizo might as well...). Other than that, this guide is the absolute definition of perfection. PerryPlanet 20:19, 14 December 2007 (EST)

• Support. One of the smaller districts in the Chicago guide, and I think we honestly have everything worth covering in the article! I added pricing info for the above mentioned listings, except for El Paraiso Bakery—I think it's too hard to give an accurate idea of price since there is bound to be large variations in the kinds of things one would buy at a bakery (a cake? one cookie?). Not that this bears on star status, but Pilsen is a cool neighborhood. --Peter ^Talk 22:11, 14 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Loop Art Tour

It may be presumptuous to nominate an article having just written it, but hey, I've always wanted to! I think this meets all the criteria, but I would of course welcome criticism. On which note I have to observe, if the saying "everyone's a critic" has any truth, then everyone has been rather quiet lately on this page ;) --Peter ^Talk 05:34, 15 December 2007 (EST)

• Support. We just don't have enough star itineraries. And this is one heck of a guide! There is just one, teensy, minor problem: nothing links here. How are people going to find this absolutely magnificent article? PerryPlanet 11:51, 15 D