Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.
New users, please see Help or go to the Pub to ask questions.

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Star nominations"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Figueres: moved to slush pile)
(Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay: responded to some comments)
Line 140: Line 140:
 
* under General Topography, perhaps include the name of the 'long ridge of sedimentary rock' that extends through False Bay?
 
* under General Topography, perhaps include the name of the 'long ridge of sedimentary rock' that extends through False Bay?
 
:I dont know a name for the ridge as a whole. The shallower area at the south end is known as Steenbras deep. Do you think this information is appropriate in this section, as there is not much detailed information on the other features? I will put it in anyway and see how it looks. [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 
:I dont know a name for the ridge as a whole. The shallower area at the south end is known as Steenbras deep. Do you think this information is appropriate in this section, as there is not much detailed information on the other features? I will put it in anyway and see how it looks. [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: I think it's better to put in a name, even if it's only for a section of said long reef.
 +
 +
[[User:Seascapeza|Seascapeza]] 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)
 
* under Climate of the Western Cape, perhaps shorten sentences somewhat? They are very long which can get in the way of clarity.
 
* under Climate of the Western Cape, perhaps shorten sentences somewhat? They are very long which can get in the way of clarity.
 
:Done. Good point. [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 
:Done. Good point. [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
Line 148: Line 152:
 
* I have changed the last paragraph of 'Water temperature' assuming that you meant that the bottom temperature in summer in the bay is colder than it is in winter, but this may have been a too-herois assumption. Is this correct? The bottom is actually colder in the summer?
 
* I have changed the last paragraph of 'Water temperature' assuming that you meant that the bottom temperature in summer in the bay is colder than it is in winter, but this may have been a too-herois assumption. Is this correct? The bottom is actually colder in the summer?
 
:According to my reference this is often the case. It is quite old and does not explain the cause. [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 
:According to my reference this is often the case. It is quite old and does not explain the cause. [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: Well, well, well. I think finding out whether this is in fact correct would be very interesting, along with an actual explanation as to why that might be so, though not, strictly speaking, a necessary part of the article.
 +
 +
[[User:Seascapeza|Seascapeza]] 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)
 
* then, under 'Habitats' I found this sentence: For many marine organisms the substrate is another type of marine organism, and it is common for several layers to co-exist
 
* then, under 'Habitats' I found this sentence: For many marine organisms the substrate is another type of marine organism, and it is common for several layers to co-exist
 
... can you clarify?
 
... can you clarify?
Line 153: Line 161:
 
* under sandy substrates, do you need to define sessile organisms? Or provide a link?
 
* under sandy substrates, do you need to define sessile organisms? Or provide a link?
 
:I dont know. WT tries to minimise external links, but I am not keen to put too many definitions in the text. Do you think that the term is too unfamiliar, and that it will make much difference? [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 
:I dont know. WT tries to minimise external links, but I am not keen to put too many definitions in the text. Do you think that the term is too unfamiliar, and that it will make much difference? [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: I do think it unfamiliar yes, so I would prefer to either rpleace or provide a very short definition in place if extermal links are a problem.
 +
[[User:Seascapeza|Seascapeza]] 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)
 
* under 'Respect' last paragraph of the diving rocky reefs sections -- perhaps, accurate and enjoyable though it is, it should be left out as not being encyclopaedic?
 
* under 'Respect' last paragraph of the diving rocky reefs sections -- perhaps, accurate and enjoyable though it is, it should be left out as not being encyclopaedic?
 
:Wikitravel is not an encyclopedia. I do not have to use NPOV, only to try to [[Wikitravel:Be fair|be fair]]. Do you think the statement is unfair or that the information is not useful to the traveller's understanding of the region? [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 
:Wikitravel is not an encyclopedia. I do not have to use NPOV, only to try to [[Wikitravel:Be fair|be fair]]. Do you think the statement is unfair or that the information is not useful to the traveller's understanding of the region? [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
Line 164: Line 175:
 
*n Cruise Sub Aqua under dive packages: are they the only operator who provides dive packages? Does this, perhaps, need expanding?
 
*n Cruise Sub Aqua under dive packages: are they the only operator who provides dive packages? Does this, perhaps, need expanding?
 
:Not sure that dive packages is actually something we want, but also not sure exactly what they mean. This listing was originally posted by Cruise Sub Aqua. Any opinions? [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 
:Not sure that dive packages is actually something we want, but also not sure exactly what they mean. This listing was originally posted by Cruise Sub Aqua. Any opinions? [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 +
:: maybe Cruise SubAqua could them selves explain, or else section can be deleted -- in my view it's not really providing anything of much use cos this isn;t really like Aliwal where you get a standard 'dive package and accommodation'
 +
[[User:Seascapeza|Seascapeza]] 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)
 
* spelling of Sub-Atlandi/ean Diving
 
* spelling of Sub-Atlandi/ean Diving
 
:Their website uses Sub-Atlandian, so will go with that. [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
 
:Their website uses Sub-Atlandian, so will go with that. [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] <small><sup>[[User_Talk:Pbsouthwood|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Revision as of 07:31, 11 November 2010

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.

Contents

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.

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 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.

Archiving checklist

  • Remove the nomination discussion from this page and paste it to both the archives and to the talk page of the new star article;
  • Add the article to Wikitravel:Star articles (and change the map on that page);
  • Update the article status template on the article from guide to star;
  • Add {{title-icons|star-icon}} to the bottom of the article;
  • Add the article to the top of the list on the Main Page, and remove the oldest star article from the bottom of the list.

Nominations for Star status

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




Russian phrasebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Photographer's Reef

This dive site article has reached the stage where I think it meets the dive site criteria for Star. The article talk page contains a checklist for dive site article star criteria as used in the previous two star articles on dive sites. I would greatly appreciate any comments on what can be done to improve it, and any minor copyediting would also be good, as I have probably gone way past the blindness to small mistakes level by now. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) Talk 08:02, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

  • Support — I have gone over it, and added a small section on seacatfish, plus removed what typos and other minor mistakes I found. Just a question: Why Boulders Beach and not Pumphouse Gully? Seascapeza 06:07, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
I dont know. Could you be more specific? Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:17, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
Sure. It's the capitalization which isn't consistent. you say Boulders Beach and Pumhouse gully. Seascapeza 05:28, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
OK, thought it might be that. Sorted. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 11:53, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Support. My only request would be to add a caption to Image:Sea squirt at Photographers Reef DSC05042.JPG, and to possibly copyedit the text in the "Get in" section a bit. "Get in" currently contains some sentence fragments ("Usually considered a boat dive.") and I had to re-read the second and third paragraphs a few times to understand the flow. Perhaps these two paragraphs would read better if they were combined into a single paragraph with some transitional text "... Either of these shore entry areas can be reached by driving through Simon's town...". Otherwise, this looks like yet another great article, and the maps are excellent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:10, 17 October 2010 (EDT)
Done. There is now a caption on the image and Get in has been changed as you suggested. Thanks for the comments. Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:19, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Support. This is a relatively small reef, but well covered, and given my experience diving it (from both shore and by boat), there is nothing missing about its description, location, access, marine life, etc. G Zsilavecz 13:44, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
Three supports and no dissentions. All minor issues dealt with. Three weeks from last comment will be Monday 8th. If there is no further comment by then I will star it. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:12, 6 November 2010 (EDT)

Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay

This is the first Regional Dive Guide to reach a level where I think it can be nominated for Star. So far this has been virtually a single handed effort, including the proposed criteria for star status for this type of travel topic. It is breaking new ground, and needs a legitimacy check by the community, so please all take a look and see if there are any issues that should be resolved at this stage, as this will set the bar for future regional dive guides. There are explanations of my reasoning and choice of criteria on the article discussion page, which are recommended reading. Those who don't feel they can comment on an activity they don't participate in can look at the general Wikitravel criteria for Star, such as language and formatting.

Note that there is one requirement which is not yet satisfied — three dive site sub-articles should be rated as Star. There are two already rated as star: (Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle and Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Partridge Point). The third dive site Star nomination is currently active (see above), and if Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Photographer's Reef makes it, then that requirement will be satisfied. -- Cheers, Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:35, 14 October 2010 (EDT)

Support with the following points to be taken into consideration:

  • under General Topography, perhaps include the name of the 'long ridge of sedimentary rock' that extends through False Bay?
I dont know a name for the ridge as a whole. The shallower area at the south end is known as Steenbras deep. Do you think this information is appropriate in this section, as there is not much detailed information on the other features? I will put it in anyway and see how it looks. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
I think it's better to put in a name, even if it's only for a section of said long reef.

Seascapeza 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)

  • under Climate of the Western Cape, perhaps shorten sentences somewhat? They are very long which can get in the way of clarity.
Done. Good point. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • last paragraph of Upwellings: what does the water temperature have to do with the visilibity? You say the the upwelling can reduce visibility on the east side of the bay, and then: 'however...' which is when you talk about temperature. It doesn't make sense.
I have rewritten this section to make it clearer. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • do you think you should explain what is considered the Atlantic side of the peninsula vs False Bay? Because strictly speaking it's all in the Atlantic.
I have added a short paragraph in the general topography section. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • I have changed the last paragraph of 'Water temperature' assuming that you meant that the bottom temperature in summer in the bay is colder than it is in winter, but this may have been a too-herois assumption. Is this correct? The bottom is actually colder in the summer?
According to my reference this is often the case. It is quite old and does not explain the cause. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
Well, well, well. I think finding out whether this is in fact correct would be very interesting, along with an actual explanation as to why that might be so, though not, strictly speaking, a necessary part of the article.

Seascapeza 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)

  • then, under 'Habitats' I found this sentence: For many marine organisms the substrate is another type of marine organism, and it is common for several layers to co-exist

... can you clarify?

I have tried. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • under sandy substrates, do you need to define sessile organisms? Or provide a link?
I dont know. WT tries to minimise external links, but I am not keen to put too many definitions in the text. Do you think that the term is too unfamiliar, and that it will make much difference? Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
I do think it unfamiliar yes, so I would prefer to either rpleace or provide a very short definition in place if extermal links are a problem.

Seascapeza 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)

  • under 'Respect' last paragraph of the diving rocky reefs sections -- perhaps, accurate and enjoyable though it is, it should be left out as not being encyclopaedic?
Wikitravel is not an encyclopedia. I do not have to use NPOV, only to try to be fair. Do you think the statement is unfair or that the information is not useful to the traveller's understanding of the region? Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • under 'Diving on wrecks in South Africa', it seems to me you need a section detailing how mnay wrecks there are around Cape Town rather than using a general SA overview -- perhaps this section should be a link to another article on wrecks in South Africa, while the Diving on wrecks in Cape Town has more detailed information?
I will look into this. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
The general informatiuon is also in Diving in South Africa#Diving on Wrecks in South Africa, so I have deleted it from Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay and put in a more local explanation. I dont know if it is what you had in mind, so please take a look and let me know. Feel free to improve it. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) Talk 05:42, 19 October 2010 (EDT)
  • artefacts or artifacts? You use both.
I have changed what I could find to artifacts. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Under get help I would make 'in case of emergency' and 'find out' bigger fonts.. they are rather overwhelmed by the text as they are.
The only way I know of doing this is to use sub headings, which I have done. You are right, it does look better. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • n Cruise Sub Aqua under dive packages: are they the only operator who provides dive packages? Does this, perhaps, need expanding?
Not sure that dive packages is actually something we want, but also not sure exactly what they mean. This listing was originally posted by Cruise Sub Aqua. Any opinions? Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
maybe Cruise SubAqua could them selves explain, or else section can be deleted -- in my view it's not really providing anything of much use cos this isn;t really like Aliwal where you get a standard 'dive package and accommodation'

Seascapeza 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)

  • spelling of Sub-Atlandi/ean Diving
Their website uses Sub-Atlandian, so will go with that. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • no operators listed under shark cage diving?
Good point, I will try to look them up. The problem is to try to get the legal ones. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
3 operators listed. It is not easy to find legitimate local operators as just about all the Gansbaai operators and booking agents list themselves as in Cape Town. If you know of others, please give details. Peter (Southwood) Talk 05:42, 19 October 2010 (EDT)
  • should there be a subsection on the Scubapro Dive festival?
It didnt happen last year (this year?). so not too sure. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
  • then under 'See':
  • is it an idea to put the max'average depth of all sites in the thumbnails?
Yes, possibly even a good one. I will put them in over the next few days. Quite a big job. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
Bigger job than it looked. Very tedious, but I think it will be worth it in the end. Take a look and see if the formatting looks right. That is the easy part to change, the slow part is waiting for each site to open to get the data. However I am doing a few other improvements at the same time. Peter (Southwood) Talk 07:09, 19 October 2010 (EDT)

Okay, that's as far as I have been able to get for this session, will continue from Camps Bay in due course. Seascapeza 10:49, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, several good points. Should keep me busy for a few hours. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
Make that days. Peter (Southwood) Talk 07:09, 19 October 2010 (EDT)
Depths added as suggested, days it was. Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:40, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

Okay, so my next lots of edits and views follow:
Support I have continued editing the article and with respect to the See section, have only minor changes to make in general. However, there are a couple of consistency issues which apply to the article overall:

  • Capitalization: I have altered and adapted in ways that seem to fit but in some respects have not been sure how to accomplish your aim. Fish Hoek Reef is mentioned, and then Fish Hoek reef. I changed Rockland point since Millers and Oatlands were both capitalised, but there should be consistency here.
It is the name of a dive site — I will use Fish Hoek Reef. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Simon's Town, Miller's point, Simon's Bay etc. Is this accustomed usage? Because to me, Millers Point and Simonstown are the accepted usage. I have corrected one instance of Simons Town, since the bulk of the rest of the artucle seems to stick with Simon's Town, but it'd be worth making a decision on which form you wish to go with.
I use Simon's Town, Simon's Bay and Miller's Point which is how my Reader's Digest atlas of southern Africa spells them. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)
I also checked the road signs, most use Miller's Point. SA Navy charts use Millers Point, Simon's Town and Simon's Bay. So I think the versions I have used are acceptable variations, and will stay with them. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 11:49, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
  • directions and winds: south-east or south east or South East? Or South east? All variants are present.
I have been changing directions to uncapitalised except if they are part of a place name. Obviously I have missed some. Let's also leave out the hyphens for consistency. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)
  • dates, specifically of wrecks. 18th June or 18 June or June 18? All are present.
Aargh! Hadn't even though of that. Lets go with 18th June etc. I will change when I see them. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Then, specifically, the description of Castle Rocks is a repeat of the Miller's Point description. Surely that should be changed?
I have changed the wording of Miller's Point. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Also, under offshore False Bay reefs, there is reference to Table Mountain sandstone and Cape Peninsula pluton -- should these be in italics?
Yes, I am using the italics there to identify that it is a specific name for the formation, not a place description. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

But, overall, wow. Great intro and overview.

Seascapeza 05:26, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

  • SupportAlmost I've got two minor suggestions and one major one: there is a lot of text without accompanying images in the top half of this article, so it might be nice if the images could either be distributed a bit more evenly, or (better) if some of the images from the sub-articles could be brought into this region article. Second, for a star article the Wikipedia link should use the standard format, ie [[WikiPedia:Category:Marine Animals of the Cape Peninsula]] instead of the "Links to Wikipedia" formatting that it now uses. The major item that prevents full support is that there are several listings without full information - the cage diving listings lack descriptions, and while it might not be feasible to get prices for all of the listings, having at least a general range would be helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:40, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
I will look into more pictures for the first half, but probably not from the sub-articles, and the images at present are placed where they are relevant.
There are a few more pictures now. Take a look and let me know if you think the balance is OK or if more or less would be better. Peter (Southwood) Talk 10:41, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
I think I have sorted out your second point, but please check to make sure I understood you correctly.
Working on the listings, have mailed several of the listed businesses for the missing information, and will insert as it arrives. I intend to only put in prices for a local boat dive,and if I can, prices for a local shark cage dive, as it would be impracticable to list much more. Obviously these are only possible from providers which offer these services. In several cases there is no useful representative price - such as dry suit repairs, which though a very useful service, has little in the way of fixed prices. Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:46, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
There are now prices for a local boat dive or shark cage dive where they are relevant and addresses etc. in almost all the listings. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:25, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
  • Almost. This is an incredible wealth of information! I want to take the time for a more thorough read-through, but that will have to wait at least a week. For now, a few quick thoughts:
1. Enlarge the images. 250-280px is pretty standard, and this will do a lot to make the article less intimidating.
I would be very happy to do this. My interpretation of the MoS was that images should br kept small to minimise bandwidth usage for the travelling user in places where connectivity is marginal, and similarly to keep down the number of images. However if encouraged to add more and bigger I will be very happy to do so, It is more a matter of where to stop, so stop me if I go too far! -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:54, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
Images enlarged to 280px, and 360 for maps. Looks nice on my monitor -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:55, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
The page seems to load significantly slower now. I would appreciate comment from others if they have the same problem. Have I overdone the sizes or is it just general Wikitravel slowness again? What is the load time like from off the beaten track? • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:25, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
Being in LA I'm definitely not "off the beaten track", but the first page load was 10+ seconds, and a reload was 1-2 seconds. I suspect slowness may be due populating caches on IB servers. Are you seeing significantly worse times? -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:49, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
The time seems to vary with time of day, but what seems to be happening is the basic page will load in about 10 seconds, with a few items remaining, and the last one may still be waiting 5 minutes later. (usually a map). • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:01, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
2. The main point of this article or any region(esque) article, beyond a general introduction, is navigation around the dive sites (sub-articles). Renaming the See section to "Dive sites" and moving it either to the top or just below Understand could make navigation through the sub-articles much more user-friendly. You could perhaps retain a see section at the bottom, but instead use it to highlight what exactly you can expect to see throughout the region, and perhaps which "subregions" would be best for which types of "sights." (Forgive me for being a little vague—I have zero knowledge of diving.)
I can do this, but when I started (see article talk page) was encouraged to try to comply with WT section heading conventions, which is how the dive sites got to be called "See" in the first place. I would very cheerfully go back to "Dive Sites" and move them up the contents listing, but I would like to hear other opinions on this. I may just plunge forward and make the change so anyone can see how it would look. — it can always be reverted if necessary... -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:54, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
The more I think about this the more I like it. I will put the lists of dive sites at the top as you suggest (just below Understand) and keep see for a small introduction to the marine biology and what you are likely to see in the region in general. The new look "See" may take a while to develop. Suggestions and comments invited (User:Seascapeza and User:Gzsilavecz particularly, please comment). -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:22, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
"Dive sites" now just after "Understand", and new "See" started, but needs work. Main components listed, but need fleshing out. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:14, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
New "See" section written. I have tried to keep it short and general, but can elaborate if necessary. Let me know. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 05:27, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
3. My last point is the main point of contention, and is a bit of a downer. There should be no outline sub-articles, in my opinion. I understand that is a very tall order, with a full 31 outlines remaining, of a massive 200+ articles. Generally, region articles (and I think region article status criteria are the best point of reference for judging this article) will break down their sub-articles further by creating subregion articles. I can see why you might want to avoid doing this for the dive sites, however. But the subregions would each need to be at guide status for their "parent region" (which would be the equivalent of this article) to reach star status. In turn, the sub-articles for each guide region would need to be at usable status. On the plus side, usable status is generally not too hard to reach. --Peter Talk 19:11, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
On the final point, though I agree that a minimum status of usable is highly desirable, there are practicality issues involved with dive sites which are less prevalent with surface destinations, in that in some cases it is not easy to get the information, as it can be difficult to physically get there to gather it (there are no references to look it up, and if you want a map, you have to go out and survey the site and draw the map yourself). The dive sites in question are generally less frequently dived, and often a bit difficult to get to, and in many cases to some extent seasonal, so it would probably take over a year and quite a lot of money and effort to go out and get the information personally. I have developed the ability to write up a site to usable on the basis of only a few dives, in some cases as little as one, for a small site, but most sites need a couple of dives to gather the required information, and it seems like there is no-one else around here with the skill or interest to do it. If there is consensus that it is necessary, I will do it, but the nomination would have to be shelved for a few months. That is the minor issue.
The major issue is that the bar will be set so high that it may be virtually impossible for any region with more than a small number of dive sites to reach star status, and that once getting there, they may not retain it for long, as the underwater environment even in popular regions with good weather a lot of the time, is largely unexplored, and if a new site is found, we would presumeably want it to be listed immediately, not wait until there is enough information to make the article "Usable". In any case, our editing policy allows anyone to add useful information, so if someone dives a site, likes it and wants to let the world know, it is quite legitimate to add that information to the relevant article. It would go against the grain to delete it just because the article is rated Star, and similarly would discourage editors if the article rating had to be downgraded. I am trying to encourage divers to write up sites in other parts of the world, and it is not easy to get guide quality information from casual recreational divers — even professionals can seldom provide a coherent description.
It is therefore my contention that a certain number or percentage of outline sub-articles should be tolerated in a star dive region article, particularly when there is exploration required to provide the information. To me this is better than the more practicable alternative of deleting the sub-article if there is too little information available, as that goes against the completeness of coverage criteria. One could make a case that the foreign visitor only needs to know about the more popular sites/destinations/attractions, but the counterclaim is that the local visitor should also be catered for, and in the case of diving in the Cape Town region, the local visitor is the main user.
On the breaking down of a region into sub-regions: The main article is on diving in the environs of a single city. It would be possible to break the article up into five logical subregion articles, or with a bit of fudging, four subregions, by including the single inland dive site with the nearest coastal sites. The split would be rather uneven though. This would also mean that the number of star and guide dive sites would have to be increased as they would not be evenly distributed in the sub-regions. The subregions are largely seasonal, and some are more difficult to access and only occasionally diveable. The offshore sites are generally only dived a few times a year, and the depth of the deeper ones means that you can only dive there for 10 to 20 minutes at a time. To get them up to star could take years, The cost is another issue — deep sites require helium mixes, which are expensive and not easily available.
I value your opinion as you have done great work on WT, and know the policies and customs far better than I do for the regular run of regions and destinations (I am very much a monomaniac regarding dive guides), but I would like to hear opinions from other WT users on this point, in the hope of getting a consensus which can mould future regional dive guides.
As someone said. "Perfect is the enemy of good enough" No article will ever be perfect, not even the stars. There is always something more to be said, and usually a lurking error everyone has missed. And then something will change... It is better to know how to reach good enough. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:54, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
Three more outlines have been upgraded to usable, and over the next few days I may be able to upgrade one or two more. After that I will have to dive each site to get the data. With luck I may be able to do half a dozen over the summer season, others maybe not. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 14:06, 28 October 2010 (EDT)
Outlines down to 25. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 09:53, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
Hmm, you might have a bit higher standards for a usable dive guide than I would (again, acknowledging that I am totally clueless about diving!). Probably the closest equivalent article is a small town (and this is a rough equivalent), which would use the criteria: Has at least a Get in section and one Eat and Sleep listing each with contact information. At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions. Eat and Sleep obviously are not part of the equation for a dive guide. I'm inclined to argue that all that is truly necessary for a dive guide to be usable is the get in information (how to get there + instructions on how to safely get into the water) and a rough idea of what there is to see. By that criteria, I would judge, say, SS SA Seafarer to be very much at usable status already. The main criterion of a usable article is that an adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources, and this article satisfies that criterion.
Also, I really like the new see section! --Peter Talk 19:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Peter, I am glad you like the new See section. I think the change and split of the old See into Dive sites near the top and the new See is a big improvement and addresses some old issues quite well. I can see room for development of the See section into a really useful section way beyond what it is at present, but that might require more Wikipedia links than usually approved on WT. We will just have to see what develops. (I am working albeit rather slowly, with Seascapeza and others on WP on marine life of the area, and it would not make sense to duplicate too much when a few links would do the job. Particularly as that side of things really is more encyclopaedic than a travel topic)
You may be right about the standards for usable. I must give this some thought. I will look at all the currently outline sites and try to hammer them into shape a bit more. Right now I am more busy with other work than I would prefer, and it may be a few days before I can really get down to it again. but at least I dived one of the outline sites last weekend and should be able to get that up to a good usable quite soon. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:13, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
I looked at the Seafarer again and you are right. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 15:13, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
Outlines now down to 21. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 08:46, 7 November 2010 (EST)

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".


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.

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages