| || |
:There seems to be precious little interest in this nomination. Back to the slush pile? --[[User:Burmesedays|Burmesedays]] 03:08, 21 February 2010 (EST)
:There seems to be precious little interest in this nomination. Back to the slush pile? --[[User:Burmesedays|Burmesedays]] 03:08, 21 February 2010 (EST)
| || |
| || |
Revision as of 18:54, 22 August 2010
This is the slush pile for Wikitravel:Star nominations -- articles that were not agreed to be of Star status yet. Articles in the slush pile can be renominated if the criticisms from the previous nomination are addressed.
Pretty comprehensive overall coverage of the activity from the point of view of an interested traveller considering learning to dive and beginning divers thinking of organising a dive holiday (it's probably actually the case that there may be two articles in there: Scuba diving destinations, and Scuba diving overview for travellers -- both of which examples show that I should not be naming articles!). Hypatia 00:49, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
- 1) A map pinpointing the most popular dive destinations might help out the geopolitically challenged who don't know where, say, Thailand or Malta is. 2) I think you may be right that this is more than one article. There's a lot here, and either splitting it up and editing it down to cover just the most-travel-related aspects would help. - 19:56, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
- Support. I've never been scuba diving, but I definately could go ahead and start my own scuba diving school with this article. - Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:07, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
- Support. The article definitely meets the criteria for star article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EmbrunOntario (talk • contribs)
- Oppose. I've been a big contributor to the article and I like it, but I think the index of scuba destinations up front needs a lot more work — it should cover all the biggies and give nutshell summaries. I don't think any splitting is needed at this stage. Jpatokal 09:40, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
Withdrawn pending addition of a map and improvements to the list of destinations. Hypatia 20:28, 31 July 2006 (EDT)
- It's a Guide, it's got a map and it's DOTM. Let's make it a Star if it isn't one already. Jpatokal 04:03, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
- Support- Sounds good. Are there any more things that could be added in the Do Section? Felixboy 14:11, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
- Don't support for the following reasons:
- "Do" section is less than stellar for a city of 500,000.
- There isn't a "Stay Safe" section or any information pertaining how to avoid hassles, being a crime victim, or natural disasters.
- Added. It's kinda hard to avoid earthquakes though.
- There isn't a "Cope" section.
- Section added, but it's empty...
- MoS is sketchy in some places.
- Some listings have little or no contact info (I.e. Yogyakarta#Sleep there isn't an address or phone number for "Monical Hotel". Also, under Yogyakarta#Museum we provide absolutely no information about the "Museum Batik". There's simply a link to a Wikipedia article about the painting technique, but nothing about the museum.) -- Sapphire 14:22, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
- Correct name is "Monica Hotel", I dug up a phone number but couldn't find an address. The Museum Batik is so obscure it's not listed in any of my guidebooks, so I just deleted it. Jpatokal 23:14, 3 October 2006 (EDT)
- detiled address for Monica Hotel has been added hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
- Don't Support. It's an awesome article, but. -- Colin 15:59, 4 November 2006 (EST)
- Bunches of entries lack addresses or directions. For example, the Saphir Square mall is listed as "Jalan Solo". If there is no further address that can be given then I withdraw the complaint.
- this has been fixed hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
- Phone numbers often fail MoS. Maybe switch to the newfangled listings tag and make it Not Your Problem?
- fixed hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
- No prices on Museums.
- this has been fixed hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
- Is JI an abbrev for Jalan? For consistency, it'd be nice if only one format is used.
- this has been fixed hermansaksono 00:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
- Would an address for the train station and bus station be helpful? Or do we just assume the reader will be going by taxi and the taxi driver knows where they are?
- Have a mentioned lately that I wish there was a level between guide and star?
- Don't support. Same reasons as above, especially the lack of things in "Do" and the lack of contacts (and info in some places) for "sleep" listings. I want to see this make it as a star, because its pretty close to being there if all these points are sorted. -- Tim 17:11, 4 November 2006 (EST)
- This thing has been pending for quite a long time. Have the objections been addressed, or should it be slush-piled for now? Let's make a decision here. (I have no strong opinions on this article myself.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:12, 16 November 2006 (EST)
- There were quite a few problems and I believe only partial attempts to address the issues were made. It needs to be slush-piled. -- Sapphire
- I really don't think it's a Star yet, but it's not far away, and since someone unilaterally proclaimed it a Star (which I rolled back), it should at least be examined, in the spirit of "due process." A relatively small bit of work might make it a real, viable candidate. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:42, 24 November 2006 (EST)
- Shouldn't this process be for articles that the nominator believes are stars, and wants to get some confirmation from others before changing the status? We already have a lot of places to say, "This article is almost there, let's put it over the top;" and the Wikitravel:Collaboration of the Week is a good place to solicit that help. --Evan 11:18, 22 December 2006 (EST)
- Don't support yet. It's a good guide, but a couple of things to work on:
- -I'm not quite sure why it needs/gets a big maps of all of India's airports and sea ports, did I miss something?
- -Get around needs subsections
- -All listings need addresses, opening hours, etc in proper format
- -The writing could use a once-over, there's some repetition here and there, etc.
- -Get out needs to be figured out as there's way too much there. Some info should be moved to its own guide
- -The images don't all work as good illustrations of the destination.
- Maj 23:40, 26 November 2006 (EST)
I'm afraid I was the one who proclaimed it a star, sorry Bill! Someone deleted my map of the airports and the picture of train. I feel that it's agood move. I've tried to add and complete the listings and the Shopping and Eating lists are quite comprehensive now. The Get Out Section is ok, too. - upamanyu
- Nothing to be sorry about; there's now some incentive to improve the content in a way that will push it to Star, even though (IMO) it's not there yet. Let's see what develops. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:28, 27 November 2006 (EST)
- I added the info section and wrote more about the suburban railway in the get around section. please proclaim it a star if you think it's ready. you can also mail me on how to improve it, my ID is email@example.com -- User: Upamanyuwikitravel 17:55, 28 November 2006 (IST)
and please can you edit some of the stuff if you have time, English isn't my mother tongue.
Don't Support - This article has a lot of listings, but they are very incomplete for an article that would be moved to Star status. I do agree that this article is well on it's way, but almost all of the listings are just "name", "address" and in some cases "link". To be a Star I would think a good portion of the listing should have more complete information (ie: hours, prices, days, hours and a paragraph about the listing). With that done for at least half of the listings (do, see, drink, buy and sleep, plus the edits that User:Maj suggests, and a good Wikitravel map I think we could go with Star. I also notice that this is using the quickbar and I believe that is reserved for Country articles for now. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 16:42, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- Don't support. Most of the listings in this article are neither complete (no addresses, phon enumbers, hours, prices) nor formatted according to the MoS. The tables of travel info aren't covered in the MoS, and I think we need to have a standard before calling any such tables star-worthy. I've only made a cursory review, this is not a comprehensive list of problems. I'd like another chance to review after these problems have been fixed. --Evan 11:18, 22 December 2006 (EST)
- Don't support - this article just finished Wikitravel:Collaboration of the week, and while it was cleaned up a lot, it's still a ways away from Star status, its original Star initiator agrees that it's not there, and it's been discussed for nearly 6 weeks - I think it should be slushed... Cacahuate 01:22, 12 January 2007 (EST)
- As you consider Flores, consider the size of the place. I'm counting somewhere around 40 total city blocks- total- and you have not one, but TWO maps of the area, addresses/phones, everything even remotely worth seeing is included, I see no MOS violations (but then I'm a fairly untrained eye), and in the entire article the only two things I see that need sprucing up are details on ARCAS and the Petencito Zoo (in the sense that if you're including them, you might as well say something about them). Mtvcdm 00:01, 21 November 2006 (EST)
- It's a great article and it might not be too much work to get it to star, but it's not there right now. Keep in mind that to be a Star, it pretty much needs to conform to the Manual of Style perfectly and stuff like phone numbers, hours, and prices should all be present for every listing. Check out Wikitravel:Accommodation listings and see how stuff is supposed to be organized for the Sleep section. Currently the Sleep section formatting is kinda all over the place with placement of URLs, Phone Numbers, prices, and the placement of those annoying commas and full stops. If you choose to press forward with this, that would be great! -- Colin 16:48, 22 November 2006 (EST)
- Agree with Colin; not there yet, but could be pushed to Star status with relatively little effort. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:44, 24 November 2006 (EST)
- Ditto Bill. I will nominate this for CotW and that should sort out the MoS. -- Tim 08:34, 25 November 2006 (EST)
- So can this one be slushed? Consensus seems clear that it's not a Star yet. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:44, 8 December 2006 (EST)
- Maybe we can just work on it instead of tossing it back to oblivion? I just cleaned it up a little, but it needs more... Cacahuate 08:17, 9 December 2006 (EST)
- I added some info for ARCAS and the zoo and did more MoS work... what else needs doing? El Remate and a couple other sites in the area seem to be included in this article even though they aren't Flores, but maybe aren't worth their own articles and are so close anyway... I'm fine with them being included here... The Get Out map is great... Cacahuate 08:25, 16 December 2006 (EST)
- We're not going to delete it. How about adding it to Wikitravel:Collaboration of the week? --Evan 09:24, 16 December 2006 (EST)
- of course not, it just seemed to be getting more attention since it was here and up for nomination... I was suggesting we hurry up and fix the few things that are wrong since several of us agree that it's pretty close to star... but anyhoo, whaddya think of the article? Cacahuate 10:14, 16 December 2006 (EST)
- p.s., it already is nominated for CotW, but I didn't feel like waiting for it to have its day and fixed what I could see wrong now, so it should prob not become CotW now as there isn't a ton to do... Cacahuate 10:16, 16 December 2006 (EST)
Hey peoples, User:Windhorse and I have done some more cleanups and additions, any further comments from anyone? Cacahuate 10:27, 20 December 2006 (EST)
- Well, just to give you some idea of the level of perfectionism we're looking for on star article, let me give you an example. The Petencito Zoo is listed, but lacks a phone number, address, directions, hours, prices, and url (if available). Also, there should be a period (full-stop) before the plaintext description of the attraction. It's a great article, it's just that "Star" pretty much means perfect. Cheers! -- Colin 13:04, 5 January 2007 (EST)
- So, I've cleaned it up a bit more and added templates, but it still lacks a few phone #'s (if they exist), and some hours for the drink listings, things I can't get without being there... it's still a great article for such a tiny destination (and this time, unlike Berneray, it matches the thus far defined MoS better)... but I suppose, even after much effort, it still ain't perfect... what to do? Cacahuate 05:32, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Same story as for Pune; someone unilaterally proclaimed it a Star, so (after rolling it back) let's follow due process and discuss it. The article has much to recommend it, but the "nine-cities holy war" means that it is rather unstable, and discussions will be difficult to follow lacking a reference point. Let's try to discuss, anyway. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:00, 15 December 2006 (EST)
Don't support - the Do section is tragically small for a country of England's importance. There's more to do in England than just play golf.
The Get In should be proparly formatted - a list of airports won't do.
The Eat section is quite comprehensive. Perhaps nit could be made a CoW.
Upamanyuwikitravel 08:13, 18 December 2006 (EST)
Don't Support. My issue is the See section; you'd think there'd be a bit more than "England has a large and diverse range of attractions" and then divert the reader to a couple other websites- the point is that this page alone would be all you'd need. Even the most basic things would be enough for me- any four of London Bridge, Hadrian's Wall, Stonehenge, Big Ben, and Buckingham Palace should do it. Mtvcdm 01:49, 24 December 2006 (EST) (Edited to actually log in and then resign.)
good pics. Upamanyuwikitravel 06:08, 5 January 2007 (EST)
- Don't support. We don't have well-defined criteria for star travel topics. I don't even know if such criteria would be meaningful. --Evan 11:12, 5 January 2007 (EST)
- This article needs a new lead photo, the lead photograph was a train in Canada, not India. JYolkowski 13:09, 21 January 2007 (EST)
As a former resident, after having reviewed this city article is seems quite comprehensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 January 2007 (EST)
- At a minimum the district articles need to be upgraded to guide status per Wikitravel:City guide status. The map is also a bit bare - it's minimally useful, but not what I'd consider a star article map. Many of the listings have no descriptions, addresses or contact info, and since the article is using the huge city article template the sleep and eat listings should be moved into the district articles. The text could also use work - the article reads as a list of information, rather than a guide to Cleveland. This article has a lot of useful information, but I think it still needs a considerable amount of work before it's a "star" article. -- Ryan 00:58, 9 January 2007 (EST)
- An additional notes, there is a lot of content in this article that is about cities in Greater Cleveland, rather than the city of Cleveland itself, and that content needs to be moved to the appropriate city article. -- Ryan 02:47, 9 January 2007 (EST)
This article is now quite complete and I would like to see some input and comments from the community on what might still be wrong with it or how it can still be improved in order to qualify for star status. NJR_ZA 03:13, 17 January 2007 (EST)
- Don't support, yet! I really like this article, I think it more or less meets all the criteria for being a star except that a lot of the destination articles mentioned on the page are at outline or usable status. If we can increase the number of guide status pages, then I'd support. But for now, although this article would probably be really useful to a traveller, the lack of high quality city articles would be a problem! Having said this, I did only briefly look at the status at the bottom of the city pages - if these are out of date, and enough of them are at guide status then I would happily support this nomination. -- Tim 03:38, 17 January 2007 (EST)
- Good point, thanks. NJR_ZA 03:43, 17 January 2007 (EST)
Quite a comprehensive country article. Needs a bit of re-organizing and MoSing but that's about it. 220.127.116.11 09:45, 21 January 2007 (EST)
- Opinion pending - it is a great article, but all those things should be fixed before it's nominated for star. I also just noticed on the country guide status page that it's the only one that doesn't specify what the sub-articles need to be - For City, Region, etc in order for one to become a star all of the sub-articles would have to be at least "guide" status... I'm curious about people's view on that here: Wikitravel talk:Country guide status ::: Cacahuate 12:24, 21 January 2007 (EST)
- Don't support - I agree with Tim's comment on my submission of South Africa. It's no use having a very good top level country page if there is not enough information to support it in the sub-articles. We will just have to work harder in order to make a country a star. NJR_ZA 13:21, 21 January 2007 (EST)
To be honest I can't think of much more to put in this article. The town isn't bigger than this and I'd appreciate some input if someone is missing something in the article, or if it should be considered complete. Jake73 15:36, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- Abstain for now - Just had a quick look before I'm off to bed. You might want to add eatpricerange and sleeppricerange
- Good idea. Added. (PS: why does the eat box have more space between the lines than the sleep box?)Jake73 16:16, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- Support. The "See" and "Do" sections are not quite in line with the MOS and could do with some specfic shops in the "Buy" section, but overall it is a good article with good photographs and a map. -- DanielC 17:06, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- Don't support. As mentioned above, See and Do don't match attraction listings format. Restaurants and bars need hours and estimated prices. Geocoding would help but isn't strictly necessary. Otherwise, it looks really good. --Evan 17:28, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- Opinion Pending - there's just 1 tiny problem, the prices of restaurants and bars aren't given, nor are the opening hours. Otherwise GREAT article! Once that's been fixed, I'll fully support. Upamanyuwikitravel 04:02, 26 February 2007 (EST)
- Support. Great article. I would like to see more of them.elisa
- Looks great. Listings follow MoS to the dot. No map, only problem - Upamanyuwikitravel 10:59, 18 February 2007 (EST)
- Don't support - nice effort, again, Upamanyu, but we shouldn't really nominate an article until it has everything it needs - if you know it doesn't have a map, then you know it won't pass through this nomination process, and we shouldn't use this page just to draw attention to articles - Cacahuate 11:56, 18 February 2007 (EST)
- Sorry Cacahuate, I just wanted to draw attention to it since someone might take the initiative to make a map once its on the star nominations list. Any others problems with the article?? - I'll try to clean them up. Upamanyuwikitravel 03:52, 19 February 2007 (EST)
- I'll have a look at it later and see if I see anything other than the map, and I'll comment on the Shimla talk page, as I don't want to encourage this page to be used for this purpose, it should be used for articles that are already believed to be right on the cusp or stardom. As an aside, we're slowly talking about making some other sort of page/project that would serve this duty, I'll try to further what I was thinking on that soon too. - Cacahuate 04:21, 19 February 2007 (EST)
I can't think of much more to put in this article. The park and surrounding options has been covered. Edits and clean ups done. Any suggestions? - wikusdutoit 09:00, 3 March 2007 (CAT)
- Don't Support -- I know you put quite a bit of work into this article, but I don't think it is really star potential yet. I'll list my concerns on Talk:Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park rather than here, that way we will have it with the article and can work on getting those things resolved. --NJR_ZA 08:41, 4 March 2007 (EST)
I haven't done much editing to this article, but I think the contributors who have made this article what it is have done a fantastic job, such detailed and reliable information on such an obscure and secretive destination deserves positive recognition --MiddleEastern 13:22, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Do not support. All of the objections that were raised to declaring Finland a star apply in spades to this one -- rudimentary regional structure, very few destinations within the country that are developed at all, let alone to Guide status, etc. Star status isn't a "reward" for the contributors; it's an evaluation of the content of the article. I agree that contributors have done a fantastic job with a very difficult subject, so maybe give 'em Barnstars, but the article definitely isn't a Star and won't be without a great deal of development. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Do not support, for the reasons Bill identified. I'd argue for being flexible about some of the Star criteria if (for example) a country only has one or two real cities, but that's not true of North Korea. The fact that it's very difficult to write a guide about North Korea... simply makes getting this article to Star status very difficult; it's not a reason to relax the standards. - Todd VerBeek 18:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Do not support. Check out Wikitravel:Country guide status for what we're looking for if you want to move forward on this. -- Colin 18:23, 9 March 2007 (EST)
We have not had a nomination in a while, so I thought it's time to see what it will take to get the first African star article.
As far as I know this is quite complete, but the town is growing fast and I will be updating it with changes, additions and the occasional delete every January after my yearly visit down there. I know that a new regional shopping mall is due to open later this year, a large hotel is being build and a whole new residential area is being developed, so there will definitely be an update early next year.
So, let's have it, tell me what I missed and what still needs to be done to make this one a star. --NJR_ZA 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
- It's a very good article, but the map has several unlabeled short dead-end streets... OK, maybe that's not important. :) I do have to say that I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the photos of businesses. I know: they're welcomed in the Japanese WT, but here in English we've avoided them, and I'm concerned about the slippery slope of encouraging hoteliers and resauranteurs to use the power of images to spotlight their place over others', and the perception of it as advertising. As a traveler, I prefer to see more general photos of the shopping district rather than specific shops. I can see the value of showing a specific store/hotel/whatever as an example of what to expect, but a photo of just a sign ceases to have that kind of general usefulness and looks more like an advert to me. It could have some copyright/trademark-law implications as well. I'm not sure this is the place to debate this issue, nor whether it's applicable to the question of Star status, but... there it is. - Todd VerBeek 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
- Good points, thanks for the feedback. I think the photos for Billabong and Walskipper should be OK. Both are landmarks in the area and JBay is Billabong Country (the entrance to JBay is even marked as such). I'll remove the sign and vfd the image. The Mexican and Marina Martinique B&B images I can replace with something more general (one thing I am not short of is JBay photos). --NJR_ZA 03:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
- Don't support - it's got a lot of potential and is a good article, but many listings are very sparse - need descriptions, address, hours, estimated prices, etc for every listing. Some directional things would be nice too... for example, where is the internet cafe, the gym, the gift shops and the laundromat? It doesn't describe them in the article and they aren't on the map. Once that and Todd's picture issues are sorted though, I think it's a good contender for Star status. Nice map... That must have taken you forever with all the tiny curvy lanes! Could you add a scale to it, I'm curious about the distances... – cacahuate talk 23:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks, noted. I'll have a look into those issues. I don't think this one is going to make it this time round, but I'd still like to see some more comments. I'd like to use this feedback to expand Wikitravel:Status_rating a bit so people (including myself) will have a clearer idea of what is required. --NJR_ZA 01:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
- As a meta-note, it's unusual for us to have a "nominations" page where the nominator typically doesn't believe that the thing they're nominating deserves the status they're nominating it for. I think we really need a separate process for this, since it's really confusing for people.--Evan 11:29, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
- I agree that a request for peer review type page will be a good idea, but that is actually not why I nominated this. I was going thru some of the stuff I have worked on before and noted that this does actually comply with Wikitravel:Status_rating; so when I nominated it I did not expect that it will have any major issues becoming a star. Having seen the comments I have changed my mind and am quite sure that it needs quite a bit more work before it will be ready. I'd like to take these and any additional comments and create a more complete checklist of what the minimum requirements are. That way one has a list of requirements to tick off rather than just a vague follows the manual of style exactly and has appropriate illustrations, such as photos and a map. --NJR_ZA 00:05, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
- I think expanding the requirements (or detailing them) is a great idea. And we do need something similar to Peer Review, we've talked a little about it over the last few months, but nothing has transpired as of yet... see Wikitravel_talk:Star_articles#Star_Potential. I believe in you Nick, wow us with an amazing new idea (and actually implement it!). Something needs to happen :) – cacahuate talk 02:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
- Want to support, but... Good article, great map & photos, but as others have pointed out listings need a description for it to be a star article, otherwise we risk developing yet another yellow pages. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:44, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I haven't wanted to nominate Cincinnati for star status for a long time because I didn't want to make that the objective when I edited the guide. Anyhow, I know it's not perfect - there are still some MoS issues that I'm sure I continue to overlook. As a result, I'm now nominating Cincinnati to let everyone pick and prod so I can find the weak spots in the article and improve the guide. Of course, I invite you to fix any problems you see. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 12:03, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
- I think it's a great guide and, to my unsophisticated eye, it looks close to being a star. Having been there a couple of times, I think you should mention the symbiotic (parasitical?) relationship that Covington has with Cincinnati - e.g. all of those giant hotels just across the river, and the huge amounts of business travelers (myself included, I'm ashamed to say) who get lured into spending their hotel cash there instead. I'd also like to see more covert Afghan Whigs references in the text, but I understand that's not part of the article grading criteria. Gorilla Jones 17:17, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
- Couple more things - style of time used needs to be consistent throughout the article (should be am/pm, since it's the USA), and while the map is terrific (I am endlessly impressed by mapmakers), can you chop off the excess white space on the far right? Gorilla Jones 17:27, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
- I've known about the time styling issues for months, but I just didn't have the heart to revert everything to AM/PM (Yuck!), especially after this. I'm not sure if I'll be able to bring myself to convert every single 17:00 to 5PM so I may need help from anyone who isn't offended by such a crude system to convert times. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:41, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
I hope more people will chime in on this. It strikes me as a very good article. Here's what I've got:
The 'Get In' section leads with the sentence "There are two airports close to Cincinnati", but only describes one, offering a few suggestions for alternatives in the paragraph. Is there intended to be a clear-cut second? If not, strike the sentence.
In 'See', we need a description for the Cincinnati Music Hall (what kind of shows do we see there?)
Most attractions in that first 'See' section need price information.
Are tours available for the Ingalls Building and the PNC Tower, or do people just see them from the outside?
Also wondering if the Creation Museum belongs in Get Out or if it's really close enough to be considered a Cincinnati attraction.
Need a description for the Fire Museum.
Among the Parks, noting that Eden Park is free implies that other parks may not be. If they're all free, strike the sentence.
Need a description for Playhouse in the Park.
Geographically, I'm a little unclear on where the amusement parks sit relative to Cincinnati.
If Riverfest is the city's biggest bash, I want more details about what goes on there.
The Bengals haven't won the AFC during Marvin Lewis's tenure.
In 'Buy', Saks Fifth Avenue and Tower Place need descriptions, and Saks needs hours.
Some restaurants need hours. Cumin needs a description.
Groceries would fit better after Budget rather than after Splurge.
Morton's of Chicago needs a description.
The "while single people may disagree" sentence in 'Drink' is unclear. Does that refer to individual people isolated from the crowd or to date-less people in general? Why do they disagree?
- Blue Wisp need a description.
In 'Sleep', the Hyatt Regency needs a description.
What do I need to connect to Cincinnati Bell Wi-Fi? What does it cost?
Does the airplane advisory in 'Get Out' belong in 'Get In'?
And there's my piece. Gorilla Jones 13:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- I tried to finish this list off. Lanskeith17 13:27, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
- I'll get started on fixing things, but there are a few things I'm curious about too.
- The Creation Museum is roughly 25 miles from Cincinnati by car and is located in some hick town in Northern Kentucky, so I'm unclear if we should list it in the Cincinnati guide. When the place opened all the major news outlets would say "the museum, outside of Cincinnati", which may cause people to associate the museum as being in or within a couple of miles of Cincinnati. Should this reference be removed?
- The amusement parks (Kings Island) are located about 20 miles from Cincinnati too, but as far as I know, travelers are likely to associate the amusement parks with Cincinnati. How should this be handled? They're already listed in Mason (Ohio), which is where they are technically located.
- Kings Island is advertized as a Cincinnati spot (and it always has been) Lanskeith17 13:31, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
- I don't understand the part about the PNC or Ingalls buildings. I'm not sure anyone would want to tour either building and I really can't imagine a huge corporation like PNC wanting to provide tours of the building while their employees are working. Aside from the interesting architecture, I'm not sure they would be noteworthy sights, although Tom Cruise (and Dustin Hoffman?) did film part of Rain Man in the PNC building. Anyone have thoughts?
- PNC/ Ingalls are important historical landmarks for Cincinnati. They might not have tours, but you can easily spot them and appreciate regardless of a tour. They should stay in. Lanskeith17 13:31, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
- The single line is supposed to be a joke (keep those guides lively), which refers to Cincinnati's ever closing-down nightlife scene. A lot of places that are popular spots for singles continually go out-of-business, which gets blamed on a lack of business, despite these places being very popular. I'll remove it because I don't feel like explaining the joke in the guide. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 14:40, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- Just as an aside, I plan to fix the things you pointed out, but my ability to focus and concentrate, along with my ability to stay alert is suffering – concussion. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 16:10, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- No hurry! I think it's against the grading criteria for potential star articles to worsen concussions. I would move the Creation Museum to Get Out (and the Northern Kentucky article, if it exists), and drop the PNC/Ingalls listings. You could mention them in a paragraph describing the downtown area, or forget them entirely. If you think single people disagree with the Forbes report, then go with the single peoples' opinions. It just need a small clarifier. You could say something like, "A report in Forbes called Cincinnati the best place in the nation for singles, something actual Cincinnati singles might find surprising in light of the city's ever closing-down nightlife." (I'm still foggy on whether that refers to early closing hours each night or the fact that a lot of clubs have been closing permanently of late.) Gorilla Jones 16:28, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- Almost support. Good article! Beautiful opening pic. Will support once the above is finished being fixed, and a few more:
- Map needs excess white space removed from right side, and svg uploaded
- All listings should be represented on the map... are most of them missing because they're off the scale of the map? If so, maybe map should be expanded, or more neighborhood maps should be made? Sorry, not familiar with Cincinatti!
- Several Eat listings need hours and prices
- Several of the sleep listings need prices
- There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on phone # formats for US #'s, and Wikitravel:Phone numbers should be updated since we're using the new tags more now (which don't allow for the italicized area code)... but I think either +1 (xxx) xxx-xxxx or +1 xxx xxx-xxxx would look a little more standard...
That's what I can see! Looks close! – cacahuate talk 04:51, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
- Don't support. But of course this decision is subject to revision. I really like the article, but the listings need some more tender love and MoS. Also, I don't know how much this is reaching, but from a traveler's perspective (and I have one here because I'm planning a road trip for next week that may well include a couple days in Cincinnati) Covington (Kentucky) and Newport (Kentucky) are basically the same city as Cincinnati, regardless of the state-administrative boundaries. And the Covington article in particular is really underdeveloped—the understand section consists of a short description of the city's street grid with weird capitalization. I don't know whether it's fair to bring up these other articles in this discussion, but they just seem an awful lot like districts of Cincinnati that (in Covington's case) haven't even broken past the outline status. From my perspective, this brings down the quality of the Cincinnati guide and makes it feel as though something is missing. On a related note, I think it would be nice to include some listings just across the river on the map.
On another note, the map is beautiful, but seems kind of short on listings given the large number present in the article. Can more restaurants/bars be added to the map? Or would they be off the map in some other part of the city? If they are in a different area, could we put up a larger, less detailed map of the city to help orient travelers? (whoops I see Cacahuate made this exact point right before me)
Here are a few things that caught my eye while going over listings' hours:
- Government square section seems a bit out of place? I was surprised to see it where it is and then had to read over it carefully just to understand why this information was being presented.
- Cincinnati zoo hours: from when until early October? Is it open in the winter?
- Listings phone numbers should have the non-local calling part in italics... ;) Just kidding, but this bothers me too!
- A fair number of listings are missing hours, price ranges, and/or descriptions (although they look like listings that should have these things)
- I got some of them, but some price ranges have extraneous spaces around the dash
Well, so, some work to be done, but nothing impossible! --Peter Talk 06:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
- Two things...
- Newport and Covington cannot really be considered the same city as Cincinnati, despite what Covington hopes and says. Newport bills itself as a separate destination and does kind of deserve the respect of being a separate destination, especially with all the development and future plans it has. Plus, if I recall, criteria states nothing about making stars out of neighboring places before another place can be called a star.
- Yes, many of the listings mentioned in the guide are outside the coverage of the current map. The problem is... I suck at map making and will be unable to develop anything further. If someone else, who has the skills want's to take a stab at a general map I'll fill it in with the details. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:08, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
- I've updated the map, but I'm waiting for the cache to respond. I may be making more changes, so I'll upload the SVG file later. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:23, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
- Also, Peter, how does Government Square seem out of place? It serves no other purpose than a hub for public buses and I should mention it is the most important stop for anyone who uses the bus service. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:32, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
- Initially it just seemed awkward to me so I mentioned it. Looking back, I think that it only seemed awkward because the subheader "Government square" looked strange under "Get around"—kind of jarring from a skimmer's perspective because "government square" sounds to the uneducated ear like an attraction. Maybe it would look better without the subheader (just as a paragraph under "By bus") and starting with a sentence like, "Government square is the main hub for public buses in Cincinnati." Nothing terribly important, but it did catch my eye on a read-through. --Peter Talk 01:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
- About the map, what part of making a general map do you need help with? I wouldn't mind creating the street layout, if you could email me an image of an outlined map area (on a satellite image or existing map image) that would cover the article listings not present in the downtown map. I don't know the area very well, so that part would be hard for me. --Peter Talk 15:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
- Basically, I can't design all the wonderful details you cartographers do. For the purposes, of this guide I think we'd be good with a UC/Clifton/Coreyville map and a Hyde Park/East Walnut Hills map. For the most part, our guide doesn't take the reader outside of these areas, except for a few exceptions like the Zoo. I've got a street map of Cincinnati, but it has a lot of detail that's useless for our purposes. If you zoom in on the letter "A" that would be Hyde Park a map from Observatory and up to I-71 would be useful. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
- So a map bounded by Observatory, Dana Ave, I-71, and Marburg/Ridge Ave would work? --Peter Talk 23:35, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
- That would work, but if the eastern boundary could be expanded to Ault Park/Columbia Parkway that would be awesome. It'd be ideal if you could focus on the Edwards Road/Erie Avenue/Paxton Avenue, and follow Observatory Avenue all the way into Ault Park. Erie Avenue has several shops and restaurants I want to list, plus the US' oldest observatory is near Ault Park, if I'm not mistaken. -- 18.104.22.168 00:27, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
- That's the eastern boundary you want extended, right? I'll see what I can whip up over the next few days. Unfortunately, its design won't match exactly the existing Cincinnati map, but it shouldn't be too far off. --Peter Talk 04:00, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
- Yep. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 04:24, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
- I think Newport's article is as good as it needs to be right now. I understand Peter's feelings about Covington, though - it is kind of like a (bland) district of the bigger city. I wouldn't hold back my support for the star based on Covington, but it'd be good to have it at usable status. That would only require descriptions for a couple more restaurants and a couple of bars, and a note as to whether Budget accommodation can or cannot be found in Covington. (My assumption is no, since the big box hotels are there, but I could be wrong.) Having done that, we would have fulfilled 98% of travelers' needs vis a vis Covington. Gorilla Jones 00:23, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
The two weeks have definitely expired, but I'm hoping people are amenable to giving this article another round of consideration - fixing the minor flaws got lost in a torrent of new listings from a new user, Lanskeith17. Here some more to chew on:
- Why was the Skywalk built? Why and where would I take it? Is it a covered path (hence the reference to beating the weather)? Is it free and pedestrian-only?
- Several entries under 'See', particularly in the first half, lack admission.
- Need info for Timberwolf Amphitheater. Also, aren't concert venues usually under Drink?
- Price for King's Island
- Drop a couple lesser festivals - there are quite a few listed here
- Prices for the university athletics, also phone for U of Cincinnati
- Description of the noteworthy shopping districts - what does each one offer? I see only two descriptions.
- Hours for Aglamesis Bros, Ingredients, Jim Dandy's Family BBQ, Tucker's Restaurant, Busken Bakery.
- Personally, I wouldn't brag about having attracted Dick Cheney to anything
- Info for Empress Chili
- Hours for Skyline Chili, Camp Washington, Camp Washington Chili
- Need description for Nicholson's
- Hours for Boi Na Braza, McCormick & Schmick's, Teller's of Hyde Park
- Description for McFadden's, Blue Jazz Wisp Club
- What kind of latest music at the Poison Room? Also need hours
- Hours for Whiskey Dick's, Alchemize, City View Tavern,
- Description for Comfort Inn & Suites, Gaslight B&B
- Price for Hilton Netherland, Hyatt Regency
- Is food really accepted by homeless people? That section seems awkward.
- I would structure the Get Out section - separate right-next-door day-trips from four-hour ones.
- The way in which Hours are given need to be standardized throughout the article. Someone ought to schmooze OldPine... Gorilla Jones 15:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
This article is right on the verge of being totally complete, so I'm going to go ahead and nominate it to see if we can get the kinks worked out and make it a star. The main missing element is a map, which I've tried to make before but found myself hopelessly lost. There might be some minor MoS issues here and there. Another concern of mine is that the History section (which I had a large hand in writing, mea culpa) is somewhat bloated. However, context is really important to understanding why Charlotte is what it is, so most of the info would be helpful to visitors wondering where the @!#$ the historic district is.
But on the whole, I'm pretty proud of this article as it's come a long way over the past couple of years. The districts are mostly complete, and the listings are up to date. Any questions/comments would be very helpful in trying to fix the remaining deficiencies. -- Bruinsbuddy42 15:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
- Wow! I'm surprised I haven't noticed this before--this is a fantastic guide! After a very quick lookover, I've noticed a few MoS related things and, of course, the lack of a map. But content-wise, this really does look complete and well put together.
- As the city has been "districtified" all eat, drink, sleep, etc. listings should be in the district articles, not the main city article.
- I'm not sure whether we are yet requiring this, as our article status policies have not been updated to reflect it, but it would be best if all listings were converted to use the listings templates (e.g., * <eat name="" alt="" address="" directions="" phone="" email="" fax="" hours="" price="" url=""></eat>) because that will enable automated listings adjustments if/when we make adjustments to the Wikitravel:Manual of style. This is a rather big task, though.
- One of the big city criteria is that all districts must be at least guide status in order for the city to be a star. The districts look pretty good and could be upgraded without too much work.
- Because this city has districts, I think two maps are in order: a general overview street map with at least the principal "see" listings, and a map showing the districts' relations to each other and their boundaries (see Chicago for an example). I can help with the maps.
- There may be a few other tweaks to be made, but after a quick skim, these were the main issues that jumped out. Don't support at least until these four issues are resolved (except maybe number 2). --Peter Talk 18:00, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Don't support. Really nice article with a lot of information (a little too much in some cases - I'd drop the list of radio stations, for example), but per many discussions in the slush pile, it's better to hold off nominating an article until it actually does fulfill the star requirements, rather than when you think it's getting close. Seek out some map wizards and ask them for map help on their user pages. The lack of a map and the other points described by Peter, particularly the first and third, mean it can't be a star. (Also, a lot of listings on the main page don't have hours or prices, and some, like the nightclubs, don't have any description at all.) Please keep up the great work and let's come back to this one later. Gorilla Jones 18:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
This is probably one of our best travel topics. I want to use this as a test case for developing criteria for Star travel topics. — Ravikiran 02:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
- Support after edits: I vote for moving Passenger Rights into a separate page, both for easier use for wikitravellers and as its content is not as mature as in the rest of the article. After that, I support Star nomination for Fundamentals. --DenisYurkin 17:53, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
- Don't support. There's a wealth of good information in the article, and it's well-written. But the divisions between Tips for flying, Fundamentals of flying, First and business class travel, and Round the world flights seem fuzzy to me, and it'll get even moreso if there's a fifth page of Passengers' rights added to the hierarchy. A sort of disambiguation page telling me exactly what distinct offerings are on each Flying page would help. (Imagine a country page, but the country is Flying, and the regions are these topics.) And then make sure they aren't duplicating each other. (Right now, there are tips in Fundamentals, for example.) There are several external links throughout the article, especially in the first section, that must be against the policy. The other flying articles (business travel most egregiously) also have this problem. We need to determine if the external links policy is different for this kind of article. (There are also some Wikipedia links in the text, like Richard Reid.) Gorilla Jones 21:35, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
This has come a long way from being a vfd candidate a few years ago. Except perhaps for a few photos, I cannot think how it might be improved further. Is it a star yet? Pashley 02:08, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
- Undecided, but inclined to oppose. This is very well written and organized, entirely up to the level we expect of Star articles, and is likely to be helpful to someone starting to explore the topic. However, I conjecture (admittedly without first-hand knowledge) that the business of teaching ESL is, in practice, so intricate that an article this brief can't live up to the criteria appearing in Template:Startopic, namely "covers the topic completely with great information and visuals" (my emphasis added). Covering this topic "completely" probably takes a book, not an article -- which is not a knock on the article itself, but I'm just not convinced that it can be a Star. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
- Ditto. This is a great article, but I too wondered whether it is possible to say of it that it "covers the topic completely," since full-length books are published on the topic. Next time I get to a bookstore, I'll take a look at one of these books and then I'll come to a decision regarding my vote. On another note, perhaps a photo or two would be nice? --Peter Talk 21:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
- Of course it is not complete — as you say, that would take at least one book — but this is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia or a career counselling site. Is it complete enough for a travel guide? I think so; it gives a decent overview, enough to get a traveller started on considering whether teaching English is for him or her, and enough links that he/she can find more if required. Pashley 23:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
- I agree it needs a picture or two, but I have none to hand. Anyone? Pashley 23:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
- Is it complete enough for a travel guide? That's a tough question, because I don't know of any other travel guides that would have a general teaching English article. But then again, I don't know of any other serious world-wide travel guides. I think it might qualify as a complete overview, but I just think we need to be clear about how we reconcile the "star-ification" of an article like this with our travel topic star criteria. It might be necessary to revise those criteria somewhat. As for photos, surely someone working on this site is currently teaching English? If so, they could probably coax some students into a model release for a classroom shot? Otherwise this looks kind of funny. --Peter Talk 08:31, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
- Peter's suggestion makes sense. Let's take a look at the criteria and then come back to this one. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
- I can probably dig out a classroom picture or two from my ESL days. Gorilla Jones 19:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
- I added one. Not a thing of beauty, though. But then, ESL rarely is.
- Everything about this article is good - the writing, the organization - but there's too much missing to call it a star. To me, if it's a star topic, I should be able to refer someone to it as their one-stop source for that topic. They shouldn't need to learn much more at all from external links. There are a lot of quirks to working in Japanese eikaiwa that come as a shock to many people moving over there, thinking they're going to be the English teacher they remember from grade school. If this topic is a star, it needs to anticipate common misunderstandings and disabuse them from an insider's perspective. All it currently does is tell me to search the web for opinions, and that some will be happy, others will be angry rants. Even moreso, I'd like to come away from a star version of this topic knowing what the difference is between ESL schools in China, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. (Let alone Europe.) But doing that is going to rely heavily on personal anecdotes, and the only way to deal with that is Wikipedian NPOV, and that's going to lead to something as utterly useless as Wikipedia's eikaiwa articles. There's nothing about the challenges of teaching ESL, nothing about how to make a lesson plan or how to use supplements, nothing about classroom manner. I don't mean to be negative about this article, because it's exactly what Pashley described it as - a decent overview - I just don't think a decent overview can be a star. Gorilla Jones 22:15, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
- Could it be a star if we call it Introduction to Teaching English? --Peter Talk 22:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
- I wrote above "Except perhaps for a few photos, I cannot think how it might be improved further." Gorilla Jones's criticism answers that question very well. So this clearly is not a star yet. Can I withdraw the nomination? More important, the gorilla points out a good path for improvement. Anyone care to plunge forward on that path? Pashley 23:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
- I'll watchlist it and try to help out a little between Chicago barrages. Whether it becomes a star or not in the future, this is a great example of the things Wikitravel does that print guides don't. Gorilla Jones 19:39, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm nominating this one because I'd like to get some feedback on how an ideal airport article should be done. There are several at Guide throughout the site, but none above. This one has good photos and a sterling map by Peter, tons of up-to-date hotel listings, and a brachiosaurus. Gorilla Jones 23:03, 10 November 2007 (EST)
- I'm inclined to support, having not been there... the article looks nice, seems to cover it while keeping it to the point. One question... why is the airport map upside down? I find it confusing when up isn't north. But clearly not a big deal. – cacahuate talk 03:07, 11 November 2007 (EST)
- Support. Although I feel pretty satisfied with the article, I'd also really like to hear some criticism, as we haven't hashed out with a lot of clarity what we want from our airport articles. Should we try to put eat and buy listings on the airport map or would that be excessive? Anything else that people would want on their airport map? I flipped the map upside down because a) I think that's mostly the way you are facing once you arrive—entrance/baggage check in the foreground and gates in the back, and b) that's how all the other O'Hare maps are displayed. My feeling was that the airport is enough of a world unto itself where the average traveler forgets which way is north. --Peter Talk 03:28, 11 November 2007 (EST)
- Fair enough. As for what I want from an airport article.... the basics. What I kinda like about this is that it's not overdone, and not trying too hard... I like the simplicity of the eat sections, etc... you're at an airport... there's not that much to be said... I don't think having the restaurants on the map are necessary, unless they're necessary due to complication or if they're spread widely throughout a large terminal... in most airports if you say that a place in in terminal one, once you're in terminal 1 it's usually pretty clear where the food is. – cacahuate talk 03:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)
- Support. Looks quite thorough and complete. That said, it seems like there's a lot of stuff around the airport and it's not really clear on how to get there, so perhaps we could have an overall map of the area, just to orient people as to where all those hotels and outer parking lots are? Then you have that in addition to the principal airport map. Just a thought, doesn't change my vote of support. PerryPlanet 15:02, 11 November 2007 (EST)
- That's a really good point actually, I hadn't thought of that... it isn't clear at all where the hotels are, the most that is said about many of them is their distance from the airport. Descriptions of how to get there should be made at the very least, and an area map would be an even better idea – cacahuate talk 00:54, 18 November 2007 (EST)
- I thought about making an area map, but I'm not sure it would really add much value, as I'm pretty sure all the hotels operate shuttles directly from the area just outside baggage claim. But I'll try and double check on that, and you're definitely right that we should make it clear how one gets to the listed hotels. Similarly, all the outer parking lots have shuttles taking you directly to the terminals and are themselves well signed from the described "get in#by car" routes. Still and all, the completionist/perfectionist in me wants to see the O'Hare area mapped eventually—it's just last on my list of priorities for Chicago right now. --Peter Talk 01:44, 18 November 2007 (EST)
- Any more comments? --Peter Talk 22:13, 26 November 2007 (EST)
- For some very weird reason I get an error everytime I try to view the page, saying that WT is experiencing a problem. Only that page. So I can't look at it... anyhow, did you fix the last issue we discussed and at least give a verbal sense of where the hotels are or how to get to them? I still think a map would be ideal, but at least the words should be there :) – cacahuate talk 23:49, 26 November 2007 (EST)
- Let me know if the directions I've added help clarify where the hotels are (see here). If not, we'll table the nomination until a map exists. Gorilla Jones 14:10, 1 December 2007 (EST)
- Tells me everything I think i'd ever want to know about the airport, would do well as a star Prof Jack 07:38, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks. I'll table the nomination for now until we have a map of the roads around there, and then it should be ready. Gorilla Jones 17:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)
This article has a fantastic description and enough information for anyone to use. It also has good
pictures, maps ect. I don't know why this isn't a star article already. 22.214.171.124
- Don't Support. My biggest issue with this article is that everything below it (the rest of New Zealand) has very poor coverage. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a single article in New Zealand besides this one and this one that rises above "usable" status. It's probably why we don't have any regional star articles yet. Besides that issue, there seems to be a lack of thorough descriptions in certain places, especially the See and Do sections. The Do section is especially bad: so I can do all this stuff there, but how good is it? What's the Skiing and snowboarding like? How's the surfing? Swimming with seals sounds cool, but where can I do it? PerryPlanet 20:39, 15 February 2008 (EST)
- Don't Support. Quick glance reveals following problems: 1) lack of a map w/ regions breakdown & routes between linked destinations; 2) linked destinations/regions are not all guide status or better; 3) "Do" section needs serious overhaul; 4) "Other destinations" list needs to be pared down to no more than 9 destinations; 5) several minor mos edits needed (e.g., sprucing up the one liner listings). Much of it is rather nicely written, but there is a ton of work still needed to make this one a star. --Peter Talk 23:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)
This article is very deserving of being a Star article. All of the sections are teeming with helpful information. User:Jonathan_784 9/4/2008
- Comment: At first glance this article looks really impressive. Since we have never gone through this process for a non-city, non-park destination, this will be tricky. I'll read through it within a couple days (hopefully) and get back to you on this. Hopefully we can get some real discussion going on this article. --Peter Talk 17:34, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
- Not quite there. My biggest problem with the article as it stands right now is that almost none of the listings follow our MoS. Most of the hotels listed do not have contact info, prices, location info, or any of the stuff that is required under our MoS, and the descriptions sound like they were pulled directly from the Disney website. The same goes for everything in the Eat and Buy sections. Now, granted we are talking about a theme park, so perhaps we can't get them to perfectly fit the MoS, but I feel like we can do better than this. PerryPlanet 12:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
- Quick Critique: I gave this a 15 min speed read and...
- Pros: I think overall this article is very good. Some of its sections seem really comprehensive...like "Stay safe." To its credit, it also makes use of things like info boxes, pictures, and warning boxes, and overall it seems pretty well formatted.
- Cons: I agree with PerryPlanet above — most of the listings are incomplete per MoS. Also, most of them are not in alphabetical order. Not all addresses are abbreviated...e.g. uses "Street" not "St." The "Sleep" section on the map appears to be done well, but only six "See" and "Do" items are mapped, and none of the other sections are there at all? Also, in the "Read" section (and ostensibly throughout the article) it does mention a lot of other travel publications...is that standard? I would like to see a complete article here so that no further referral was necessary. It would be better perhaps to see more info on the "information centers" that were only passively mentioned. It would be nice to see them marked on the map as well. I wonder would a "Contact" section be appropriate here?
- Decision: Good job, well done, but I think there is a lot of tidying up work left. Asterix 14:30, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Okay, here is what I think: User:Jonathan_784 9/5/08
- About the "Read" section: discuss this with the person who wrote that (User:LtPowers). But seriously, I think that section is helpful.
- The Disney-branded hotels share a common reservations number (1-407-WDISNEY), and I have not been able to locate any individual addresses and phone numbers, so are those really necessary?
- None of the shops or restaurants have contact information. That is fine as long as we know just their locations.
- If you can, please make any adjustments as necessary, and I or anyone else can try to duplicate.
- Per your request:
- Disney's Caribbean Beach Resort, 900 Cayman Wy (off E Buena Vista Dr), ☎ +1 407 934-3400 (fax: +1 407 934-3288), . checkin: 3PM; checkout: 11AM. Enjoy the ambiance of the tropics in one of five "Island Villages." $134-$184.
- Asterix 17:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
- Update: I have adjusted all the hotel listings to the best of my knowledge. I would appreciate it if you could plunge forward and add anything I may have missed.
- Another update: I put all the Sleep listings in alphabetical order. Please redo the map to reflect the change, and expand its name to Walt Disney World Resort or just Walt Disney World - that is the name of the article, and it's cited in the infobox under "Understand."
- I agree that this approaches star quality. I also had concerns about the "Read" section when Lt first put it in. His reasoning was that we would never cover in detail as well as the referenced sources. *shrug*. All hotels have phone numbers and all attractions have locations. I am concerned that we don't even describe locations e.g. "east side of park" "to the left of the main entrance".. whatever. I guess if we don't do that, perhaps the Read section is truly necessary. I don't like rushing to Star... it implies there's nothing left to do. OldPine 13:54, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- Another update: I redid the Buy section, but I know somehow that it isn't "complete" yet - please plunge forward.
- User: LtPowers has voiced a concern over the "Buy" section. Please focus on this section
- I haven't read through carefully yet, but this does look like a great article. But I'd be tempted to hold up the "starrification" until we have WT style maps of each park, with all attractions marked. --Peter Talk 14:41, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- Use this link to create the maps: http://www.wdwinfo.com/maps/index.htm -- User:Jonathan_784
- I wasn't volunteering ;) And those maps are all copyrighted. --Peter Talk 20:28, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- Another update: The Magic Kingdom subsection now covers all the attractions! Let's finish all the others. User:Jonathan_784
On closer inspection, and based upon the last few comments, I now also think that we should hold off on starification. Articles are supposed to be at star level before they get onto this page. To my knowledge this page is for possible minor tweaks and fine tuning. It's clear now that the articles "completeness" cannot be verified, and there are also several more maps to be made -- no mean feat! There was also a question raised above about the source of the material that does not seem to have been addressed. Asterix 16:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
9/7/08 - I have finished the overhaul of the See and Do section, to the best of my ability. The Eat and Buy sections are now the only ones that need attention. But I'm at a loss as to what should be done - maybe all of you can help. No need to rush, let's at least make this a Star-quality article, if not Star itself. User:Jonathan_784
9/9/08 - After reviewing the Eat and Buy sections in several other Star articles, I think I may have a working knowledge of how to finally "finish" this article. It's going to take some time, though. Update 9/10/08: I have finally completed the expansion of the subsections that were in need of attention. Unless anyone says so otherwise, I will re-boot this nomination by erasing this discussion. User:Jonathan_784
- First, please never delete discussions; they should always be archived, and in this case should be archived in the nominations slush pile. Second, I do object to this article being made a star as long as it lacks maps that show the locations of all attractions. The satellite data is available, and a map trace is eminently possible. It's also a pretty clear requirement for all non-region star nominations to have all listed attractions/restaurants/etc. marked on a Wikitravel-style map. It's nonetheless a great article, but it lacks the "perfect" quality of a star. There should be no notable room for improvement in an article if we are to make it a star. --Peter Talk 18:10, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
- One other optional suggestion: it would be nice to have some more images, since the article is so long. They help break up the black & whiteness of the page. And I'd guess there are a lot of good photos of Disney World floating around! --Peter Talk 23:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
- Just added 2 more pictures. User:Jonathan_784 9/11/08 9:52 CDT
9/16/08: After reviewing a few Star articles that have only one map, I think that this article is definitely Star quality, with or without maps of sub-areas such as the theme parks. User:Jonathan_784
- Object. I don't think this article is ready for star status. I'm not even going to nitpick, I have one major underlying criticism of this article - lack of descriptions in the listings. Some Eat and Sleep listings do not have any descriptions at all, and those that do read like they were pulled directly from a Disney website. Honestly, looking at it the only differences I can tell between the listings are theme, location, and price. That's not good enough for me. I need something more specific - what makes this place worth staying or eating at? What are the highlights? Stuff like that. As it is right now, I can't support promoting this one to star status. PerryPlanet 19:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
- Geez, I didn't even know this was up for star, or I would have been contributing to the discussion. Gotta do a better job communicating, Jonathan, especially on the talk page. A few items:
- I understand Peter's suggestion of park maps, but I question their value. To me, "The Magic Kingdom" is the attraction, so a map of it would be an attraction map, not even a city map. It'd be like having a map of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. -- and equally subject to frequent changes. I can see other perspectives though -- certainly a visitor to WDW makes extensive use of park maps, so I can understand why we might want them here (although I daresay Disney does a much, much better job of producing them than we ever could).
- The "Read" section can go if necessary. I don't fully understand the purpose of the "Read" section, because it's not really described anywhere, so I did what I could. I will point out, though, that some of those sources go into much greater detail than we generally do -- AllEars.net, for example, has detailed menus for the restaurants on property, something we would never try to keep up-to-date.
- Jonathan's prolific efforts on this article are deserving of recognition and accolades, although I agree the article isn't star-level yet. I still need to take a detailed look at the current state to see exactly what I feel needs changing; a lot of my earlier visions for the article have been made moot by Jonathan's efforts, and I do still have that unresolved question on the talk page.
- -- LtPowers 09:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
This discussion seems to have stalled, so I'm bringing it back up. I just made a quick trip to the public library to take a look at Fodor's Walt Disney World -- here are my new thoughts:
- Fodor's book not only has maps of the theme parks but also of the resorts. It would probably not be worth such an effort to have theme park maps, or resort maps, for that matter.
- I wrote many of the restaurant descriptions myself, and I'm not a culinary critic. The way I see it, the restaurant descriptions are decent enough provided that the external links lead to some more specific info.
- For the hotel listings that don't have descriptions, I think they're allright with just the contact info and the links. These are ordinary, non-themed hotels anyway.
Jonathan 784 14:49, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Objections Jonathan, I really commend your efforts, and I think it'll get there eventually - but for now I have the following objections;
- The layout of the page is a mess (I have a very untypical resolution of 1680x1050, it may not be obvious to you if you're on a low res setting ) - this refers to the info boxes in particular.
No, I really think a place needs maps over the attractions, with the same underlying reasons as the external links guidelines (we want the content here). And I know that other star articles might just have one map, but this is a different sort of article and destination all together - try it - it's not that freighting once you get into it :-)
- There are still a lot of listings that don't have descriptions - this is a must as far as I'm concerned, and others could use further elaborations (I recommend doing them one section at the time, until you feel really good about the section, and then moving on to the next one)
- I feel you frustrations dude, I digged headlong into Copenhagen myself, without realizing how much work it takes just to get the districts into guide standard. Just take it one section at the time, and try not to rush it too much. Ganbatte kudasai! ;-)
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sertmann (talk • contribs)
- While I don't deny that park maps are useful, I question whether it's practical to keep them updated. See my comparison above -- it'd be useful to have a map of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., but not really practical. LtPowers 22:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hmm. The reason we don't keep up maps of museums is because they provide their own maps at the door for free. If they don't, then I think a map would be quite handy (like at the Hermitage, for example). So, are the Disney maps free? --Peter Talk 22:52, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
- Oh yes, due to their essential nature. Disney gives them away by the bucketful. You get the full suite of maps/guides at check-in, or with your tickets if you're not staying on-site. I can't imagine anyone choosing to use our maps while actually in the park, no matter how good they are.
- That said, there may be some value in a potential visitor using our maps to plan his or her visit. When the idea of park maps was first floated, I was thinking of maps as detailed as a city map would be. However, now that I think about it, a basic map of each park, showing the major themed areas (the seven "lands" in the Magic Kingdom, each pavilion in Epcot, etc.) and major landmarks might be worthwhile, and not as hard to keep up-to-date as a map showing every last ride, restaurant, and show. I still don't think I'd let their absence keep the article from becoming a star, but I wouldn't object to their inclusion either. LtPowers 08:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- That was how i was thinking, mainly locations of the different rides - anyway, I've s striked it under my objections, even though i'd really like to see it Sertmann 10:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, I would like to see that. I made a National Mall map that basically set out to do the same thing (although I doubt Disney World would have quite so many attractions on one map!). I'd like to see these before calling it a star—while the guide is awesome even without them, it's not quite as perfect as our criteria require (the criterion that there be no ostensible room for improvement). And given my geography bent I really like to see the lay of the land before arriving. I think these maps would be pretty easy to do, since NASA provides really close up images of the parks, and because you could use the Disney maps (or just experience) as a guide in marking the landmarks/major rides.
- So in sum, I'd like to see these basic maps before I strike my objection. Once we've got them up, I'll take a closer read through the article before I support. --Peter Talk 12:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Looks fine to me! Edmontonenthusiast 23:22, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
- So what is holding this back from being a star:updated list? Keep smiling, ee talk 16:18, 13 November 2008 (EST).
I think it's time to add this to the slush pile. I don't think the prose is sparkling yet, and Peter still wants park maps, which will take a while. I'm working on an Epcot-area map but I'm not sure how it's going to come out using our house style (due to the way Disney uses stagecraft and illusion to influence the guests' perceptions, an aerial view of the parks does not mesh well with what the guest perceives). Furthermore, given our goals to be comprehensive and the only travel guide a traveler would need for a given destination, that means our Walt Disney World travel guide needs to be book-length. All the other Disney World travel guides are. For us, that's going to mean dividing up into "districts", possibly on the scale of individual lands (i.e., a "Fantasyland" article, a "Future World" article, a "Camp Minnie-Mickey" article, etc.).
In short, I think we need to have a discussion about what exactly our WDW article should include, and how big it should be. This is not the place for that discussion, though, so I would encourage anyone who commented here to join me on Talk:Walt Disney World Resort for
tea and cookies a discussion on the scope of this article. A lot of interesting points were raised above, but we need to discuss them there, not here.
-- LtPowers 11:06, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I honestly think it would be very unlikely that a typical traveller would print out a theme park map created by us and use it, givien the fact that official maps are distributed for free, either at the park entrances or at hotel check in. As for the rest of the article, I am always open to new suggestions/ideas. Jonathan 784 10:21, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Don't quite know if it's "there", but if you give a list of WHERE to improve, I will fix it. I've worked on it extensively and was the first district I worked on after Edmonton districting! I put a lot of effort into it and tried to put in the most complete listings, unlike others and I just hope it doesn't suck. Is it there, or where are the improvements? I'd love for this to be star! Keep smiling, ee talk 18:31, 13 November 2008 (EST).
- Not yet. Looks like the article is coming along quite nicely, but it's still pretty far from the star's "perfection" requirement. Just at a very quick first glance: not all listings are "listingified", not all establishments have hours listed, almost no price ranges given for restaurants, hours formatting is often incorrect, sections should have quick introductory paragraphs. I'd encourage you to slush this nomination for now (since articles shouldn't really be nominated until they are star quality) and take a good look at existing star articles (like this one) and look over the Wikitravel:Manual of style to get an idea of how to achieve the requisite formatting "perfection." --Peter Talk 18:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)
- I'll leave on for some more opinions, plus I'll do the stuff you said over the next couple days, so there's no point in like redoing in 2 days from now. I'll just leave it. But thankyou. Keep smiling, ee talk 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST).
- To add, doncha think by MIDRANGE, BUDGET...you'd get the pricing? Or do you mean like average price for a dish is 30$, etc.? Keep smiling, ee talk 19:05, 13 November 2008 (EST).
- I agree, many listings needs expansion, and some are really incomplete (I even spotted a few missing addresses), section introductions are lacking (i'd especially like to see some in the do subsections), the listings are not in alphabetical order, etc. It IS great work, and Edmonton coverage is expanding at a mind blowing pace, but it's not a star yet. There is a reason why there are so few of them, even though this place has been going for a good number of years - it takes extraordinary dedication to get articles up there (just take a look at the Disney world nomination above. So i'd suggest you slush this for now, read through the star articles, and get to work expanding the article so you can renominate it later --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 13:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)
- Well this sucks! Keep smiling, ee talk 15:46, 14 November 2008 (EST).
- This can be added to the slush pile. But expect a come back (I hope!)!!! Keep smiling ,ee talk 19:37, 14 November 2008 (EST).
- You can do that :) – cacahuate talk 01:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)
I don't know if it's bad style, nominating your own article or not, but I've picked up on Elgaard's excellent work, on this district (where we both live). Fixed the map, MoS'ed it, and added everything I felt was missing. Neither of us are native speakers, so there might be an issue there, otherwise i feel like it's essentially a complete piece of work. Sertmann 14:11, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Support. It's a great work of a district article, with a nice map, and is all properly formatted as far as I can tell. And please feel free to nominate your own articles—I think the nominator is almost always the author. Just a couple suggestions:
- 1) Short introductions for see, do, and eat would be nice.
Adding a contact section to the map key, and numbering the contact icons would be really useful, since otherwise most readers won't recognize what those black contact symbols are
- 3) Are the cope listings on the map? I saw the H symbol, which I assume was the hospital, but I wasn't sure about the other two. Maybe there's a way to make this more clear?
- The last one, the Laundromat Café, i'm not really sure how to mark that (symbol wise) - any ideas? Sertmann 04:58, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
- You could perhaps create an ad hoc symbol for each of the cope listings, like a green triangle with a number inside. Otherwise you could try and make a washing machine symbol, but I'm not going to try to do that myself ;) --Peter Talk 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Also watch those hours formats, I changed them, e.g., M-Sa:noon-5PM,Su:noon-6PM → M-Sa noon-5PM, Su noon-6PM. Anyway, fantastic work, and I look forward to seeing more on Copenhagen! --Peter Talk 18:56, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
- Support. Also agree that short introductions to each section would be nice, but otherwise this looks good! Nice work – cacahuate talk 00:27, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
- Support. It looks like a lovely guide, with nice pictures and a great map. In addition to the concerns raised by Peter above, I have a couple of my own:
The Sleep section has one listing which doesn't appear on the map, Copenhagen B&B, while the map shows two sleep listings which don't seem to be in the article: Sleep-in Copenhagen and Charlottehaven.
- Fixed that, except Copenhagen B&B, doesn't want their address public, but give out the address once people have a confirmed booking, i think that should be respected, without having to remove the listing Sertmann 04:58, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
- 2) The Buy section feels a little small. Obviously, I've never been to Copenhagen and don't know the extent of the shopping scene, but if there are many small stores like it says in the intro to the Buy section, perhaps we could stick just a few more in? This is not a major concern of mine, though. Just a minor nitpick.
- 3) Another minor nitpick which has absolutely nothing to stop the article from becoming a Star: the 4 pictures in the See section feel a little too clustered together, perhaps we could spread them throughout the See section? For instance, putting the picture of The Little Mermaid Statue next to the listing for The little Mermaid Statue. PerryPlanet 11:44, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Support - Why? Because I know there has been a lot of work put into it and I looked at it, and I actually learned lots from it, it is well written, and definately deserves it. SO YES! Edmontonenthusiast 19:56, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast
- To add, I believe everything has been met that's been brought up and it's been a 3 weeks. Should this not be a star? Happy first day of snow in Edmonton, ee talk 14:59, 11 November 2008 (EST).
- There are still outstanding objections to fix:
- 1) need a suggestion on how to add the laundromat cafe to the map (symbol wise)
- 2) There's still some introductions to left to write to the sections, and I'm out of idea's on how/what to write, that would be of "star" quality
- 3) Need to figure out a solution to the image problem (which is darn hard as I'm on a wide resolution screen, and it all looked good to me - tried changing it, and it's all a big mess on my computer now)
- 4) Have to take a walk around the neighborhood to find some more good stores to add (as I don't want to add something, just for the sake of adding it)
- So it's sorta on hold until I get some inspiration to resolve the above issues - the current plan is to "finish" Copenhagen/Christianshavn and Copenhagen/Northern suburbs to guide status, as this is where my idea's to develop the guide are at the moment, and then revisit this, before i continue with the other districts Sertmann 15:48, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Al right, keep up the good work! Happy first day of snow in Edmonton, ee talk 15:54, 11 November 2008 (EST).
- Re: Laundromat Cafe, I haven't noticed anyone come up with a symbol for the "cope" section yet on maps, but what about just a square similar to the "see/do" but make it orange or something, with a number in it... keep it simple? – cacahuate talk 01:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)
This article I looked over and looks gosh darn good! Would be our first travel topic star! Thoughts-can it make it? Keep smiling, ee talk 13:03, 14 November 2008 (EST).
- → Wikitravel:Star nominations/Slush pile#Teaching English Jpatokal 09:23, 15 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes I know, but per request via talk page, it was asked to bring this back. Keep smiling, ee talk 12:25, 15 November 2008 (EST).
- There is a problem that would need solving to make this a star, Talk:Teaching_English#Re_section_Resources_for_English_teachers. 19:16, 15 November 2008 (EST)
- I took a crack at solving it. Pashley 09:00, 31 December 2008 (EST)
Former Destination of the Month, now mapped and formatted. Much of the writing was done by User:Ojousama, who clearly knew the city quite well. Great images, too. I could scrounge up a couple more hotel listings if necessary, but having been there — and considering the size of the city — I do feel this article covers it thoroughly. Your review would be greatly appreciated... Gorilla Jones 18:47, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
- I think it's almost there, but some sections could be improved. The Understand section is well-written, but it seems a bit too short for a city of 500.000 inhabitants. The listings in the article are great, but the See, Buy Eat, Drink and Sleep sections all have no introductions. Especially for the drink section this is hard to cope with -- where in the city are the good clubs and bars? Is it easy to enter, are identity papers required? Also I know Japan is a safe country, but to omit the Stay Safe section completely? It is a big city and travelers must have something to be wary of, even if it's only pickpocket crime. A good article which has all these issues taken care of, is the Hiroshima article, which could function as a good example. Globe-trotter 13:19, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
- After reviewing the article, I think these issues need to be addressed:
- Sleep Section: Are only 5 Sleep options enough?
- Eat Section: If Taimeshi is an Uwajima specialty, then the information should probably be moved to the Uwajima article. To go along with that, it's not really clear whether any of the dishes are really Matsuyama inventions/alterrations. Also, if these dishes are local specialties, then there should be at least one restaurant listed below that serves each specialty, because visitors may actually want to try them. Only 7 restaurants doesn't seem right, either. Are there not enough restaurants in this city to have the "Budget", "mid-Range", and "Splurge" options?
- Buy: Yunomachi appears to be the hot spot for shopping in the city. If so, I think it should be highlighted and its location should be clarified.
- The "Co-ed Almost-Naked Stair-Climbing" thing seems odd to me. Is there a better way of presenting it?
- See: I don't know for sure, but it seems like more could be said about some of the pilgrimage temples. I also noticed that all of the attractions were able to be placed on the map, aside from the temples, which makes me suspicious that there is more to do outside of the scope of the map. The existing content is good, but I wonder if there aren't some unknowns we have yet to discover/add. The map is of the inner city, around the main station... How far beyond the map does the city extend? Most Japanese cities extend well beyond the city center, and attractions typically exist elsewhere, even if there are less of them. Okayama, for example, has a significant number of attractions outside of the city center. Kurashiki does, as well. Matsuyama may be different, but can we verify that there is truly nothing to do beyond what is on the map?
- Do: The "Zazen Meditation" thing is confusing. Where is it actually located? Is the building called "Zazen Meditation"? Also, are the koto lessons held at the Information Center?
- Get Out: Ehime Children's Castle is in Matsuyama, so it should be listed in the "See" section. This sort of brings me back to whether or not the "See" section truly covers the whole city. Also, I think the "Get Out" section needs to link to other cities/articles, not list specific attractions as if it were the "See" section.
Sorry if these seem nitpicky or obnoxious, but I have to admit that I am sceptical about this nomination. Even after the issues with current content are addressed, I would still only feel comfortable supporting this if someone could verify that the temples and Children's Castle are really the only things outside of the city center to see/do. ChubbyWimbus 18:31, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
- Hmm. Yeah, I have fundamental problems with Chubby's comments. First, I think a review of Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals and Wikitravel:Article status is in order. Wikitravel is not a Yellow Pages, nor have we ever defined Star status as containing every single attraction within a day's reach of the city. Neither Chicago nor Singapore contain every attraction in those cities. They contain the good ones, the attractions that are recommended by the people who have written the article. Travellers' time is short, and they want to make the most of it. As anybody who has spent time in Japan knows, there are some neighborhood temples & shrines that are really not of any interest to a tourist. If we hand a tourist a travel guide that's swamped with listings, wherein every one notable attraction is surrounded by five weak ones, we have done them a disservice. Part of the process of creating a travel guide is curation — selecting and identifying the best, not merely creating really long lists of everything that's there.
- Now as for Matsuyama itself, I think it's silly to say that there must be more attractions because most of the listed attractions fit on the map. The shape of the map is defined by where the attractions are. That's part of the process of making a map. So you're saying that, since the map covers almost everything, it must be missing a lot. That is a catch-22. You raise the example of Okayama. That was the hardest map I've done, simply because I could not figure out how to frame it. The listings as assembled there do not constitute a coherent geographical area. As a result, that article has several listings like the Tomata Onsen Noritake or Okayama Dome where no reader could figure out where the attraction is relative to their hotel or what we're recommending they do there. That's a shortcoming of the article, not an asset.
- If you read the listings (particularly before I edited them for length), it's clear that the original author knew the city extremely well. If you've been to Matsuyama, you'll know that 90% of tourists make a beeline for Dogo Onsen and then depart. All of the rest of those listings are the comprehensive coverage. There is no process by which we can "verify" that there aren't more possible listings somewhere for any article on this site. (I will say, though, that I've flipped through published travel guides and not found any Matsuyama listings that the Wikitravel article doesn't have.) And the article does extend well beyond the city center — the Dogo area, for example, and the Russian Soldiers Cemetery, are well out of the city center. I don't understand the cause for the confusion over Zazen meditation, as the location (Keitokoji) and address are given in the listing. It's in the 'Do' section, so the listing it named for the thing you do there. That's like wondering whether 'Hang-gliding' is a building you should be looking for in Tottori.
- It is, as I said, not a problem to find a few more hotel listings, and perhaps a few more eat listings if necessary. To address Globe-trotter's comments, it would be easy enough to fashion a few section introductions and perhaps shift content from some of the longer listings to lengthen 'Understand'. I'll try to think of something for a Stay Safe section, but having written the Hiroshima Stay Safe section, I can't really imagine what would go in a Matsuyama version, other than a warning not to stay in the hot bath too long. It's Shikoku — pick-pocketing and petty crime is even less of any issue in Matsuyama than anywhere else in Japan. A city-level stay safe article should only highlight things that aren't already evident from reading the country-level article. Gorilla Jones 22:00, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
- I can't figure which of the points you addressed - perhaps addressing the issues in order, or beneath them is better. I don't think we need to have a yellow pages, but the sleep section doesn't seem to offer me much choice. The first looks a bit like a nice western style hotel from the description, but the price would tell me it probably isn't. Unless, there isn't much choice there?
- I'm not sure I see the humor in the naked on the stairs thing, but that isn't a showstopper, everybody's sense of humor is different - is it meant to be funny? Also, are we going to format phone numbers in their international form? --inas 23:29, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
- Ah, I see Keitokoji now. I must have skipped over it since it's listed with the address. Directions should be added on how to get to the 88 temple sites, also.
I have read the goals and non-goals before, and I do not advocate that every temple, shrine, etc. be added to the city however, a star article should also be thorough, which different people will obviously have different ideas about. I know that information can be added to star articles if a great attraction were found in the city that is not currently listed, but that is not really how "star articles" are defined. With Okayama, the city's shape is odd and it extends quite far beyond the city center, and many of the larger Japanese cities are like that. I agree with you that not having a map that shows all of Okayama's attractions are a weakness of the page, and with Okayama's size and shape, reconciling that sounds like quite a pain in the ass, and there may be some listings that can be dealt away with, and if you feel that I've organized it in a bad way, I am very open to discussing with you a better way to present it (I suppose that is a conversation best moved elsewhere).
My point in bringing it up is that, if Matsuyama is of any comparable size, it is possible (likely?) that there are more sites that are worthwhile. For example, if you look through the sites in the "Other areas" part on the Okayama page, do you feel that none of the attractions within the section are worth visiting or that none of them could be of interest to travellers? Would you suggest deleting all of the listings? While you may debate the value of some, I assume there are listings there that you would not want to be deleted, even though their presence makes map-making a royal pain. That's why I was questioning whether or not the entire city of Matsuyama has been represented or if the page simply represents the best of the area surrounding the station.
While many travellers do just want to see the best attractions and leave, the strength of Wikitravel over other guides is that we can also accommodate those who want to spend a little more time in the area, so, as you said, we can list more than just the onsen and the castle. I am not trying to accuse you of taking advantage of everyone else's ignorance of the city by purposely leaving out great sites, nor do I have any silly goal of not allowing this article to become a star. I was just wanting to know if anyone knows about the areas of the city not mentioned, but I think it's probably best to just forget about that comment, since I feel like taking it at face value would possibly deny the article a star based on vague notions that something else may exist, whether it does or not. ChubbyWimbus 23:13, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think this is particularly productive, so I'll withdraw the nomination. Gorilla Jones 01:24, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
There's not any of my work in this one, but just looking at this district makes me feel like it's on star status. It has plenty of listings, is nicely formatted and has some great maps. Globe-trotter 09:49, 7 December 2009 (EST)
- I will have a thorough read tomorrow but the article looks great. At first glance I am not sure the maps show every listing. That needs checking. --Burmesedays 11:44, 11 December 2009 (EST)
- Not quite. It's a pretty good article, but there are still some issues. One is some problems in the Eat and Drink sections - a lot of those listings are missing phone numbers and hours, and I see one that's not properly formatted. Also, the Do section seems rather small...is that really all there is to Do here? The Get in section is also looking a little shrimpy. Overall it's a great article, but I can't say it's a star yet. PerryPlanet Talk 19:20, 14 December 2009 (EST)
- I added the missing telephone numbers of the Buy, Drink, Eat and Sleep sections, except for Lau Pa Sat (food stall market) and Yong Bak Kut Teh (I found it on Google Street View, but cannot find it's telephone number anywhere online. It seemed so small, maybe it doesn't have any. I also fixed the bad listing. About the hours: that's a bit harder to fulfill, it's hard to find the opening hours online for some of the listings. Globe-trotter 18:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)
- Had a closer look and very nearly I would say. A few points:
- The map has no scale on it.
- The map needs updating as a number of listings are not on there.
- Sleep section needs a price range table or is it enough that there is one in the parent city guide?
- On opening hours for restaurants and bars. These are generally a bit of problem in Asia as they tend to be a moveable feast. Singapore might be a bit more reliable on that front though.
- A hotel I have used a lot here in the past, Swisshotel Stamford, is on the map but not listed.--Burmesedays 05:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)
- Hmm, didn't realize this was nominated -- not one of Sg's better articles, I would've thought? Anyway, the Riverside district is somewhat awkwardly shaped and is thus split into two maps, but the 2nd map is not in the book and thus hasn't been updated in eons. Sleep price ranges are consistent across the entire Sg guide, so the infobox should be unnecessary. And while restaurants have opening hours, for hawker stalls trying to find them is hopeless. Jpatokal 09:30, 17 February 2010 (EST)
- That means there is another map that is not shown in the article? Can that be put right? If not, then the nomination fails I think. --Burmesedays 03:11, 21 February 2010 (EST)
- There are two maps already: one at Get around and the other at Drink. However, I've now sliced off a good chunk of the article and turned it into Singapore/Marina Bay, which is a bit sparse now but will grow considerably within a year or two as the casino gets going. Jpatokal 06:22, 24 February 2010 (EST)
- Seeing how things are still debated, I suggest its best to move this one to the slush pile for the time being. --globe-trotter 11:25, 12 March 2010 (EST)
This was nominated some time back and rejected. It would have been our first star travel topic, and one of the issues was that we weren't entirely clear on criteria for a star topic. The same issue may come up for the dive site topics.
Some of the other issues raised in the earlier rejection have been addressed. Others, like not being "complete" in a sense that requires a book, have been ignored. Is it ready now? Pashley 21:46, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
- Some of Gorilla Jones' concerns do not seem to have been addressed, but I think he made some valid points. This article doesn't offer much for those actually teaching it, nor does it offer much comparative information between countries/regions. I also think this article has an Asia focus that the title does not imply. There are scattered references to the Middle East and Europe, but a lot more could be said about these, I imagine. Latin America is on the list as a "popular" place for teaching English yet if I am considering doing this in Latin America, the article doesn't offer me much (absolutely nothing specific about this supposedly popular choice). If I am considering teaching English in Africa, the article is definitely not going to help. I think most people do end up in Asia, but the article should still mention the full scope of possibilities, because "Teaching English" is done elsewhere. Including these atypical destinations would also put our guide above most others, that are also focused around China, Japan, and Korea. ChubbyWimbus 02:21, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
- A few observations:
- Does the article have to provide much for those actually teaching? There are links to sites which presumably do just that. What information for people actually teaching would be considered appropriate?
- Requiring equal representation for all possible places where English may be taught by a traveller might be an excessive requirement, and perhaps would prevent the article from ever reaching star status. One possible way around this might be to have the main article "Teaching English", and regional sub articles. In this way the main article could be rated a star if at least one region is a star. Also it might be useful to the user if it is split into regions.
- Is "Teaching English" the best title? A large number of teachers of English do it with no connection to travelling except their daily commute. OK, I realise that this is Wikitravel and anything in it will automatically be assumed to have some connection with travel, but there may be a better title. Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:55, 3 November 2009 (EST)
- Well, it is called "Teaching English", so it's not a stretch to think that someone might expect to find pointers and suggestions for those already teaching it. As far as number 2 is concerned, I think it is completely reasonable to expect an article to cover the topic fully in order to be a star, and no article is entitled to star status. If no one adds information about Latin America, Africa, Middle East, or Europe, then I don't see why it should be a star. If the New York City article only mentioned Manhattan, would we call it a star? If star status articles are supposed to be the best guide Wikitravel (or any source) could offer on a particular subject, then I don't think we can expect this article to ever be a star if we make assumptions about where people do or should teach English. I'm not sure if splitting it by region/continent/country would be better or not. ChubbyWimbus 19:10, 3 November 2009 (EST)
- I've rewritten the "Destinations" section and made a few changes elsewhere to better cover other places. Comments? Pashley 06:48, 5 November 2009 (EST)
- Hi ChubbyWimbus,
- Your first point and my third point relate. If it had a different title which did not imply that information for people already teaching English should be expected, then that requirement would disappear. I am not advocating such a change, just pointing it out as an option. I dont know or care enough about the subject to have strong opinions on the content.
- My point is that it should be reasonably practicable for any article to be improved to star status if it is intended for this to be a target. If the idea is that only some classes of article can have the potential to become stars that is different. Technically, requiring that an article is complete may mean that it is complete regardless of the status of sub-articles or other articles lower in the geographical hierarchy, or that the status of subordinate articles is a criterion. This appears to be the case for regions, countries etc, where if I understand correctly, a significant portion of the subordinate articles must be at star or guide level for the high level article to be considered. This is reasonable, as requiring all subordinate articles to be star or guide would make it almost impossible for any other than the lowest level to gain and retain star status. I dont suggest that all non-star subordinate articles be deleted from mention, just that at least some percentage other than all should be required to be at star and guide level. -- Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:10, 8 November 2009 (EST)
The added information about the broader scope of options has definitely improved the article, but I wonder if this needs some sort of discussion about what people want this article to be? Is this article targeted at those wanting to teach English, those already teaching it, or both? How in-depth does everyone imagine this article should go at its best? ChubbyWimbus 20:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)
- There seems to be precious little interest in this nomination. Back to the slush pile? --Burmesedays 03:08, 21 February 2010 (EST)
Motivation: This is the first dive site to reach the stage where star nomination is appropriate (by my criteria), so I have nominated it to get feedback so that a standard can be set for dive sites. This site is reasonably typical of one of a range of site types. Pbsouthwood 13:36, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
My proposed criteria for star status for a dive site follow:
→ Moved to Talk page (Stefan)
Some edits have been done to keep formatting in line with modifications to Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle, also a star nomination at this time, and which has has far more attention. Also a few content improvements. Still waiting for a direct comment on this one though. Peter (Southwood) Talk 16:21, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
- Question: Are the points on the map designating the points of interest talked about in the article or do they simply designate the perimeter of the dive site? The reason I ask is that if they designate certain sites, like the Ferro concrete yacht wreck, it may be nice to have the site written on the map by its associated dot. I'm not a diver, so if it is not useful, then just ignore this. ChubbyWimbus 13:22, 9 January 2010 (EST)
This site is going to be quite difficult to significantly improve in the near future. I think it may be time to transfer to the slushpile until further notice. Other sites which are more likely to make it are waiting for a pop at star. Peter (Southwood) Talk 12:21, 16 August 2010 (EDT)