== add date an article became starred ==
== add date an article became starred ==
| || |
Are there any objections to adding date here when each article became rated as Star? Presently there'
re really few Stars -- it will show both how long ago articles started to receive Stars. Plus, dates will show dynamics of the community: when we're launching many new Stars (this can be ''some'' measure of our productivity, and when we're achieving no new Stars for a long time. Thoughts? --[[User:DenisYurkin|DenisYurkin]] 16:11, 25 November 2006 (EST) |+|
Are there any objections to adding date here when each article became rated as Star? Presently there'really few Stars -- will show both how long ago articles started to receive Stars. Plus, dates will show dynamics of the community: when we're launching many new Stars (this can be ''some'' measure of our productivity, and when we're achieving no new Stars for a long time. Thoughts? --[[User:DenisYurkin|DenisYurkin]] 16:11, 25 November 2006 (EST)
Revision as of 21:17, 25 November 2006
Starry districts of huge cities
So, shameless self-promoter that I am, I just rewarded myself for spending way too much time on a map by slapping a Star label on Singapore/Chinatown. But do I need to make a map for every district until I can list Singapore here and/or dub the main Singapore article a Star? Jpatokal 10:11, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)
- A couple of things: first, fantastic job on the Chinatown map. I especially appreciate the map how-to and I'm going to try and do a couple of maps myself.
- Second, it's probably counterproductive to think of a star rating as a "reward" to a particular contributor. It's just a way for us to mark the status of an article. (I know you're probably joking, but others might not.)
- Third, most of the listings in S/C aren't in MoS format, so I've downgraded it from star to guide. Sorry to be a downer, but.
- Finally, I think you've got a good point about the relationship between a huge city and its district articles. I can see a region article being star quality without each and every city and sub-region being stars, but I'm not sure that the same goes for a city and its districts. --Evan 14:20, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)
- For what it's worth Paris was made DOM even though some of the district articles are still at outline stage. -- Mark 09:12, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
Country/region articles as Stars
Expanding on Evan's point above... what exactly are the Star criteria for region or country articles? Obviously a map with individual attractions isn't very practical (unless we're talking about the Vatican...), but is a CIA factbook map sufficient or should we insist on a full-fledged vector map which points out the cities/regions listed in the article? Jpatokal 03:40, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
- I like your idea about the map-- can we generalize and say that a star article should have a least one map helpful to the specific area covered? So a city map would need to be helpful on a city level (ie with streets/attractions), a region map would need to show the location of cities mentioned, and a country map should show at least the major regions maybe along with the capital?
- On a related note, I think it the guide rating that needs to have additional/different criteria for regions/ countries. One thing that makes a good guide at these levels is not having specific listings for hotels, restaurants, etc, but having good general information that refers to citie articles.
- Districts I still don't know about. But I wouldn't want to see a star rating on a city page unless the majority of the districts are guides/stars as well... Majnoona 15:08, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)
How Perfect is Perfect
Something that happens pretty often is someone has a fairly well-done article with maps, and upgrades it to star -- see Cleveland. When I asked for a star-review of Penticton, it appeared that the following kinds of things are requirements for the star rating:
- No deviations in Manual-of-style formatting.
- All listings must have phone numbers, addresses, hours, and usually some indication of price
- All sections must have content. The content should be good.
- Not mentioned in the review -- but is a map of the listings also a requirement?
Now I found it kinda fun to participate in perfectifying Penticton, but I'd like to make a couple of observations:
1. There is a huge quality gap between Guide and Star that is roughly comparable to the gap between vfd and guide. Did we mean for this to be? I'm kinda torn because I like seeing a "Quality Mark" that tells us all that an article is perfect (though always improvable). But on the other hand, it's a really difficult level to achieve -- Penticton just isn't very big so it was easier to accomplish.
2. One set of eyes is not enough for labelling a star. I think we should submit Star-candidates for review because I think it hurts a contributor's morale when we yank the Star away. And when people ask about "is this article ready?" they sometimes get very little response.
3. Our MoS changes occasionally. Some of our Stars appear to be grandfathered in and would not currently qualify for Star rating. In general, should they be downgraded to Guide? (I keep thinking I need to fix them instead of downgrading them since it's just formatting issues.)
-- Colin 21:54, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
- For #1, yeah, I think it's intentional and should stay that way. "Star" basically means 'throw away your Rough Planet, this is all you'll ever need". I like the review idea though. And the solution to #3 is the planned move to listings, where you just need to enter the data in a machine-readable format and the formatting is handled automagically. Jpatokal 22:26, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
- My opinion is that we are not at a star level until a guide is comparable to a Lonely Planet, Rough Guide, Fodor's, Let's Go, or Frommer's -- in consistency, readability, reliability, and consistency. I don't just think that's achievable -- we have existence proof that it's achievable.
- Is that setting the bar too high? I don't think so. I'm kind of glad that we've made some intermediate article statuses between stub and star.
- You're right about 2, by the way. I'm going to add some more comments on Santa Fe and try to put some time into stellarizing it. Also, I think articles like Santa Fe are great candidates for collaboration of the week; if everybody does 1 or 2 listings, we can finish it really quickly.
- For 3: yeah, I think so. Hopefully our MoS is going to get more and more stable and the target stops moving so much. But it doesn't really change that often. --Evan 22:36, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
1. I don't see the leap from Guide to Star as that huge, certainly not as great as between VFD and Guide. It's largely a matter of dotting the t's and crossing the i's, and dressing it up with visuals. (And since most articles already have photos by the time they reach Guide, the latter probably just means adding a map.) Tightening up and/or punching up the prose is a lot less burdensome than filling out the freakin' Sleep section on a city where you don't happen to be a call girl who already knows the local hotels. ;)
2. I agree about the need for multiple eyes. I only put a Star on Isle Royale because Ryan told me I should, and I still hestitated – waiting for someone to tell me I shouldn't – because I didn't really feel qualified to. Even with supposedly objective criteria, there's enough subjectivity to evaluating the prose, and cussed nitpickiness to evaluating MoS compliance, that a nomination/voting process or an "X-number of editors agree it's a Star" requirement would be helpful. (Since the number of Stars is still pretty small, it might not be a bad idea to run them all through a confirmation process.)
3. The MoS should be stable enough by now that any changes should have little bearing on whether a Star falls from grace. I'd be more worried about subsequent additions and changes to the article (and there will be, even on "perfect", "complete" ones) degrading its status. - Todd VerBeek 22:38, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
- I've created a page for Wikitravel:Star nominations, and a Template:Starnomination to be put at the bottom of any article being nominated, inviting comments. - Todd VerBeek 09:44, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
add date an article became starred
Are there any objections to adding date here when each article became rated as Star? (only to Wikitravel:Star articles, not to a section on the Main Page). Presently there's really few Stars -- dates will show both how long ago articles started to receive Stars. Plus, dates will show dynamics of the community: when we're launching many new Stars (this can be some measure of our productivity, and when we're achieving no new Stars for a long time. Thoughts? --DenisYurkin 16:11, 25 November 2006 (EST)