The center for all Wikitravel images!

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel talk:Star articles"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
m (archive discussion from the pub)
(Star Potential)
Line 110: Line 110:
: This is a great proposal - I'd love to have a venue for peer review of articles I've worked on. [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]] 21:06, 22 February 2007 (EST)
: This is a great proposal - I'd love to have a venue for peer review of articles I've worked on. [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]] 21:06, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Returning to this after some time away: The intent of "star potential" is rather different than "failed star nominations."  The latter are a subset of the former, pages that have been through the nomination process and found wanting.  However, there are a lot of articles out there that have ''not'' been through the nomination process yet because it is known that they would fail, yet could be pushed to Star with comparatively little effort.  The [[Albuquerque]] straw man applies here: nobody is nominating it for Star, because it is missing one ''sine qua non'' (map), yet fill that in and it sure looks like a Star to me.  I'll try redoing that template and we can see what happens. -- [[User:Bill-on-the-Hill|Bill-on-the-Hill]] 17:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
== distribute Star articles in a printed form? ==
== distribute Star articles in a printed form? ==

Revision as of 21:46, 12 August 2007

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)
Re: the maps, I also think they should include all listed destinations, the CIA factbook maps are better than nothing, but usually lack (and sometimes spell differently) many common tourist destinations... Cacahuate 06:00, 13 January 2007 (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:

  1. No deviations in Manual-of-style formatting.
  2. All listings must have phone numbers, addresses, hours, and usually some indication of price
  3. All sections must have content. The content should be good.
  4. 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 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)

Sounds good to me. --Evan 20:47, 10 December 2006 (EST)
What can be a next step towards achieving that? --DenisYurkin 04:29, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Maintaining star status

So this has been touched on already, but what to do about articles that are already stars but have new problems or new rules that create problems? Paris/4th_arrondissement is missing some critical info (see the "see", "do" and "buy" sections), for example... Flores (Guatemala) is nominated for star status, and has less problems than this article (considering its size), but will probably (rightfully) not be upgraded, since we're being more strict now... What about something like creating a template infobox that goes on top of the page in question that says "This Star article no longer matches the MoS, and will be downgraded to Guide status if the problems aren't fixed in XX # of days"? Then on the talk page for the article the person adding this template can detail what they think needs fixin'... Cacahuate 05:57, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Star Potential

swept in from the pub

I wonder if there would be value in creating a block on the Wikitravel:Project page, and then an article to elaborate, for "Stars in the Making" -- articles that definitely don't qualify for Star status yet, but could be pushed to Star with comparatively little effort. I see this as distinct from CotW in two regards. CotW seems to be getting applied to articles that are a long way from Star, and the improvements being brought about via CotW usually aren't all that significant, so that using it for Star aspirants isn't likely to meet the goal. Second, pushing to Star can be one of those chance-encounter things where someone peruses the list of candidates, notices one that he/she knows something about, and says, "hey, I can fix that!" By having a list of possibilities there, rather than the one single article that is CotW at any given time, the chances of such a random encounter are increased.

Thoughts? A good beta test would be Albuquerque, which User:PerryPlanet has done a fantastic job with recently, yet it's clearly not gonna be a Star until it has a map, at the minimum. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 13:03, 28 December 2006 (EST)

I think that's a fantastic idea, I would certainly pay attention to it... Cacahuate 09:55, 15 January 2007 (EST)
How about {{starpotential}}?
This article has Star potential. It’s well written with great and near-complete information, and now needs a few sets of eyes to make it perfectly match the Manual of style before we can nominate it for Star status. If you see how it can be improved please plunge forward or point it out on the talk page.
This also addresses Colin’s issue in a way, about there being a step between Guide and Star status. And addresses other concerns raised on the Wikitravel:Star nominations page about that page being reserved for articles we think are already stars and just need confirmation, not ones that need feedback and pushing, or that someone unilaterally declared a star. So by the time an article reaches that page it will likely just need a yes or no vote with simple critiqueing if anything.
As Bill mentioned above, CotW seems to be working in a different way on other issues, not to mention that it’s only for a week. I would see this more as an article status than just a collaboration, it would remain {{starpotential}} until it’s nominated for star status. A list of an articles problems or suggested fixes can be detailed on the talk page... Thoughts? Cacahuate 00:58, 18 January 2007 (EST)
It sounds like this proposal is basically creating another status level between guide and star. While there is currently a fairly big difference between "guide" and "star", we would need clear criteria if a new status is added. If we aren't talking about adding a new status then I'm not sure that the added bureaucracy of a "nomination for nomination for star" process is necessarily a good idea. -- Ryan 01:17, 18 January 2007 (EST)
I'm all for bureaucracy and red tape, but adding another template and status is just going to make things more complicated as we drive ever closer to the Indian model of efficiency. Anywho, what's the problem with the guide status template that says 'plunge forward and help make this guide a star'? -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:38, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Well, the fact that there is a sea of guides, many of which are nowhere near Star status. I personally am thinking of a new status I guess... I'm almost thinking that this would replace (or make irrelevant) the slushpile... Right now, if someone thinks an article is a star or wants to know what else it needs (beyond what they can see themselves) they don't have a lot of options other than posting a message on the talk page (unlikely to gain much attention) or nominate it for Star status. An example would be Wikitravel:Star_nominations#South_Africa - the user nominated it because he's done all he sees to do, it's a great article, but there's things he hasn't thought of yet that need fixing. Tim pointed out that the subsections aren't guides, and I would guess now beyond that it's probably not going to garner much more attention, will sit there for a couple weeks and then be slushpiled. Whereas if he could say that it has star potential, a page that after a while would hopefully have an audience, then he would be inviting more feedback than "it's not there yet, but keep trying". Cacahuate 01:45, 18 January 2007 (EST)
I like the idea of drawing peoples attention to articles that are "nearly stars" in an attempt to push them that last little bit so that they become star status. However, we do already have 5 levels of article quality - do we really need another? In my understanding, the Guide level is when an article reaches a level of quality where it can be used almost completely on it's own for planning/doing a trip. The Star level is when you have enough info to not need anything else at all - all the info you need is in the guide. So in that sense, the Guide level is the "star potential" level that has been proposed. What I think happens too much is that people push usable articles up to "Guide" status too early, when they should still be at the "usable" level. SO I reckon rather than introducing another status level we try and make the original status levels far more clearly defined.
I created Template:failedstarnomination to draw attention to articles that were nominated but weren't quite at star status, in order to help people realise what needs to be done to get them to star. Maybe we should merge the starpotential and failedstarnomination? I'm aware that failedstarnomination isn't particularly visible - I didn't want to stick a banner at the bottom of the page saying this article isn't good enough, because I don't want viewers to read that and not take the article seriously - so maybe we should alter that and stick it at the bottom of the page where usual status templates go? -- Tim 08:29, 19 January 2007 (EST)
Yeah... what I like about the starpotential is that it's more positive and would feel like you're helping articles on their way up instead of saving sinking ships, otherwise we could just let a million articles get nominated then slushed, and just promote the slush pile.
I would certainly say (as you suggest) that it would go onto the failed nominees pages, but I also think it should be applied to guides that are nearing star, so they can be perfected before being nominated... template aside though, I think Bill's suggestion about putting whatever is decided upon on the project page, and having a page about it also, is what will potentially draw in the perfectionists... Cacahuate 08:58, 19 January 2007 (EST)
Just saw the first paragraph of your post Tim, I also agree with that, making guide status more strict would help the problem. While I do think that starpotential could be another status level, it also could just be a project for perfecting guides before they get nominated... Cacahuate 09:07, 19 January 2007 (EST)
Laying aside the banner issue (btw, I'd personally prefer starpotential to failedstarnomination and would suggest a merge), my original thought was that there is a need to make Star candidates more "visible." Putting a banner on the Star candidate only accomplishes that if you actually read the candidate article already; it doesn't particularly call one's attention to the fact that the article exists and is nearly of Star quality. For that, mention on the main page or project page seems like the preferred way to go. I don't think the process for that has to be too bureaucratic. (BTW, Andrew, that shot has a considerable resemblance to my own office -- and I am in fact part (American) Indian. :-) )-- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:08, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I moved Template:failedstarnomination to Template:Starpotential per the above discussion... now we just need to create Wikitravel:Star potential and see what that develops into - having sat on this a little longer, I'm less inclined to follow my previous thoughts about it being a new article status, and more inclined to continue to more accurately define the existing article statuses. I'd still love to see Bill (or someone) follow his idea and put a box on the project or main page. We do need some sort of project that draws attention to Guides that are nearing Stars so that people can solicit help before nominating an article. - Cacahuate 20:50, 22 February 2007 (EST)

This is a great proposal - I'd love to have a venue for peer review of articles I've worked on. Gorilla Jones 21:06, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Returning to this after some time away: The intent of "star potential" is rather different than "failed star nominations." The latter are a subset of the former, pages that have been through the nomination process and found wanting. However, there are a lot of articles out there that have not been through the nomination process yet because it is known that they would fail, yet could be pushed to Star with comparatively little effort. The Albuquerque straw man applies here: nobody is nominating it for Star, because it is missing one sine qua non (map), yet fill that in and it sure looks like a Star to me. I'll try redoing that template and we can see what happens. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

distribute Star articles in a printed form?

Archived from the Pub:

Recurring to the early-years idea to distribute Wikitravel articles in a printed form (and thus findind new contributors, not only helping people to travel smarter): have anyone tried to distribute articles in Star status? They are definitely the best candidates to start... Maybe start talking to the hotels and cafes that we recommend in those articles? --DenisYurkin 19:00, 26 November 2006 (EST)

If we're not ready yet to start doing specific talks with specific hotels, what about helping those wikitravellers who may have good contacts with some hotels? Can we encourage them to talk about distribution, and have some place at Wikitravel where they can ask for help/we talk on policies etc etc? Or the plan is just dramatically different? ;-) --DenisYurkin 04:35, 11 February 2007 (EST)

BUMP :-) --DenisYurkin 18:01, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Personally I don't care either way if they ever get distributed in printed form... I think they're most handy as an online guide that you can print last minute and have the most up to date version. But even if the goal is to print them someday, I think we're still in the stage of needing to write them instead of what to do after they're written, for the most part - Cacahuate 11:26, 16 February 2007 (EST)
I would vote for ReleaseEarlyReleaseOften here--even if we start only with a few articles which are already Guides or Stars. Otherwise the feedback reward for the community remains in too distant future, and noone believe it will ever happen--while we keep referring that "we ultimately write a printed guide, not really so much an online guide". --DenisYurkin 12:12, 16 February 2007 (EST)