Wikivoyage:Star nominations

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Starnom)
Jump to: navigation, search
Put a star on it!

This is where we determine whether an article is ready for be classified as Star status. Even though the criteria are fairly objective, it's good to get some additional eyes to look over a page and confirm that it's ready before elevating it to Star. For reference, here's the general description, from Project:Article status:

The article is essentially complete. It meets all of the above criteria. It follows the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule. Prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable. It has appropriate illustrations, such as photos and a map. Enough breadth and depth of material is presented that anyone familiar with the subject of the article would have little to point out as absent. Future changes to this kind of article would reflect changes in the subject (e.g. a museum closes, a hotel price changes, a new airport is built) more than they'd require improvements in the coverage.

Objective criteria for Star status varies depending on the kind of article it is. For more concrete guidance on this, see:

If you feel that an article currently at Star status is no longer worthy, or never was to begin with, this is also the place to nominate to de-star an article.

Nominate[edit]

Star articles: Last minute checklist

  • The article must be complete — See definition above.
  • Grammar and spelling must be perfect — See definition above. Prose should be stylistically superior and effective.
  • Illustration: the article should be appropriately illustrated with pictures and a Wikivoyage-style map, with all attractions marked.
  • Listings should be in alphabetical order — geographical order is also acceptable if it is deemed better.
  • No duplications: a listing should appear under one section only — if there is ambiguity, put it under the section that it most applies to.
  • Time and date formats: Use: M,Tu,W,Th,F,Sa,Su; and check our manual of style for latest and complete policy
  • Section introductions are not mandatory but should be present when they serve to improve a section.
  • Use "—" (mdash) for breaks in thought.
  • Use abbreviations for addresses, e.g., St, Ave, Sq, Blvd

You can nominate any "guide" quality article you think is ready to be declared a "star". Please do not nominate an article if you know that it falls short of the criterion above — refer to the info box for a last minute checklist. If there are other nominations on this page, add yours to the bottom of the list. The basic format of a nomination is as follows:

===[[Article name]]===
This has everything we're looking for,
plus a swell kitchen sink. ~~~~

Having done this, please add the tag

{{starnomination}} 

at the beginning of the article, after the {{pagebanner}} tag.

You also need to post a note at the Project:Travellers' Pub to publicize your nomination — remember to tell people that partial critiques and even just a few quick words of support are welcome. These steps help draw attention to the article's nomination, improving the discussion as to whether it should be awarded star status.

Discuss[edit]

Please comment on whether you agree that the nominated article is ready, with a bullet point (*) and your signed opinion. If you think it's ready, a simple "Support" will do. If not, explain what you think is missing or not up to standards. You don't have to leave a detailed critique to vote on the star — partial critiques are welcome, and feel free to just voice your support for the hard work someone else has done.

===[[Article name]]===
This has everything we're looking for, plus a swell kitchen sink.  TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* The sink isn't properly formatted, and there are no "budget" places to sleep. ~~~~

After three weeks of discussion, if a consensus is reached, then that article becomes a star, and the discussion should be archived. Note that a consensus means that all outstanding objections should have been addressed and dropped; if issues remain then the discussion should either continue or, if they cannot or will not be addressed in reasonable time, the article should be added to the slush pile. Regardless of the outcome, it is useful to copy the nomination discussion to the article's talk page.

Archiving checklist[edit]

  • Remove the nomination discussion from this page and paste it to both the archives and to the talk page of the new star article;
  • Add the article to Star articles (and change the map on that page);
  • Update the article status template on the article from guide to star;
  • Add |star=yes to the Pagebanner at the top of the article; (see also Template:Pagebanner if more than one icon is required)

Nominations for Star status[edit]

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

Tokyo/Roppongi[edit]

It is my first nomination but I believe I added everything the article needed. I am not a native speaker, so there are no Stephen Colbert references and few traces of humour, but I hope it is an interesting read. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks quite good, but why are some of the "See" listings indented and others not? Also, in "stay safe," I think the relevance of the fact that some of the best clubs require the use of an elevator needs clarification. Finally, while I really like the interactive map, I think that for optimal usefulness, it should have street names in Romaji in addition to Hiragana/Kanji. Street signs in Tokyo do include Romaji, in any case, in my limited experience (I have not visited anything close to the entire city). So I think it could be close to a star, it's not there quite yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you for the feedback! The 2 sub-intended lists in "See" is for Hills and Midtown, the 2 complexes that each contain a lot of points of interest. I will check how this can be made clearer. Or should I skip the notion altogether? The goal is to allow people to see things they want in 1 complex before moving to the other. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see that now, but what confused me is that the subheadings themselves have numbers next to them. I think it would be helpful to use subheading notation (=== ===). Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost. It's great to see this article so much improved from when I last looked at it (it's attracted some weird editors in the past). There are still remaining details to hunt down: every listing should have either an address or a directions field entry, many eat listings are missing price ranges, and many eat and drink listings are missing hours information. There are quite a few listings without telephone numbers as well. That's OK if they really don't have a number, but I would assume that these should. The buy section looks a little thin, so if it's possible to add a few more interesting stores either inside or outside the malls, that would improve the article.

Lastly, it's really exciting to see the dynamic map in the nominated article! Having an experimental feature, though, will mean that this nomination may last for a time while feature issues are sorted out. The one thing missing from the map that strikes me as a major issue is that the boundaries of Roppongi are not defined (as we usually would using light gray versus dark gray). --Peter Talk 15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! OK, I will try harder to find the missing phone numbers/business hours, and look for interesting buys. Yes, I am aware that maps are experimental, and this nomination is also a way to get more feedback about the usability of the map experiment. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the map except there is no indication of where Roppongi is. Some indication of where it it in relation to the rest of Tokyo, either in the existing map, if possible (preferred), or in another basic map. The map in the main Tokyo article is also not sufficient for this purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Peter! Are there articles that have this type of map? For inspiration, and to check whether this is a widespread habit. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know the usual procedure on street maps is to grey out the area outside the area of the article, or use different colors, so one can see the shape and the boundaries of the district. Like this one [1]. The other option, if this is not possible on the dynamic map, is a blowup of the part of the district map which contains Roppongi [2] to just show Minato, with the extents of Roppongi delineated. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this will be terribly easy to do in the dynamic maps, but I think we'll need to. Showing the exact street boundaries is really important to help editors know where to place listings. Looking at the districts map in the city overview article helps, but isn't a replacement for this sort of visual information. --Peter Talk 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Great feedback for the whole Dynamic Maps Expedition! That won't be easy indeed, I had overlooked this requirement. By the way, feel free to add other requirements or desired features ideas. Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think before Tokyo's districts can be considered for star nomination, it's REALLY important that we close the districting discussion which is still on the Tokyo guide. I read the discussion on the talk page but it just seems to wane off in regards to the actual important topics of merging/reorganizing when the maps were introduced. Was that supposed to end the discussion? If we believe that the discussion is in fact closed, then we should take off the notice. If there are still districts that need merging/reorganized, please make them known. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not know this discussion! As far as I understand, the outcome is what is described in the "table updated 9 Nov." table, but the maps don't seem to match. I guess Roppongi/Azabu will remain a single article whatever happens, but a clear borders map need to be drawn, for us to be able to grey out the area that is considered out-of-scope. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

O'Hare International Airport[edit]

At the risk of saturating this page with nominations, I think this is ready now to be our first star airport (and therefore something that can be used as an airport article exemplar). It was slushed before (despite only getting support votes!) for lack of a map showing area hotels and routes to them, but that is now not a concern, as the hotels have all been moved to the appropriate town/city articles, per policy. --Peter Talk 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. As I mentioned on the Airport Expedition talk page, I can't think of anything to complain about now and the new pictures really give the guide a nice, lively feel. Totally behind this one. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with one tiny comment: It strikes me as a bit awkward to describe a dinosaur skeleton and a fighter plane replica as "amenities", which to me suggests things like public bathrooms, benches, drinking fountains, diaper changing stations, etc. Texugo (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed! That looks like a legacy of the template change—that was a see/do section. --Peter Talk 23:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Might be better under "Wait". LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It sure looks complete to me, and very well written and illustrated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the article, but the Eat section rubs me the wrong way. I know Peter's no fan of chain restaurants, but this seems a bit too disdainful. My wife and I ate at Macaroni Grill when we passed through in 2010 and I thought it was a pretty dang good meal for an airport. LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't claim this article as my writing, sadly (just illustrations). (And it seems the intro was written before the Macaroni Grill was added by another user.) The Berghoff is genuinely worth seeking out, there's a Garrett's Popcorn that should now be added, and (the highly acclaimed Chicago Mexican chef) Rick Bayless has opened up a Mexican sandwich shop that is getting put in top five lists of airport restaurants worldwide. I think it's time for an update! --Peter Talk 05:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I've added Tortas Frontera and Garrett's, clarified Berghoff a bit, and altered the intro. Does it look better? You know Macaroni Grill better than I would, so please do fix that up if you have a better description in mind. Airport food has gotten exponentially better in the past decade—I would have never guessed that I'd be checking my smart phone while traveling to hunt down "top airport restaurants" in between flights! --Peter Talk 05:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I suppose it very well might be more oily than "standard Italian fare", I may not have the true Italian experience to counter that. But I don't think anyone goes to Macaroni Grill for authenticity. =) LtPowers (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • O'Hare_International_Airport#Get_around Peter: I'm a frequent flyer and i'm not a fan of US airports due to their complicated structure if you transfer between int'l and/or domestic flights. I think the section is a bit brief and maybe the flights section needs a table. From a travellers points i would find the article most helpful if i could easily understand how to transit. My only questions is in general, e.g. i arrive with Swiss and have a onward with United. Where do i need to go? Or if i arrive with US Airways and continue on United Express. Just a quick table to get an idea if air- or landside is possible? I stranded at the beauty once, so i know how polite but totally useless the ground staff at IAD is... jan (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the article and used O'Hare several times in the nineties but have not been back since and I am not a regular user of US airports. There is no details of transit arrangements, maybe just to say that there is no international transit without entering the country. Buy is very short - I would expect 5-10 lines on duty free alone. Add details of who can shop in Duty Free (international departures only?), how big the shops are and the range of products - are the shops in the various terminals clones or is one cheaper, bigger? How do airport prices compare with downtown? I am surprised that nearby makes no mention of places like Rosemont or Franklin Park. AlasdairW (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm, questions about international transit... I've never actually taken an international flight through O'Hare. I'll see if I can figure these out. --Peter Talk 06:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't know if this helps, but I took an international flight out of O'Hare and found it to be a miserable experience. Compared to the other terminals, Terminal 5 is a gray, soulless building with little ambient light, no decent food and no shops aside from a couple of Hudson newsstands and a single stand selling duty free items. Not even a proper shop, just a little stand. Other than to say a duty free shop exists, I don't think there's much else you can say. PerryPlanet (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perry, my experience with O'hell is similar but if you are not a regular in this airport, navigation is an issue (especially int'l-domestic). The airport is ranked sixth in the worst airports in the US [3] which is of course not an offical source but a good indicator what travelers think. jan (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The funny thing is that as far as airports go, I find O'Hare to be a perfectly decent place to wait for a plane - as long as you stay in the domestic terminals. Plenty of food options and if you get bored there's things to look at, like the dino skeleton or the walkway with all the neon. If it had free wifi it would be ideal. But heaven have mercy on your soul if you enter Terminal 5. PerryPlanet (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added a duty free sub-section to buy to describe the "somewhat limited" possibilities. This may be a bit of a negative review, but I think that some travelers will be expecting the supermarket scale duty free shops found elsewhere. Please alter this as necessary, especially if you have more recent experience of flying here. In researching this I also found some very limited free WIFI - a walled garden or rather walled flower pot that allows access to WP. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support though shouldn't the Airline Lounges be added to "Wait"?Altaihunters (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mitzpe Ramon[edit]

I'd like to nominate this article, of which I'm probably the main contributor, for a star status. Note it's also an OtBP candidate. The only thing I can think of that is currently missing in the article are price ranges for most of the listings, which I do intend to add in coming weeks. I believe the English is just fine, but it'd also help if anyone thinks they can add some flourish. I'd be happy to get feedback about it. Tamuz (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Almost. Attractive article that makes me want to visit (despite the terrible things I see and read in the news) with an easy tone.
It'll be very nearly there when you've added those prices (don't forget to put the shekel symbol (₪) before the amount, contrary to usual Israeli practice but according to our current $ style guide). One thing that did jump out was the very heavy use of emboldening in the Makhtesh Ramon section.
The other thing I'd like you to consider is that, if people view your article on-line (rather than printing it out,) there is less ability for you and other editors to micro-manage the appearance of articles with exact image placement and widths or how text appears because of the different computer systems and screens (and for registered users, what skins and other user preferences they may have chosen). Many of our most experienced editors have not yet taken on board some features and facts about our operating software and platform. --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and duly noted. I'll work to improve the points you've outlined. One question, if anyone has any idea, about the static map there: users with a screen resolution of up to 1280 pixels in width will see the page a little messed up around the map image. Is there anyway to make the text wrap around the map when in higher resolutions, while skipping it for the lower resolutions? Maybe align=center for small and align=right for large resolutions? Tamuz (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There are HTML tricks you can use to stop text wrapping around images at all (and MediaWiki image display syntax to achieve very similar effects - the big drawback is that you lose the ability to click on the thumbnail image blow-up icon in the bottom right of your lovely static map). However, I don't think they're worth employing here to remove an artefact that only occurs at certain screen size and zoom combinations. --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost. A few non-standard formatting issues, such as the table at the top of the Do section, which is not something we've ever done before to my knowledge (and on my browser, the bottom outline of the table is partially missing). The bullets under "See" are not organized properly, resulting in the double bullet on "The Albert Promenade". I can't view the in-article dynamic map at the moment due to a bug, but it seems superfluous with the good-quality static map already in the article. There are an unusual number of internal (and even intra-article) wikilinks in this article; that's not necessarily bad, but it is different, and we should evaluate whether it's excessive or not. LtPowers (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you know that you can't view any in-article dynamic maps at the moment due to the way certain browsers refuse to display any non-secure content when you are using a secure (https) connection. However, if you click the (currently) horribly placed and entirely un-intuitive icon placed above the top right of the "banner" you'll be able to see it in a new (insecure) window or tab: Map mag.png. This, of course, is no reason to delay this article's promotion. Using Firefox 23.0.1 under Windoze XP SP3, I also don't see the bottom right-hand outline of the helpful table. --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the shape of the table, the central column is intentionally longer than the other two, since it has more bullets. If you think this unaesthetic, it can easily be changed. Generally, I'd be happy to find a better solution than this table, but as LtPowers pointed out, there's nothing of the sort in any other article right now, so I just improvised something. I do believe that something of the sort is necessary, since the Do section over there is pretty complex and needs some internal TOC. By the way, about the map, the static one is mainly for the wilderness attractions while the dynamic is for the stuff inside the town. And, LtPowers, I'll look over those things about the See section and the links and re-edit them. Thanks for your comments. Tamuz (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, the table problem is obvious from the code: You have a rowspan=2 on the middle column. That doesn't make the column any longer; all it does is cause the browser to expect an additional row underneath it that doesn't exist. Since it's expecting the cell to extend down into a non-existent row, it leaves off the bottom border. As for the necessity of the table, I don't think that Do section is particularly long or complex, and since it's not obvious that the table is an index or ToC, I think it causes more confusion than it resolves.
W. Frank, I'm well aware that I can view a dynamic map by clicking on the link, but that tells me nothing about how it appears in the article, which is of paramount importance. If it does indeed show a different view than the static map, then I would also need to see it to determine if it meets our map requirements for star status. LtPowers (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
LtPowers: you may make your assessment by logging out and then choosing a non-secure connection to display the entire article. Alternatively, you might accept that since currently, both the {{Mapframe}} and {{Geo}} templates have been given the same parameters of latitude, longitude (for the map centre), zoom level and layers that are shown, looking at a full screen map gives you sufficient idea of what the embedded map would look like if you don't want to go through that rigamarole while we are (hopefully) waiting for that bug to be fixed. --W. Franke-mailtalk 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That "missing line" thing in the table was known and intentional, but it was just an aesthetic decision so nevermind it. However, I still believe in the necessity of that sub-TOC, because different people would want different things: parents with children would probably want the Town attractions and the lookout points, hikers take more interest in the Wild section, and some of the tourists would stick to the Guided Tours. If the entire section fit into one screen-size there was no problem navigating it, but even with my 1080-pixel-high resolution it takes about 2½ screens (and there're a lot of people with smaller screen resolutions) of sub-sections and sub-sub-sections, making navigation a little hard. By the way, I do believe the same goes for San_Francisco/Golden_Gate#See, Yosemite_National_Park#Do and probably other articles; the fact it hasn't been done till now doesn't mean we shouldn't start; and since I probably haven't found the ideal way to do it, we can check and see if some other designs work better. (All that said, of course I won't object if there's consensus that it should still be removed) Tamuz (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Good points; I think your solution works and effective innovation that is not directly contrary to established policy should not be a bar to star status. More thought definitely needs to be devoted to how different travellers will see and use our articles. --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm seeing the dynamic maps (both the internal and external ones) with only Hebrew captions. Is it just me because of my IP location in Israel? Do you see them in English (or your local language)? Tamuz (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A: I'm in Glasgow, Scotland (and almost invariably use a Scots IP) and I'm sorry to say that I also only see Hebrew captions. Bit of a bummer, eh? Are the local street signs bilingual? --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with your location. The map material comes from from OpenStreetMap, whose maps in many cases are only available in the local script. However I've understood that OSM is a kind of a wiki, so the Latin transcription of the captions will probably be added by someone in the future. I just went and looked at Beijing and now some streets there do have their names romanized, while absolutely everything was written only in Chinese characters about a year ago. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No biggy, I just wanted to know. As it is, I'll gradually get around to translate the street names in OSM, which indeed is a wiki. Anyway, roadsigns in Israel are always in Hebrew, Arabic and English, as are the street signs in almost all cities, Mitzpe Ramon included I think. Tamuz (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Frank, I'm thinking of undoing some of your changes to See to make it look more or less like this version, for two reasons: (a) The crater itself (#4 on the list) isn't exactly a See item per se (being a large area, not an exact one-point attraction), however numbers 5 & 6 (the viewpoints) are definitely See items, directly related to #4, and therefore should be its sub-items on the list; and (b) The current phrasing makes it appear as though the Desert Sculpture Park and the Observatory are also viewpoints for the crater (they are in fact not far from the ridge, but aren't particularly good viewpoints, and I hadn't intended these items to appear as such). Any objections, anyone? Tamuz (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, you're the local expert and it's "your baby". I only changed the formatting because I assumed (wrongly?) that there was a distinction between "Prominent viewpoints from Mitzpe Ramon" and "Additional viewpoints outside of Mitzpe Ramon" (my italics added). It's looking good, eh? --W. Franke-mailtalk 23:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a distinction, only that the previous wording made it look like the Sculpture Park & Observatory were also considered "viewpoints", while in fact they are unrelated attractions. Anyway, I looked it over again and realized that this confusing wording actually came from my earlier edits, so now I changed it. And yup, I really think we're putting the final touches needed for Star status. Tamuz (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to ask your opinion on several subjects regarding that page, some of which were pointed-out in the above discussion. If you have any opinion, please write it here, even if your opinion is that things should stay the way they are now. Tamuz (talk)

Pictures[edit]

Do you think there too many? Too few? Or is it good now? I've also looked in my smartphone and I think it's OK as it is, but I'd like to confirm that.

Personally, I think you're pretty much atthe "Goldilocks point" for a "...small, somewhat remote town..." --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Links[edit]

LtPowers pointed out there's an unusual abundance of links. I've looked it over and removed a few, but not many. Regarding the section-links, I believe they make this article much more easy to use. Anyone thinks I may have overdone it?

Not me. --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Any notes about wording[edit]

Any notes about formatting[edit]

  • Support I'm happy with any edits that further improve the article, but I'd like to go on record as supporting the star nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

El Camino Real[edit]

This article recently made guide, and I believe it...could...go...all...the...way. Purplebackpack89 21:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Not yet —It is indeed a good article - but it's not a star. I haven't read through the article, but I'd certainly say this article is not ready yet. The first thing that came to my mind was this article needs to have a Wikivoyage-style map. It should also have detailed information about the places to stay and the restaurants. --Saqib (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, it has a map, and there was consensus on the page that we didn't need to mention every hotel or restaurant (of which there are thousands) along the route, merely link to the city articles that have them. I also question the validity of this vote, as the voter has not read the article. Purplebackpack89 21:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
No WV-styled map means not yet ready. --Saqib (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The current map is WV-styled, dude. It's just not at top. Perhaps read the full article before commenting further? Purplebackpack89 22:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it now but I don't want to comment further until a proper WV-styled map is not added to this article. We've got proper WV-styled map for our star status itinerary articles and for instance, see Along the Magnificent Mile, Loop Art Tour and Yaowarat and Phahurat Tour. --Saqib (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In the #Valle de Cocora nomination above and at Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition#Missing images and missing maps it has been stated that dynamic maps are acceptable maps, and while not everyone agrees, I would hate to see a precedent in which an article had to have a zoomable, dynamically updated map replaced with a static one. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
(ec) A dynamic map should be acceptable Purplebackpack89 22:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Extraordinarily detailed and complete description of an important route, and Purplebackpack89 has been very conscientious about soliciting and responding to feedback during its development. As has been discussed elsewhere, my opinion is that the dynamic map with listings and a GPX route is superior to a static map, and I would hope that we not slush this nomination because it comes during a time when Wikivoyage's guidelines on maps are in flux. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a really thorough guide, with exact directions to get to each mission. I also feel like you've addressed all of the points that were brought up in discussions about it. Kudos! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost. Oooh, been a while since we've seen a nice itinerary on this page. Anyway, this is pretty close and there's a wealth of great info in here, but the tone strikes me as a mite dry and encyclopedic, and there are statements that lack context. A good example of this is in the Mission San Francisco Solano listing: "This is where the Bear Flag Revolt took place in 1846." Well, what was the Bear Flag Revolt? And why should I be interested in it? I'd think of a traveler who knows almost nothing about Californian history (but wants to learn!) when writing this. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I fixed that particular one; could you enumerate additional examples on the talk page? Purplebackpack89 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Very detailed and interesting article! Jjtkk (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job done! Danapit (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The map is no good. Overlapping text, crowded icons, and no clear depiction of the route equals not a star quality map. That map is not an example of our best work. Also, there are too many images for the amount of text; they run down well past the end of the prose. That doesn't comply with our image policy. LtPowers (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware that there was no consensus about whether or not dynamic maps were acceptable, and it appears that that lack of consensus is one of the few things between this and star. This isn't a neighborhood itinerary; people need to be able to view the map at both the state level (6 zoom) and the city level (12-14 zoom). If we were going the static map route, we'd probably need 30 different maps! We need to break ourselves of the habit of applying the standards of a neighborhood itinerary for this article, and realize that dynamic maps are the way to go here. As for the image, I have a fairly wide screen on my desktop, and the images end midway through the "See also" in mine when it's full screen. On my desktop, it only reaches to the end of the blurb about San Fran Solano. I think it's important that all 21 missions be represented, so I'd support shrinking images, but not removing them. Purplebackpack89 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the images, I'd actually argue the exact opposite: I think for the purposes of a travel guide, this page would be better served by fewer, but larger pretty images than a bunch of little ones where you can't make out much detail. I don't think it's necessary to have every single mission represented by an image, in the same way that we don't need every single piece of artwork on the Loop Art Tour represented by an image. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Would moving the images of each mission to a gallery under the "Day" for those missions resolve the layout issues? Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Percy's Hole is a star article, and User:Pbsouthwood used galleries as a way of grouping images of related content into the appropriate sub-sections without causing layout problems. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Image policy seems to say no galleries :-( But we'd still have at least one mission per day, no? Purplebackpack89 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Per Wikivoyage:Image policy#Montages and galleries: "Image galleries are discouraged, and should only be considered for showing multiple examples of a specific topic". In this case, the three missions that correspond to an article sub-section would seem acceptable to me, just as the species examples in Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Percy's Hole were acceptable during its star nomination. Further opinions on the subject would be helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to galleries, although frankly I think there's a few "meh" pics on here we could do without. The shot of Mission San Diego has the facade in shadow (and we already have a nice banner of that particular mission), the pics of Mission San Gabriel Arcangel and Mission San Miguel are kinda cloudy and grey, the interior shots of Mission Dolores and Mission San Francisco Solano are dark and grainy, and the shot of Mission San Fernando is not very flattering, with the lower third of the pic taken up by asphalt. I would suggest cutting those out or replacing them. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
On my browser (Firefox 25.0.1), the last photo extends just past the top of "Go next," which I consider perfect. And I think it's actually great to have photos of all the missions, though if there are any better photos of any of them, by all means replace them. I generally find fault with galleries because the images are too small and the effect of mashing them together isn't great. If a decision is made to go with galleries, it will be important to maintain the separate images, so that they are available in the future and can be used/maintained in guides for different destinations. I think that's obvious, but I'm mentioning it just for the sake of completeness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing galleries with montages, Ikan. On the broader topic, we have allowed galleries in limited cases, and I think this might be one such case if it's important that every site be represented. LtPowers (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
If you can get a dynamic map that actually looks good, by all means. As I noted, this map has overlapping text and overlapping icons that look bad. I would not want this map representing our best work. LtPowers (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Powers, I don't know how to improve maps much beyond what I've done already. I'm a prose guy, not a maps guy. Well, I enjoy looking at online maps and drawing paper maps, just haven't got the hang of it here yet. Purplebackpack89 18:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any overlapping text on my browser (chrome). What I do see is overlapping icons, and icons covering text. The overlapping icons is a consequence of the number and spacing of the destinations, and the scale and size of the map and the size of the icons. I am not sure how this could be avoided by using a hand drawn map. The icons covering text could easily be eliminated in a custom static map, which would be good for an overview of the itinerary, but nowhere near as useful for actual navigation and route planning as the dynamic map. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point; it doesn't matter why the map looks bad; the point is that it does, and this isn't a star article until it has a good map. LtPowers (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Peter addressed to the issue that dynamic maps "look bad": "The icons covering text could easily be eliminated in a custom static map, which would be good for an overview of the itinerary, but nowhere near as useful for actual navigation and route planning as the dynamic map." No one denies your argument that there are aesthetic disadvantages in our current dynamic implementation, but you are ignoring the argument that dynamic maps provide HUGE benefits in terms of added ability for a user to customize the map to his needs, automatic maintenance as listings are updated, added functionality (show nearby articles, etc), and more. My personal opinion is that it would be a shame if we had to replace dynamic maps in our best articles with what I would view as crippled static maps, and I thus strongly reject that a dynamic map is not a "good map". -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
And you're ignoring aesthetics in favor of pure functionality. A good static map (or more than one) can obviate most of the need for user-customization while eliminating almost all of the disadvantages; that's clearly the way to go until the mythical "someday" (in which dynamic maps will look good) comes. LtPowers (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that you can't do it with just one. You'd need a static map of the whole route, and detail maps of the area around each mission, and probably the area around each bed-down. I don't consider the dynamic map to be so aesthetically displeasing so as to outweigh the advantage of having 96-97% fewer maps. Purplebackpack89 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Purplebackpack89 has raised a crucial point here, that is perhaps peculiar to itineraries, of which we haven't had too many StarNoms. If you're worried about conceding a precedent, Powers, perhaps we could agree that you every right to raise the same points about dynamic maps again with any future Starnoms that are not itineraries, if you withdraw your opposition to this Starnom? --118.93nzp (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about the aesthetics of dynamic maps in general, although I think you can make a case that a static map is more fitting for the purposes of an itinerary - especially an itinerary of historic sites, where the route isn't likely to change, so you don't need to worry much about updating the map (which is one of the main advantages of a dynamic map). A static map can be made to cut out a lot of the clutter of a dynamic map, thus highlighting the route itself (even with the dynamic map enlarged, I still feel like the route line is getting a little lost in the clutter). And you can have little static inset maps of the area around the individual missions within the body of the larger static map, for those cases where the mission isn't easy to find from the main road. I kinda like Pbsouthwood's suggestion below of having a static map in addition to the dynamic map; that might be a good way of incorporating the advantages of both approaches. PerryPlanet (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why "fewer maps" is considered an advantage, especially after also arguing that every site needs a photograph. If the map is useful, provide it; don't force the user to zoom and pan to get it. LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I find the map quite utilitarian on my admittedly large screen. There are a couple of small points which I would prefer to see improved. The route line does not contrast very well, and at high magnification the line doesn't follow the road precisely. If this can be changed without undue work it would be an improvement. Perhaps an additional WV style static map could be provided to make the page look pretty, while keeping the dynamic map to actually find one's way along the route. For this application I think the number and placing of the photos is OK, but would not object if better quality shots can be found. I prefer them to be aligned with the subject text as is the case here. I also prefer the use of standard thumbnail size wherever there isn't a good reason to force the size. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As I've often noticed over the years, Peter (Southwood) has this nailed. I believe that the syntax of {{mapframe}} also allows for a static map image to be optionally linked. I'd also like to commend the collegiate style of the proposer (and author of much of the material), Purplebackpack89; I've watched him respond patiently, promptly and politely to the helpful criticism he's received over the last few weeks and I think this now makes a good exemplar of one of our better itineraries. --118.93nzp (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support -- lovely. I've lived in California for many years, and driven much of this, and I learned a lot from this article :) Comprehensive, interesting: nice work. -- Phoebe (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion summary[edit]

This nomination is coming to the end of its three weeks, and while it appears that there is consensus for pushing it to star there remain a couple of unresolved issues. The main one is that there is obviously disagreement about whether the map is acceptable for a star article, but it looks (to me) like concerns (pro & con) have been addressed in discussions, and essentially the discussion boils down to a difference of opinion as to whether a dynamic map should be allowed for a star article, with no actionable solution that everyone agrees on available - is that a fair summary? Second, it's not clear if the concerns about the prose have been appropriately addressed (@PerryPlanet:). Aside from those two issues, are there any remaining concerns to address before the nomination period ends in a couple of days? -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion about prose moved from here to the article talk page. One of the things proposed was an additional infobox, which I created on the article talk page, but left for someone else to place Purplebackpack89 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I feel the infobox was the only prose matter I brought up that was really addressed. Reading through it now, many of the listings still have a very dull, encyclopedic tone, with incomplete sentences that are strung together like a list of bullet points ("Founded in ____. Served as ____. Features ____. Renovated in ____."). The only instances of this that were fixed were those I pointed out as specific examples, but I thought I was clear that this was a problem throughout the entire article. It's not lively travel writing, which I feel is essential for a star article.
@Wrh2: my impression wasn't so much that the discussion was about whether a dynamic map should be allowed for a star article, but about whether the dynamic map currently shown is sufficient for this guide to be a star. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I do think that a static map would be more fitting for the purposes of an itinerary such as this one.
Also, I don't think we ever addressed the matter of the images. There was talk of putting them in galleries, as well as finding better versions for some of them. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't care if the map is dynamic or static; the problem is that no one has yet demonstrated (here or on any other article that I know of) a dynamic map that achieves a star-quality level of usability and aesthetics. LtPowers (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Flying[edit]

This is a slightly mis-titled nomination as I'm actually referring to the four articles that reside within Flying. Their forebear, 'Fundamentals of flying' narrowly missed star status, but now that its content has been split, rewritten and mixed with 'Tips for flying', it is hopefully a far more coherent and easy-to-follow guide, worthy of this accolade. --Nick talk 00:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominations to remove Star status[edit]

Whenever possible, articles should be fixed rather than "de-starred". Only nominate articles which cannot be easily elevated/restored to "star" quality. Replace the Star status tag on the article with {{destarnomination}}. Vote "Star" or "Not Star".

Failed nominations[edit]

See Project:Star nominations/Slush pile for nominations that failed or were withdrawn. Articles should only be renominated when they address criticisms from the previous nomination. Please add the {{starpotential}} to the top of the article's discussion page.