(Redirected from Star nominations)

Star nominations

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Put a star on it!

This is where we determine whether an article is ready to 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 may also post a note at Requests for comment 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. A consensus means that all outstanding objections should have been addressed and dropped; if issues remain then the discussion should be left open for two months to allow time to fix the article and reach a consensus. If the outstanding issues 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.

Successful nominations[edit]

  • Remove the nomination discussion from this page to Project:Star_nominations/Archives
  • Copy the nomination discussion to the talk page of the new star article
  • Add the article to Star articles (and change the map on that page)
  • Remove starnomination template from article
  • 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)

Failed nominations[edit]

Articles should only be renominated when they address criticisms from the previous nomination.

Nominations for Star status[edit]

Number of articles currently in review: 1

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

Please add {{starnomination}} to the top of the article being nominated. This will add it to Category:Star article nominations.

Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side[edit]

The obvious answer to why this article isn't yet Starworthy is the lack of a Wikivoyage-style map. Aside from that relatively easy fix, I'd be interested to hear others' feedback. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm afraid I'm not going to give my judgement on this as I'm not native. However, I'll take care of Wikivoyage styled map. Will do it once this nominate garnish support votes. --Saqib (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Good work. It is a very detailed article, possibly even too detailed. It is missing a geo template to give a link to a full page map at the top of the article (and to appear on maps of articles). I think that there needs to be a paragraph near the start giving an overview of the itinerary. I had to read quite a bit to find that this was a tour by car, not on foot. I would also make it clear that this is mainly (or only) a tour of the exterior of churches - I had expected to be able to go inside all eighteen churches. A quick look at the area bus map suggests that a section of the route could be done by bus, and this maybe could be looked into. AlasdairW (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Bump; discussion seems to have died out several years ago. Is it now ready to go? Looks it to me. Pashley (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Since we're no longer requiring static maps for star status, should this article be reconsidered? This article now has a much better chance of reaching star status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Although I see no problems with this page, after two years not a single support, suggest archiving this proposal. Can create again if feel deserves reconsidering. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not archive it. The thing is, from past experience, I'm not sure my judgment should be trusted, because I'm apt to miss details, but I'd like anyone to mention any way in which this is lacking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem with it may be the opposite of what is lacking, but that there is too much content. I often think this is a problem with star nominations, and it may seem like I say it too often, but I think there is a reasonable length for star articles (around 25K-80K bytes), and articles outside of this range are generally not WV's best. I think this churches article is around 200-300K bytes, which is very long for an article just about specific kinds of sights in a specific part of a city. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Realistically, what’s the solution to that, other than cutting out valuable information? Yes, the article goes in depth and is written for travellers with specific interests, but that’s exactly why I didn’t include all this information in (the even longer) Buffalo/East Side. I’m all for trimming fat, but there’s no fat here - it’s all meat - and I hardly think we ought to be penalizing articles because the coverage is too good. Sometimes articles are long out of necessity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know Buffalo geography, but is there perhaps a way we could split the article by section of the East Side? Or even divide by church's religious group? I fear the answer is no, but just asking in case that's an option. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 06:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • With a few more months having passed and still no support votes, I agree with Traveler100 that we should archive the proposal, but I don't care strongly either way. @Ikan Kekek: How do you feel about this nomination currently? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll vote to support for the sake of advancing the discussion. I'm not up to rereading the entire article right now, but my feeling is that outstanding articles should receive a commendation. I think one could quibble around the edges in regard to this article. For example, some of this could be edited slightly:
The wildly varying present-day statuses of these churches is another issue you'll be learning more about in this tour. While a good many of them continue as home to active religious congregations, others have been repurposed in a variety of ways for a new generation of East Siders, and still others remain abandoned and decaying or have been lost to the wrecking ball. The interiors of the churches that remain active (either as home to their original congregation, to a successor congregation, or as an oratory) can be visited at service times, which are listed in the main East Side article; the interiors of those that aren't are off limits to the public. However, the exteriors can be viewed anytime, as long as the buildings exist.
Maybe an argument could be made for:
"The current statuses of these churches vary wildly. While many continue to serve active congregations, some have been variously repurposed for a new generation of East Siders and others are abandoned and decaying or have been lost to the wrecking ball. The interiors of active churches can be visited at service times, which are listed in the main East Side article; interiors of inactive churches are off limits. However, the exteriors of existing building can be visited anytime."
But this is really small potatoes. Star articles don't have to be 100% ideal to everyone in every way. The only thing that gives me any real pause at all is the remark about part of this tour being doable by bus. If that's true, it should be mentioned. But really, objecting that an itinerary is too long? I think if I were actually following this itinerary, I'd be interested in reading the background the night before and the remarks about each church as I got there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The itinerary is doable by bus in theory, but in practice you'd spend far more time waiting around at bus stops than you would at the POIs. IMO it's not worth a mention. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for partially the same reason that Ikan Kekek supported. I've glanced through and this article looks like it is full of detailed anecdotes about the history of various churches; the article consequently looks long, but it is really no different than a tour — if you wrote down everything a tour guide said in one tour, it would be a lot of content, but all appropriate. While I'm personally not a supporter of very long articles, a long article is much better than a short one that misses important information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I wonder if there are any other guides to the subject matter as detailed as this? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Counting AndreCarrotflower (who I doubt would oppose this nomination), we have four supports with no oppose votes. However, some concerns were addressed earlier in the article, so I'm not sure if we're quite yet ready to upgrade this one. But I'll do my best to gather some interest. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Although I'm not convinced it needs shortening, one way of "shortening" the article without actually removing any information would be to put some of the content behind a retractable list (à la the embassies of London). But which content? And how much? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I think that only adds trouble to the nomination, though it's a good idea. While I would have liked a shorter article, AndreCarrotflower's argument has largely convinced me that the article shouldn't be shortened. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Per our naming conventions, probably yes. Though per normal English grammar, where titles are all capitalised (e.g. W:And Then There Were None), "Historic Churches..." is correct.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I intended "Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side" to be the proper name of the tour, rather than a generic one, but I'm not going to go to the mat over a capital C. However, to head this hypothetical off at the pass, "East Side" is indeed the proper name of a Buffalo neighborhood, not just a vague directional designation, so those words should remain capitalized. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, I see the logic. I don't mind greatly either way, but I just thought it seemed correct to use lowercase. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support More star articles are always better. Znotch190711 (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%, but an explanation pertaining to this article in particular would be helpful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Farnborough[edit]

I'n definitely biased, but I don't know what more can be done to improve this article. What does anyone else think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks good but I see some room for improvement. The images are not great - I didn't see the point of the Sel Roti picture unless several places sell it, and I would like to see some general views of the town centre to get a "feel" for the place. The railway station listings could be expanded, with links to WP and National Rail. AlasdairW (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I have not read it through yet, but it looks pretty good. However, I agree with AlasdairW about the pictures; they don't seem to have much to do with the place. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
That's good feedback. Thanks! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Support This article is among the best WV has to offer, and although more/better illustrations could potentially enhance the article, I think it's ready to be a star as it is. —The preceding comment was added by 82.132.185.65 (talkcontribs)
Thanks for your support, IP user.
Re the other points, those are definitely things I can do, but I have a feeling I'll need to take some photos and upload them to Commons, as those that are on there of the town centre are outdated. I will be unavailable to do that in the next two weeks, however, but please be assured it hasn't been forgotten and will get done. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the IP user AC though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Not unless AC has moved from Moscow to South East London since the other day. AC identified himself in his comment above. However, I do think the IP user is someone with WV experience.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
IP addresses are fairly easy to spoof, particularly with open proxies, and the circumstantial evidence (writing style, use of support/oppose templates rather than prose, obvious previous familiarity with WV, previous instances of block evasion i.e. the above comment) is pretty overwhelming. I've blocked the IP user on that basis, not to say that will do much good. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Nice detective work. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Plus, in case you didn’t notice, in the preceding nomination he/she mentioned the Brussels districtification. How many IP addresses would know about that? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Great article! I read through it carefully, and I could only notice a few minor things which perhaps could be improved or expanded. None of them are major concerns, and I don't think it would take much time for anyone to who know Farnborough to deal with them.
  • Even though it doesn't seem too hard to get around in Farnborough I always prefer when there are a few words about orientation of a destination. Just a few words to help you get a 'feel' for the place before you actually go there. Are there any notable landmarks or natural boundaries? What parts of the city could be considered central?
  • How long does the different commuter-journeys listed in "Get in" take, and what do they cost?
  • I didn't really understand the sentence "Less useful is the 'secret' car park on the roof of Sainsbury's...". In what way is it a 'secret' car park? It rather sounds like it is not a car park at all?
  • Why are the black sheds famous?
  • I didn't really understand the St Michaels Abbey directions. What gates are they mentioning? If it is the Abbey gates, shouldn't that rather be mentioned in the opening hours field?
  • St Peters Church lack opening hours, but I couldn't find any on their website.
  • How does one get to North Camp? How far is it? And is there any good explanation why the southern suburb is called North camp?
  • A few words about where to eat as a vegetarian or a vegan?
  • Some of the eat listings lack price indicators. How expensive is a budget restaurant? Could we add Template:Eatpricerange and Template:Sleeppricerange-boxes?
  • Are there many or few chain restaurants? The lede claims that they are few, but the budget-lede lists 9, which by my counting is rather many for a small town.
  • The last three bullet-points in the "Further afield" section doesn't quiet fit in with the others as they are types of destinations, rather than destinations. I think that it looks a bit odd. Could they be rewritten in into a lede perhaps?
I also saw that User:Davisonio is a docent for Farnborough, and I would like to hear your take on the star nomination. Do you think that the article is complete, or are there any gaps in its coverage of Farnborough? Thank you for a terrific guide! MartinJacobson (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
You mentioned church hours. I think for churches the time of a service/mass is actually more helpful than open hours. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
More helpful for worshippers but not for general visitors. I would list open hours and give a link to the church's mass/service schedule. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I guess as a listing under "see" I can understand what you mean. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem as if any valid user has voted on this article yet. My vote is support; while the pictures could be better, I don't think that is problematic enough that it should stop the article from becoming a star article. The possible improvements that were mentioned by MartinJacobson are valid, and I think they're good things to add, but not including these things does not bring down the quality of the article enough to prevent it from reaching star status, IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful article at this point already. I'll be happy to see more pictures. Hope you are able to upload them soon, TT. Ibaman (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The question now is this: is the article ready yet for star status despite the concerns, or should we wait until the concerns are addressed, e.g. the pictures? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Wait. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that my work on York is mostly complete, I've started addressing the points raised by MartinJacobson above in edits, even explaining the secret car park! Thanks for the great feedback, by the way :)

Regarding the Eat section, there are plenty of fast food chains for sure, but "proper" restaurant chains (i.e. with waiter service and actual cooking talent) are comparatively scarce, compared to plenty of great independents. Perhaps this distinction doesn't matter to a traveller, but I think there is a difference between the likes of Subway / Maccies and Pizza Express / Wagamama (sushi).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support more stars are always better. Znotch190711 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Maintaining status[edit]

Tasks and checks:

Article needing attention or maybe de-star nomination candidates.

Nominations to remove Star status[edit]

Number of articles currently in review: 0

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

No current nominations

On de-star decision[edit]

  • Remove the nomination discussion from this page and paste it to both Project:Star nominations/Archives and to the talk page of the article;
  • Update the article status template on the article from star to guide if decision is to de-star;