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.


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


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.


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)
  • If the article is currently being nominated at Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates, update the article status parameter in the nomination template.

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: 3

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.

Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport[edit]

Although I'm biased (as I wrote most of the article and its listings) I think that of all our airport articles this one is the closest to being star quality. As the busiest airport in the world, I think it would be very fitting if we could make it our first star-quality airport article. I've put a lot of work into it, but I'm at a point where it could use some more eyes (and maybe more hands) to identify what remains to get this up to star quality, which I hope will not be very much. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support This guide is incredibly in depth. SpartanFishy (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a well-written article with many of the features of our other star articles. I think this is a great star article standard with which to compare our other airport articles, and I can't see that much more could be added or changed to make it any better than it is. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is nearly there, with just a couple of issues. I don't really understand why Do is at the bottom of the page; wouldn't it make more sense to go as a subheading under Wait, or else in a separate section immediately following the same? It's also not clear whether those events are open to the general public, or whether you have to be an outbound passenger flying on that day in order to attend them. One final thing, I'd like to see a few more photos if possible. Otherwise, looking great. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bigpeteb: In case you haven't seen the above.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I indeed hadn't seen it. I'm pretty sure this is the only Airport article with a Do section, so there's really no standard for where to put it. I put it at the end since the only things listed are events that take place infrequently (either monthly or annually), on the basis that stuff travellers are likely to need and be able to do should take precedence. I don't object to moving it up or making it a subsection of Wait. I think for one of the events you would need to be a passenger that day; I'll add that to the description. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I follow your logic, but since every other class of article positions 'Do' in roughly the same part of the article, I think it would make more sense from a reader's perspective to do the same here. If the 'Do' section were already very long, the worries about it interrupting the flow would be greater, but since it's only three listings, it should be alright. Let me know with a ping when you're done (no rush), and I'll be delighted to support the nomination.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Caldas da Rainha[edit]

I may be biased as the principal contributer to this article, but I believe that it's comprehensive and well written. I recently cut a lot of the bloat and tightened the prose. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: See pre-nomination discussion at Talk:Caldas_da_Rainha#Star_status_-_opinions. I have implemented many of ThunderingTyphoons!'s suggestions. I keep tweaking the article, hopefully improving it with each edit. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I would appreciate it if you would please add your support to this nomination or express any concerns or objections that I can address. Thanks! --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
That's looking superb now! Did you only just add the "If your time is limited..." list at the top of See? That's a good feature I didn't notice before.
One thing I thought of before but didn't mention as it wasn't nearly as important as the other stuff: the article could either do with some more photos or the photos already present should be spread out, as there's no image of any kind from Eat all the way to the bottom of Cope. This is kind of a nitpick, but Stars are supposed to be perfect :P
I would definitely encourage others to take a look, as there may be other things to fix that I haven't spotted. But as far as I'm concerned, once the photo discrepancy is addressed, this is a star article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: Thank you. Good idea. I searched through my camera roll and found a few section-appropriate pics for that wall of text. Now uploaded to Commons and added to the article. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
PS: Oh, and yes I added "If your time is limited..." to make the options less overwhelming after you mentioned, 'dread as in "this is going to take me ages to get through, I can't be bothered to read all this."' --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is certainly a difficult time to keep articles up to date, but this article is excellent. I can't see anything missing — there are even static maps in "get in/get around". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support (as original nominator). Hi, folks. It's been three weeks. I'm not sure whether two non-nominator supports are enough to upgrade to star. I don't believe there are any unresolved objections or issues. Please let me know where we go from here. Thanks. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Although it's not technically necessary, I would like to see some more opinions from different Wikivoyagers, so will once again ask for comment. The only purpose of this would be to absolutely ensure the article really is perfect. As there's nothing in the rules that requires a certain number of people to support, if the RfC hasn't attracted additional support or critique within a couple of days, then we can proceed with making it a star.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2021 (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;