Talk:Quy Nhon

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I merged Quy Nhon with Qui Nhon-- there were two different pages for the same city based on city-name spelling differences. All the Qui Nhon info has been added to this page. (WT-en) Baklavabaklava

Amazing article. Star nomination[edit]

This Quy Nhon article is incredible. My husband and I live in Asia and have been using lots of travel guides, including Wikivoyage artiles where they exist, during our trips around the region. This Quy Nhon article is the best guide we've found of all the resources we've used.

The article hooked us from the beginning. We hadn't planned to visit Quy Nhon (honestly, we'd barely heard of it), but when we found this article while browsing around, we were captivated. Not only did we change all our plans and go hundreds of miles out of our way to this city entirely because of this one article, but we ended up staying longer than we planned and skipped Nha Trang, which we already knew.

The article is fun, lively and very, very informative. The descriptions of the attractions where to go are spot-on. Not only do they give great information and directions for how to get there (really needed in many cases because there are no signs or other information!), but they also include several places that are so hidden that locals didn't even know. The most amazing discovery we made because of this guide was the huge empty beach on the peninsula; I've never been to a beach which is just empty sand for 10 miles straight and not one person anywhere. No way any traveler could find it without the help of this guide.

I'm not a history buff at all, but the history section is wonderful because it gave us the context to understand what we were seeing; without it, we would have been totally clueless and missed the deeper points behind different attractions. We researched Quy Nhon on our own, and there's very little information about it (at least in English) anywhere on the internet. It's crazy, but this Wikivoyage article is the best and only good source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history!

The listings are spot-on. We slept, ate and drank in many places from the listings, and checked out many others. In every case, the descriptions were accurate, and details like prices and locations were perfectly accurate. It's very difficult for a guidebook to be both thorough, realistic and accurate, but this article achieved that feat.

The food sections are great. I love to explore local cuisine, and Quy Nhon was paradise. Even knowing Vietnam well, it still was outstanding. But there's no way we would have found these places, or known which local foods to try, if we hadn't had this guide.

I can't emphasize enough how little information there is about Quy Nhon. The only other English-language guides we found are very low quality. My guess is that the authors spent only a night in the city. It's not nice to say which guides, but even the big-name guides either have mistakes or have nothing. They only write of the beach restaurants and the easy-to-reach Champa sites. There's no information about the city itself, no description of places outside the center, no historical context, no local food guide, and definitely no information about hidden places. The Wikivoyage article is by far the best guide to the city that exists anywhere online or offline.

We'd really like to thank all the people who wrote this guide: User:VeeWin, User:Traveler100, User:Ikan Kekek, User:Seligne, User:Dragfyre, User:Texugo, User:Traveler100bot, User:Wrh2Bot and whoever else. (I just copied the first few names.)

We edited the guide a bit, just adding some seafood prices. But there's not much we can add to it: it's already extremely high quality. And that's why we were so perplexed that it has a "usable" guide status. "An adventurous person could use this article"...? It's true that perhaps you have to be adventurous just to go to Quy Nhon, but that belittles the article needlessly. It's an incredible article. I'm new on Wikivoyage and my opinion doesn't matter, but we decided that perhaps there are so few tourists who actually know Quy Nhon that the article has been overlooked, so we decided that - as someone who actually has used it in the city itself - we'd like to nominate the article for star status. Our recommendation counts for little, but the article stands on its own merit.

It exceeds all the star criteria and compares very favorably to star articles we've read and used. It has two wondefully-detailed maps, both of which are better than anything on the internet (it's crazy, but as the article itself says, all the other maps are just wrong, including Google maps). The prose is effective and enjoyable (trust me, it hooked us into driving hundreds of miles out of our way: now THAT's effectiveness!). The grammar seems perfect to me. And the photos are incredible: very useful to get a feeling for the place, and extremely beautiful and artistic.

Thank you to everyone who put this together! :)

Linda Beth 123 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Wiki user but rarely a contributor. I don't think I've ever commented on a wiki discussion ever. But i clicked on this discussion because this guide deserves recognition, not only because it's excellent, but because it's excellent in a completely out-of-the-way place, in a highly entertaining and detailed way. I'm on the bus on the way to Quy Nhon now, and read every word. I've saved screenshots to my phone for easy access. And I'm already debating staying longer than the 2 nights I've planned, simply for the food. You can tell the authors are both knowledgeable and love this place. If nothing else, I'm glad to see the star nominations, to know that someone else appreciates this greatness. Pbaribeau (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


I'm not a writer on Wikivoyage, but I just wanted to add another message in praise of this great article. Like the people above, we found this article while traveling through Vietnam, and then ended up changing our plans to go to Quy Nhon because of this guide. It's the best article we've seen on Wikivoyage, and one of the best guides for any city from any source, be it travel company, blogger, or wiki. The authors of this Wikivoyage article have incredibly detailed information for the traveler covering all needs, fascinating history, lots of local tidbits of color, wonderful hand-made maps, and mouth-watering descriptions of this hidden foodie paradise. There aren't many Western travelers in Quy Nhon, but the people we met there all mentioned that they were relying exclusively on this Wiki article for information. The user above labeled it "greatness", and I agree completely. Greatness indeed. Thank you! sara88p

Quy Nhon, Vietnam: Star Nomination[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I'd like to nominate the article Quy Nhon for a star. I think it's an amazing article. Fun, lively, and very, very informative. It exceeds all the star criteria and compares very favorably to star articles we've read and used.

It has two wonderfully-detailed maps, both of which are better than anything on the internet (it's crazy, but as the article itself says, all the other maps are just wrong, including Google maps). The prose is effective and enjoyable (trust me, it hooked us into driving hundreds of miles out of our way to visit; now THAT's effectiveness!). The prose is effective, well-written and easy to read, and the grammar seems very good to me. The photos are informative and quite beautiful.

Having just visited the city, I can confirm that the listings are spot-on. And the history section gives context which is unavailable elsewhere; it's the best and only good source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history.

I posted more on the Quy Nhon talk page and the star nomination page. I also put a nomination on the article's banner. Please tell me if I should do anything else. Thank you. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice article indeed. How about adding latitude/longitude to all listings? Cheers! Syced (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, the two banners have low definition. You can see that the picture has been scaled up. Syced (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree: this is an excellent article. Ground Zero (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Star nomination[edit]

Amazing article. Fun, lively, and very, very informative. It exceeds all the star criteria and compares very favorably to star articles we've read and used.

It has two wonderfully-detailed maps, both of which are better than anything on the internet (it's crazy, but as the article itself says, all the other maps are just wrong, including Google maps). The prose is effective and enjoyable (trust me, it hooked us into driving hundreds of miles out of our way to visit; now THAT's effectiveness!). The grammar seems very good to me.

The listings are spot-on; we visited many of the places listed, and in every case we saw, the descriptions were thorough, realistic and accurate, and details like prices and locations were perfect.

The history section is wonderful because it gave us the context to understand what we were seeing; without it, we would have been totally clueless and missed the deeper points behind different attractions. We researched Quy Nhon on our own, and there's very little information about it (at least in English) anywhere on the internet. It's crazy, but this Wikivoyage article is the best and only good source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history!

And the photos are incredible: very useful to get a feeling for the place, and extremely beautiful and artistic.

The article is by far the best guide to the city that exists anywhere online or offline. My husband and I were perplexed that it has a "usable" guide status. "An adventurous person could use this article"...? It's true that perhaps you have to be adventurous just to go to Quy Nhon, but that belittles the article needlessly. I'm new on Wikivoyage (used it a lot, but not a writer) and my opinion doesn't matter, but we decided that perhaps there are so few tourists who actually know Quy Nhon that the article has been overlooked, so we decided that - as someone who actually has used it in the city itself - we'd like to nominate the article for star status. Our recommendation counts for little, but the article stands on its own merit.

I posted on the Quy Nhon talk page, the traveler pub, and put a nomination on the article's banner. Please tell me if I should do anything else. Thank you. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like a very interesting place & it is indeed a very good article.
However, I think it needs quite a bit of copy editing. Mostly minor stuff like eliminating <br> tags (just use a blank line), eliminating unnecessary blank lines, etc.
To me, the use of bold text seems seriously excessive; I'd eliminate at least 70% of it. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the use of bolded text is really excessive. And the formatting, particularly in the See section, can be rather clunky and awkward. However, other than that, I'm hard-pressed to think of any other real critiques of this guide. I really enjoyed reading this one for the in-depth look at a part of the world I know next to nothing about. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to see maps included, but there are serious issues with their readability. I'm not sure whether this is enough to hold up a star nomination, but it's a serious problem, I think. Powers (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Just speaking for my husband and myself, the maps are extremely useful. No issues with readability. We're in our 60s and sensitive about readability issues, but we had no problems. The maps are a godsend, because there are no tourist maps of the city (even from nicer hotels) and other sources on the internet have maps that aren't detailed or are just wrong. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm impressed. I cannot read the map legend for the city map at the size it is in the article. If I click on the map I can read the legend but still can't identify the numbers in the icons. Powers (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
For me, it's large and very easy to read all details. Unfortunately, my eyesight isn't impressive; I didn't do anything special, just clicked the map a few times and saved the big size 3008 x 2647. I can zoom in and see crisp detail on my smartphone. The listing numbers are very clear. My husband and I saved both the city and the region maps and used them non-stop on both our phones every day while there. The city map is very detailed, has every street, every site, every restaurant. A godsend in a city where there's no other reliable information. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


  • There's certainly the bones of a Star article in here, but it needs work before it gets a support vote from me. The concerns pointed out by the others are well noted - especially the abundant boldface text, which is a real eyesore. Additionally, though I know I'm quite the one to talk about this, I find the History section to be overlong and encyclopedic. There's a fine line between, on the one hand, giving travellers a rich abundance of background information that gives them a feel for the place, and on the other hand weighing the article down with a tedious history lesson of dubious import to modern-day visitors. Additionally, the unnecessary row of empty space between many of the listings needs to be addressed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself here, but I was actually surprisingly okay with the length of the History section here. I think it was because it's very focused, in spite of its length; it specifically deals with only three subjects, ties each one to what modern travelers will see, and leaves it there. But I agree that a little trimming back couldn't hurt. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a good article, but it does need some technical edits before it would be a star. In addition to the comments above, the listings in Buy - Stores look wrong Big C dimensions don't make sense: "18,000 m² (19,000 ft²) building". Coopmart claims to be the only supermarket, but Big C is listed above. AlasdairW (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The area looks like a typo. I just looked it up and saw that 18,000 m2 is about 190,000 ft2, not 19,000. I changed it. I feel qualified to do that much of a change, at least. As for Coopmart being the only supermarket and not Big C, that's true as far as we saw in our visit. From what we saw, Big C is a big store outside the center with household products and bulk packages of dry food. Coopmart sells fresh food, meat, etc., in addition to household goods. For me, that makes Big C a hypermarket and Coopmart a supermarket. So I agree with the article's description.Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought a lot about the comments you all made about the length of the history. As members of the board of editors, you know better what's good for a travel article. So I can just give you my view that as a traveller who actually used this guide in the city, I'd suggest that the history is fabulous as it currently is.
    I'm not a history buff at all, and my eyes glazed over a little when I saw it, too. It's not a city like Singapore or Ho Chi Minh City, for example, where a traveller can easily find information if they want. With Quy Nhon, there's no other information in English anywhere on the internet. This Wikivoyage article isn't just the best source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history, it's the only source. Some people travel to a place and don't care about the historical context of where they are; that's their choice. But with no other information available, it seems that to delete the best and only source about a region would hurt those who want to understand the context of where they travel.
    I agree with PerryPlanet that the history it's good that it's tightly focused on 3 specific periods which are very relevant in understanding Quy Nhon today. For my husband and I as visitors there, I can confirm that the details from the history were very helpful as travellers and we would have been blind without it. The few other Western travellers we bumped into did in fact have no idea about what they were seeing or what they were doing, and they were very happy - and relieved - when we introduced them to this article. Also, the article is well written and easy to read, in my opinion, which helps a lot.
    I can't emphasize enough that nobody in the area speaks any English at all, there is no written English information of any value in the city or on the internet, and tourist sites have no English (they actually have almost no Vietnamese either). The Champa archaelogical sites have no information, no guides, nothing; without this article, you'd have no idea of the history and you'd leave just thinking that it's a nice pile of bricks (which is more or less the description of the few foreign travellers we met). There are so many connections in the city to the Tay Son rebellion and the martial arts fighters, for example the statues on the beach, many pictures hanging in buildings, cafes, paintings, names of streets, students practicing martial arts everywhere, but we would have missed it without this guide. With the Vietnam War, knowing that the beach where we strolled had massive camps of refugees who had to flee their homes just 50 years ago because of U.S. pacification gave a depth to our visit that made our trip much more worthwhile. Another example is that the nice beach hotels popular with foreigners are located among the southern cliffs which American warships attacked based on information Korean soldiers found about Viet Cong troops, but even the foreign managers living and working in those hotels had no idea.
    To me, that's not of dubious import or tedious; rather, it's the really interesting information that makes a travel guide valuable. It's very relevant to our experience as travellers today, it makes for a rich, fulfilling trip instead of just a drive-by, and it'd be a pity to cut it out. - Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Goodness, this is such an interesting discussion but could you tell me please, what is my role supposed to be here? As a traveller who has used Wikivoyage in many, many cities, I believe this article is as good as any of the star articles in Asia, and better than most of them. If the goal of a Wikivoyage article is to be the only guide necessary for a traveller, this article is it. That's why it seemed so odd to my husband and me that the article has a little sign thing that it's only "usable" for "adventurous travellers", so we just wanted to point it out and suggest it be starred. But I'm not on the board of editors like you folks, so I'm feeling a little out of my league and not qualified enough to try to improve it. Is this like a hearing where I'm now supposed to advocate on behalf of the article? If so, I'm probably not the best person. Maybe the people who wrote it are more qualified like AlasdairW, PerryPlanet, Pashley, VeeWin, Traveler100, Ikan Kekek, Seligne and Dragfyre, Wikivoyage anonymous user 14.183.106.38. I can only give you our point of view as a travelling couple that this is one of the best articles on Asia in Wikivoyage. Sincerely, - Linda Beth 123 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Linda Beth 123. I'm not a major contributor to this article; I've just done a bit of copy editing and such. For example, I just deleted a bunch of unneeded "br" codes and other extra spaces. I think you've done a wonderful thing by pointing to this article, which looks excellent indeed! It's quite a content-laden article, so I don't think I'll have time to read it in full today or in the next few days, but I think that, in any case, the others' remarks about how it's short of "Star" status are a great thing, not a bad thing, because they point forward to how to make this article a Star, something that is much less likely to have happened in the near future if you had not made this nomination. One thing to keep in mind about Star status is that it means that an article is more than an excellent Guide article, but is nearly perfect in all respects. Pointing out ways in which readers consider this article to currently fall short of that extremely lofty standard shouldn't be seen as the least bit dismissive of you. It's wonderful that this Wikivoyage guide was so helpful to you and your husband in your travels! That, more than whether the article is or is not currently at Star status, is really the most important thing, and the level to which we should aspire for all articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ikan Kekek. I think the content of this article is fabulous, but it's over my head to discuss about br's and bolding. It already was tough to figure out what mdash means in the nomination checklist and to change every ndash/nbsp to mdash before nominating this article. Rating articles can create issues, but if you're going to do it, then travellers like me will believe that a rating of "usable" or "star" reflects the quality of the information; a "usable" rating on an article makes people believe it to be less trustworthy, a "star" rating more reliable. So it it seems that this - quality of content, information, reliability - should be the sine qua non of a star article, and that great content should be presented with smooth writing, informative and beautiful pictures, and good grammar. Beyond that, formatting certainly matters, but it's secondary and not the focus, don't you think? Some copy-editing can make a high-quality article fit whatever formatting standards you have, but no copy-editing can make low-quality content helpful.
I'm more familiar with TripAdvisor; contributing there is a little more accessible for us common people than this here :-). The truth is that, at least in Asia, the TripAdvisor hotels overview and a quick scan of the listings is significantly better than Wikivoyage for a traveller to get a feel of where to sleep; in many cases, it's also better for restaurants and tourist sites. Even Wikivoyage's star articles in Asia just don't compare. This Quy Nhon article is one of the only places I've found where Wikivoyage surpasses TripAdvisor for both breadth of selection and depth of information about hotels, and in every other section outside hotels, it's obviously no comparison and the information in this Wikivoyage article makes it by far the best guide to the city. It convinced us to go hundreds of miles out of our way to visit, it guided us while we were there, and our travels are richer for it. That's why I pointed it out and nominated the article for a star, so hopefully others will find it, recognize its usefulness and have a more rewarding travel experience thanks to it. Ok, that's enough from me. I did what I could. Thanks again to all of you for your help. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Linda Beth 123, I'd actually be really interested to see some specific criticisms of other articles about Asia that have "Star" status but aren't so helpful. That's important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I wrote much of the current version of this article. I was thrilled to see that it's actually helped people enjoy the area. It's an honour that the article is being considered for a star. Please let me know all your suggestions for improvement: I'll do all the work necessary so that Quy Nhơn can become the first star article from Vietnam.
  • Bolding (Pashley, PerryPlanet, AndreCarrotflower): My fault for too much bolding. I was following wv:bold and this comment by LtPowers that readers should be able to skim and get the ideas without reading each and every word. I overdid it. I'm sorry. Actually, I'm happy to take much of it out: it's awkward to write in a way which creates good, self-contained highlighted clips but is still smooth prose when reading the full text. Please let me know how the current version does in striking a balance between highlighting important points but not being overwhelming.
  • Maps (LtPowers, Linda Beth 123): I think I understand why Linda Beth sees the details, but Lt. Powers doesn't. Linda Beth mentioned that she clicked several times and downloaded, so I'm assuming she went through to the originals. The original region map is 2,000 x 1,393, and the city map 3,008 x 2,647; all details are visible on both. But the previews default to 800 x 557 and 681 x 599, respectively, and it's fuzzy, especially the city map, so I see Lt. Powers's concern. I tried uploading different sizes myself to Wikimedia Commons, and per wv guidelines both maps are fully-editable SVGs with all information organized into category folders, but I wasn't able to control the wv default preview size. I'm happy to do whatever's necessary to improve it, but I'm unsure what would work. What do you suggest?
  • Big C, Coopmart (AlasdairW): Nice catch. It was a typo: 18,000m² is about 190,000 ft², not 19,000. Thanks. Coopmart is the only supermarket in the city, but Big C is listed above Coopmart because of alphabetical order. Please let me know how you'd suggest I improve it.
  • History (AndreCarrotflower): I think this comes down to each person's philosophy of—and reason for—travel, as well as the specifics of each place. Here's what I think in this case. First, as Linda Beth 123 points out, there is no real information in English about Quy Nhơn and the region, and what exists is often wrong. In the city, no one speaks English. Moreover, some of the details of the history are de facto censored in Vietnam itself, from the 11th-century Champa and their modern descendants up to the war in the 1960s-70s. So for both language and political reasons, travellers won't find much information on the internet or in the city itself. Second, the focus is exclusively on the three periods where Quy Nhơn played a critical role in important parts of Vietnam's history; it's not a complete history of those periods but is just limited specifically to Quy Nhơn's role. And as Perry Planet points out and Linda Beth 123 personally confirmed, each history is closely tied to what modern travellers will experience during their visit today. Finally, there's the issue of who actually visits Quy Nhơn. Many foreign tourists, particularly those staying in the city itself and not the southern bays, fall into one of three groups: archaelogical buffs, Vietnamese-Americans visiting family, and visitors who were connected to the 1960s-70s war (either people who served in Quy Nhơn themselves or their family). The history in wv can't—and shouldn't— be complete enough for someone deeply interested in a particular topic, but given the scarcity of other information, I tried to make it broadly informative for each of those groups of possible readers, as well as for travellers who (presumably like Linda Beth 123) simply want to understand better the historical context of what they see and have no other source available anywhere. Please let me know what you think and how you'd suggest to improve it. - VeeWin (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I am pleased to see such in-depth discussion and responses here. Thank you to User:VeeWin and User:Linda Beth 123 for their attention and thoughtfulness. Regarding the maps, yes, my original complaint was about viewing the map in the article. We generally prefer maps to be minimally readable without clicking through to an enlarged version; this allows the web page to be printed with usable maps, among other benefits. The amount of information in the city map is enormous, so I admit it may not be possible to make it totally readable on-screen. It would at a minimum require editing the map image to make the icons bigger, but the text probably needs to be bigger too. Unfortunately, there's so much text in the legend that this could quickly snowball to the point where half the image is legend. I will admit it's a tricky balancing act. I was wondering if anyone had any other thoughts about the readability of the map relative to star status. Powers (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment about map resolution, LtPowers. The region map seems fine, but regarding your comments on the city map, I'm a little confused now. I followed the guidelines on wv's Maps page, specifically this guideline to make a width of 3,008 pixels. It recommends an exact resolution of 3,008 x 1,709, or 3,008 x 3,418 for "really big maps that are more square than rectangular... and can then be printed as two pages." I took the 3,008 as the fixed requirement and built the map around that. However, when I tried at 3,008 x 3,418, there was a lot of unnecessary height: it's an odd-shaped peninsula and doesn't need such height. So I cropped out rice paddies, etc., to show only the city which travellers would experience, and that's how it came to the current dimensions of 3,008 x 2,647. I'd guess most travellers today would just download it on their phones and use it as a guide while walking around, so I tried it on a few phones—both good ones and cheap ones—and at this resolution, all the details are very clear and easy to read even on bad phones. Given wv's emphasis on printing, I printed the map out on paper as well per the Maps guidance, and it seems good to me... For comparison, I looked just now at several star articles. Small towns and regional overviews are visible for the same reason the Quy Nhơn region map is visible: there's less detail to show. But city street maps which cover more than a small area aren't visible to me except at higher original resolutions. For example, Ann Arbor has a map which can't be read at all at the width of 350px in the article. I tried printing the web page just now, and it's completely unusable; even street outlines can barely be seen. It default previews to 800 x 502, at which size it's still illegible even on my high-resolution laptop. At the largest non-original resolution of 1,280 x 804, it's still completely unreadable; in comparison, at the largest non-original size of 1,164 x 1,024, the Quy Nhơn city map listings are readable clearly, and numbers can be read although they're small. The Ann Arbor map isn't usable on laptop, phone or print until I get up to its original resolution of 4,000 × 2,511, which is much wider than the 3,008 guideline on Maps. As another comparison, picking a star map of a city in Asia, Ubud, its map is sized at 600px in the article itself. At that width, it's not really legible on my high-resolution laptop, and is illegible on my phone. I just tried printing, and it can't be read and is unusable. The default preview is only slightly bigger at 681x599, and is similar: very hard to read on laptop, impossible on the phone. At 1,162 x 1,024, it's legible but tough to read the numbers on my phone, and unclear when printed on my setup. It's only when moving up to the original resolution of 3,412 x 3,008 that the Ubud map becomes crisp and easy to read... I thought static maps are encouraged, and in this case of Quy Nhơn it seemed particularly relevant given incorrect information in maps from other sources. It would be a shame to have just had a low-detail region map, so I made both the region map and the city map, and I tried to follow the guidelines. I'd be happy to improve it in any ways you would suggest, but I'm a little unclear about what to do now, so please let me know what you think. VeeWin (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping others might chime in; it could be that my concern is overblown. The Ann Arbor map is indeed totally unreadable. It was one of our first Star articles, dating back to 2007. There were concerns expressed about the map at that point, but I'm not clear on whether they were ever resolved. Powers (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just used this article after spending 5 days in Quy Nhon, aug 2018 wish I had found it earlier but will get the most out of the next few days here. It is accurate informative and I read it end to end . So many poor guides, references and travel info on the web. this article smashes them As a user I vote for star status . Thank you

"Just" needs coordinates on listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is overwhelming: the pictures, the diagrams, the maps, the text, the listings, everything. As a result, it looses the reader-friendliness that an article should have. Is there really this much to say about the place? My vote would be to slush, considering the discussion that took place above and the article itself. It's not a terrible article, just that it's too overwhelming to be reader-friendly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Basically, are the any objections to slushing this one? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
You know what? No-one is supporting this (excluding the nominator). The only time the word "support" is mentioned is when someone says that they are not willing to support the article in its current state. So I'm going to go ahead and slush. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

SUPPORT! There are lots of comments on this talk page from people who love this article. In the real world, we were in the city, and the few travelers we met there all were using this guide and loved it. In fact, many of them - including us - decided to go to this out-of-the-way city just because of this article. I left a longer opinion below. But I think there is a lot of SUPPORT for this article as a star! - AndreFrom1991 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Great Article! Praise, stars, support![edit]

This is a phenomenal article. It deserves praise, attention, stars, and any other commendations possible. I think the demotion from star status is a pity and reflects a fundamental difference in perspective about travel and the purpose of a guide.

My partner and I just finished a trip through SE Asia for 4 months using many guidebooks and online blogs. This Quy Nhon article in Wikivoayge is by far the best article from any source about any city in any country we visited. The information is very precise. The listings are accurate. The map is perfect. And most importantly, the information about the city is both broad and deep, covering history, culture, food, and sites. We literally walked street to street with this article as our guide, and the insight into so many aspects of Quy Nhon life made it the best part of our entire Asian trip. The details in this article helped us dive deep into the history, the people, and the culture, rather than just floating on the surface of the standard trivialities of travel guides and blogs.

Quy Nhon is out of the way and a bit difficult to reach from the typical tourist path. But like other travelers who have written on this page, we decided to go to Quy Nhon entirely because of this article. The article really is THAT good. And we aren't the only ones: in the city, we met several other couples who also went to Quy Nhon only because they read this article.

In smaller cities of Vietnam, the language barrier is enormous. Even basic information is hard to get, and as for detailed knowledge of the history and culture of a place, forget about it. Most guides in English, particularly for smaller cities, don't give much more than basic information (I include most Wikivoyage articles in that category). In the case of Quy Nhon, information in English in both online and printed guides is often wrong (as this article itself points out). This guide is so vastly superior to anything else available that it's like an oasis of knowledge in a desert of murkiness.

We only noticed now this Talk page. We're happy to see that others have praised this article, and I joined WV just to add to the praise here. But we're quite surprised and disappointed to see that the article had a star nomination revoked for lack of support.

There's a fundamental difference in perspective reflected in the debate on this page. Should a travel article be quick and short, a fast taste of the place which highlights the important sites, with some key travel logistics and a bit of history? Or should a travel article delve deeper into the history of the place, its culture, its food, its people?

More broadly, it's a question of travel style. Some travelers go quickly, trying to "do" the important cities, "hit" the main tourist sites, "see" the highlights in a whirlwind of activities. Other travelers go more slowly, even if only in attitude if not time, with a focus of learning more deeply about the history, culture, food, and people of a place, savoring the depth of details rather than the breadth of a wide-ranging active travel experience.

I'm obviously biased in favor of slow travel exploring the depth of the place. This article is a shining example of a tool for this type of traveler. With this article, a traveler can truly get to know Quy Nhon and the people of Central Vietnam on a level not possible from any other guide. So I and all the other travelers who praise this article appreciate it for this.

But for those who just want the highlights, this article covers everything necessary. Perhaps it's frustrating to skim through the article to find something specific you want as a traveler. But the organization of the article and each section makes it easy to find any information that you need, even if you don't want to read all the details. For me, the sections of this article are the perfect length: not too long that it becomes tedious to read, but not too short that it doesn't have enough detail to be meaty and informative.

It's a wonderful article. We understood the city, its culture, its history, and its people, so much more than we ever could have otherwise. That's the highest praise we could have for a travel guide: it not only helped us perfectly with the logistics of travel, but it made the life of my partner and me richer and deeper as we truly got to know a place where we can't speak with the people.

The article deserves praise, attention, views... and for sure, a star!

- AndreFrom1991 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)