From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

If you like it, then you shoulda put a ring star on it!

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 {{starnomination}} 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.

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 (UTC)
* 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.

I believe that the Portuguese phrasebook is poised to be our second Star phrasebook after the Russian phrasebook. Every word and phrase from the Wikivoyage:Quick phrasebook article template has been translated and is accompanied by pronunciation help using three methods: 1) standard/required Wikivoyage pseudo-phoneticization, 2) IPA, and 3) audio files (via Lingua Libre / Wikimedia Commons). If there are any deficiencies that I haven't already spotted and corrected, they will be quick fixes once identified. --Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close while it LGTM, some of it is written from a speaker who'd use en-US rather than just English in general. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help it. I was born this way. 😆 Do you have some specific examples that I should tackle? Cheers! (or did I just go too British there?) Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've done something similar in Driving in New Caledonia where it's wholly written from an Australian perspective (with the drive on the right being over-exaggerated). But to the phrasebook, mainly spellings and the time and date section, but I'll fix that up. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Done. Agora Suporte. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is having a separate audio file for each word the standard approach? Having to play 6 separate clips to ask "Where is the toilet?" is not very useful if the reader just expects to click play on their phone when in need. I see that some later phrases are a single clip. AlasdairW (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. When I started adding audio, I used files available on Commons, which were all seperate words. After a while, I decided to fill the gap myself for the many missing words by recording the missing words and phrases myself (via Lingua Libre, which exports to Commons). I think I should go back and record the ones where there are separate word clips to "build" a phrase. Thanks for the push; this was nagging the back of my mind! Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Done Any entries left with multiple audio files are alternative translations or gender differences. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet - Where's the grammar section? The Russian phrasebook has one, as do Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, French (pretty good, if I say so myself)... For Portuguese, it doesn't need to be exhaustive, university-level stuff, but should probably cover noun gender, articles, basic verb conjugation (mainly present tense), "you", and anything else Nelson or other speakers think is fundamental to know. The Brazilian phrasebook also has an infobox about nasal sounds; should that be copied and adapted? I would also like to see the addition of at least 10-15 photos given the length of the article, although these can be added as and when quality appropriate images are found. Credit where it's due, the comprehensive use of audio files is an excellent feature, and I hope we can roll this out onto other phrasebooks soon.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I intentionally left out grammar based on the second paragraph of Phrasebooks and Wikivoyage:Quick phrasebook article template, but I'll work on covering the topics you mentioned. The Brazilian phrasebook was actually a fork from Portuguese (or vice versa) due to overwhelming differences in pronunciation and some grammar (much greater than UK English vs US English). I'll see if some elements can be added back. Russian has only two images: the language map (which Portuguese has) and an alphabet chart (unneeded since Portuguese uses the Latin alphabet). Based on this, I didn't add images, but I agree that the article looks uninteresting and sparse without them, so I'll add some. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThunderingTyphoons!, I've gone ahead and implemented your suggestions. I look forward to reading your feedback. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, as ever, and quick too. As someone with knowledge of other Romance languages, all the basic grammar makes sense to me, but as it's well explained it would also work for a general audience.
There are some minor changes I made myself. One thing I thought I'd run by you is whether you'd consider removing vos from the conjugation tables, particularly as its entries are crossed out anyway. Another, related, thing was whether it would make more sense to separate "he/she" from "you"; even though they're the same conjugation in Portuguese, "he/she/you sing(s)" strikes me as potentially confusing for English speakers without experience of learning other languages, but who still remember the person distinction from English class. "Você" and "vocês" would thus get their own lines in each table, and "vos" would come out altogether. You could still keep the sentence about "vos" if you think it's important, though I doubt the vast majority of travellers would encounter that word at all.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there'll probably be other aspects of the 'pronunciation' section that I'll end up questioning due to accent differences, but just for starters, and as a reminder for myself: "é : long sound as the 'e' in "bled" / ê : similar to the 'ea' in "bread"" makes little sense to me, as "bled" and "bread" rhyme in my accent. Do é and ê make the same sound, or different? It doesn't help that IPA is missing from the vowels and diphthongs/triphthongs sections, but present in the 'consonants' section (where arguably they're needed least).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your great suggestions, which are not nitpicky at all, as you stated in one of your edit comments. I want to build WV's best phrasebook and really earn that star. I have implemented your recommendations. If you find anything else that could use improvement, no matter how seemingly minor, lay it on me. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olá, @Sanjorgepinho:. As far as I know, you are the only native speaker of European Portuguese who has contributed to Wikivoyage recently. If you have time and willingness, I would appreciate your feedback on Portuguese phrasebook. I nominated it for Star status, and I want to make sure it's as good as it can be. Obrigado! --Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ibaman:, although they speak Brazilian Portuguese, they might still know the differences between the two. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for remembering me, gajos. Right now, I don't really have the time or ability to be of much help here... European Portuguese is still somewhat complicated to me. But I promise I'll check out this article and help improve it. Ibaman (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibaman: Regarding this diff, rr and word-initial r are impossible to represent accurately using English spelling. Although rã = "hum" might be a close approximation for PT-BR, it is too far from PT-PT to be of use to the traveller. No flavor of r/rr in PT-PT sounds like EN "h". Maybe "rum" was a poor choice on my part. Perhaps "run" is marginally better, but combine with the ã, and there is no way no how we will ever be able be able to produce a close-enough rendering of the word using EN, which is why I added IPA and recorded sound clips throughout the Phrase list section. (I added your Nasal vowels infobox based on the recent suggestion from ThunderingTyphoons above.) Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging @DARIO SEVERI: the only admin of pt.voy that I know of. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Olá @Nelson Ricardo : I've already taken a look at the link and although I'm not the best person to rate it, it seems fine to me. The little time I have doesn't help either. Despite that, I spent my vacation taking pictures to help improve some destinations on Wikivoyage. Sanjorgepinho (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Sanjorgepinho (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, I was once an admin there, together with Dario, but now I concentrate here fully. I hope he joins this discussion.

More importantly, copying here what I wrote on Talk:Brazilian Portuguese phrasebook: "Just for the record, as I'm working to complete the phonetic bits of this article, I have made some decisions that I'd rather explain for clarity and comment. Whenever I must choose between "what's more sonically natural for the language" and "what would be easier for Anglophones to pronounce and be understood, even if retaining some of their natural accent", I will follow the latter. I'm trying as well to insert as much "tutorial" words, chosen for importance to the traveller's daily needs, sound and meaning, as possible. This is, by the way, the logic behind the (maybe mysterious) inclusion of that long list of names; IMHO every one of them is a good pronunciation tutorial for acquiring the language's sound and articulation." This approach complies with WV:Tone and WV:fun which are very important guidelines for my work on this travel guide, which I try to always follow.

As I can see, the PT-PT phrasebook is aiming at a different objective. Let's not exchange the usual bad jokes of cultural abyss between PT-BR and PT-PT. I would only suggest that I consider my approach better suited for the needs of a travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypically, the Brazilians are indeed known as more fun and outgoing, whereas the Portuguese are known as reserved yet friendly. Not surprising that the pt-br phrasebook has a different tone from pt-pt. I'll take a closer look at pt-br to see if I can borrow any more concepts from there. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelson Ricardo 2500: How about asking @FilipeFalcão:, who did about half the recordings here? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's been inactive since Jan '19, https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=FilipeFalc%C3%A3o. (Note to other contributors: I used Felipe's recordings in the destination articles, as he recorded the pronunciations for every municipality in Portugal. His files are not in the phrasebook under discussion.) Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about asking @Felipe da Fonseca:? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be a great judge of pt-br or en-au, so I wouldn't ask a Brazilian to review a European Portuguese phrasebook nor an Australian to review an American English slang list. Also, Felipe has never participated on enWV, except when requested to do so on the Pub. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re the Aus to US, I'm quite familiar with American slang but it's not the same with British. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After two months, nearly all the issues have been fixed by Nelson Ricardo 2500. Promote? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is just about at star level. I have a couple of comments: First, I just added a thread to the phrasebook's talk page because "ai" as in "Renaissance" is an "uh" sound to me when I'm speaking English. I also find that pseudo-pronunciations of nasalized diphthongs that look like "ahny" and "uhnw" appear polysyllabic to this English-speaker, but their weird appearance could be remedied if sound samples could be provided for the diphthongs as they are provided for vowels and consonants. If those things are done, I think it will be a star article, with the caveat that I have good conversational and reading command of French and Italian when I'm in practice but don't know Portuguese. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, I don't think recordings of those sounds exist, so I'll try working on them by this weekend or earlier. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's almost three months, and all concerns raised have been fixed. I'd support upgrading now, but I'd leave it to Nelson Ricardo 2500 to do that given they wrote most of the article + numerous audio recordings. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can wait for the recordings of diphthongs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I now support the nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has been here for almost nine months, and since all issues have been addressed by Nelson, are there any objections before I promote this nomination that has been quietly sitting for months? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @SHB2000! I've just made some improvements to the placement of audio files, as this has been bugging me. I am unaware of any objections or unimplemented suggestions remaining. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ThunderingTyphoons!, do you have any remaining concerns about the article, or can it be promoted to star now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt, Ikan Kekek. I have spent some more time going through the phrasebook, while waiting for a delayed flight in BER and now today in the Hampshire sun.
The pronunciation section doesn't mention that the vowel O often sounds like "oo" / a short "u" at the end of a word. The section mentions the sound often "reduces" following a T or D, but the "oo" sound seems to be fairly constant at the end of words, with the exception of nasal "ão".
Why is a conjugation table needed for the verb pôr? The word doesn't appear once as an infinitive or in any of its present-tense conjugated forms in the rest of the phrasebook. The tables for ser, estar and ter are justified by those verbs' importance, but what about pôr?
I couldn't see whether you'd noted that it's possible to drop the subject prounoun before the verb, as in Italian or Spanish, but unlike French (or English). There are examples of this in the phrases, but a short explanation would be handy.
It might be a matter of taste, but I think the eating section could do with a lot more example foodstuffs, particularly fruits, vegetables and seafood. The sentence "I'd like to reserve a table." would be a useful addition, and not just to the PT phrasebook.
I also have some issues with the illogical order of some of the sections, but as that's a guideline issue, I'm better off bringing it up on the phrasebook template.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!, thank you for the fixes and the suggestions, which I have now put in place. Let me know if I'm missing any of your favo(u)rite foods. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Probably time to make it a , then. I'll tell you in September after I visit the Algarve if there are any favourite foods missing.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Suporte: @Nelson Ricardo 2500:, I deeply regret I haven't seen this nomination until just now. I don't really follow WikiVoyage too closely anymore, but when I happened to stumble upon this thread, I couldn't leave without pausing to add my thoughts, especially since (apparently) I'm one of a very small cohort of Continental Portuguese-speakers on English WikiVoyage. I deeply salute your work and what a magnificent resource this page has become! It is well-organized, comprehensive and extremely easy to follow; it's hard to imagine any Anglophone tourist without prior experience around spoken Portuguese not finding it to be an invaluable aid to their ability to understand what's said to them and be understood themselves. I see no reason why this nomination shouldn't have been concluded with the granting of the star going back to last November, and can't help but feel frustrated that your labors have been met with what must feel like endless indecision.

We would seem to have a fair amount in common as I'm also a first-generation Portuguese-American on my father's side and, as often begets the oldest child of an oldest child, grew up surrounded by tios, tias, avós and bisavós (uncles, aunts, grandparents and great-grandparents) that never learned English beyond the bare minimum required to pay the corner grocer and deposit their paychecks at the credit union. Growing up I was often teased by family members that my birth was less the result of romance or even a desire for offspring/an heir than the search for cheap translation services. 😐 In that regard they got their money's worth and I still feel mostly comfortable conversing in Portuguese when the need arises, though that's quite rare since my vovó (grandmother) passed away in 2015. Candidly, though, speaking Portuguese has never been something I've been very confident of overall since all my exposure has been strictly verbal (not to mention limited to a small sample of native speakers who hail from an isolated area (Almagreira, na ilha de Santa Maria, Açores) of an island notorious for its unique dialect! I only bring it up because while there were a few phrases on the page that I'd always heard expressed using different vocabulary, I nevertheless found everything currently there perfectly understandable, and can easily chalk up any variance to my own limited exposure.

Feel free to ping me on my talk page if you ever need assistance with anything here or elsewhere in the Wikimedia-verse; what I lack in authority within the pecking order here I believe I more than make up for in my Portuguese workaholism and enjoyment of repetitive tasks! Best wishes to you and I hope this well-deserved star as well as the Featured Topic status get awarded without further delay. — ⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟ (My recent mischief) 23:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to continue delaying this proposed promotion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda biased because I wrote more than 99% of the content here, but I think it's well and ready for star. But here's a checklist, using 82.3.185.12's table format:

RequirementsDone?GuidelinesDone?
Tourist-style map Yes Done Meets all of the criteria in the "Requirements" section Yes Done
Listings match the manual of style Yes Done Perfect spelling and grammar Yes Done – uses Australian Spelling and English. Doesn't look done to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
District articles are at least "Guide" status N/A Wikivoyage-style map (static + dynamic) Yes Done and Yes Done
Prose near-perfect, and tight, effective, and enjoyable. Yes Done (?) Listings in alphabetical order or geographical order Yes Done
Photos Yes Done – I'd love to include one or two more, but couldn't find anymore on Commons No duplicated listings Yes Done
Time and dates formatted correctly Yes Done
Section introductions (optional) Yes Done
Abbreviations used in street names Yes Done, except for "track", because there's no abbreviation for it.


The only thing that's missing is a static map, and there's two reasons for that:

  1. I'm not an Inkscape expert, but if someone knows how to do it, it'd be well appreciated
  2. While I did mention that it'd be well appreciated, some of the trails in the park are not actually within within the park, but it's still covered under the park's website, and this could make it confusing.

The article follows most formats off Zion National Park, and Yosemite National Park, and there is one additional thing that this article has but no other park article has – and that is that walking trails are on the dynamic map. With all this, it's why I think this article is essentially complete.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick glance, I think the prose should be checked. There are constructs I find odd, and I think it could be made tighter at places without losing enjoyability. –LPfi (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There could be some more details in Fees and permits. Are you allowed to deviate from trails and tracks? I suppose you shouldn't pick souvenirs, but that should probably be pointed out. What about cooking etc.? One campsite is said to have "good facilities [...] including toilets. Does that mean you don't have toilets in the other one? –LPfi (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally not every campsite in NSW has toilets, and sometimes you have to do it in the bush. Both these have toilets, and it has been mentioned, and have included info of being able to deviate from trails and tracks in the get around section. Will do the prose soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: Have included about cooking facilities under the sleep section. Will do prose soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have now checked the prose and did some copyedits. Is there any particular places that need a prose check? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through the text intermittently, and will continue to do so. Is there an issue with the dynamic map? I can only see one of the trails that are in the key.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might need to zoom into the others, but all of them appear on desktop. I'll check on mobile soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, I can see these trails on desktop mode.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold off on starring to givef me a chance to read the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure. I'll hold it until at least next week. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at it and the reason why you can only see the red line is probably because you can't zoom on mobile. As the other trails are much shorter than the 70 kilometre loop, with most of them hidden behind the visitor centre/woolshed marker. The blue one on the east should also be visible, but it may be small to see. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not yet. I have made these edits so far, and I'm not even through "Understand" yet. Please check my edits to see if I introduced anything factually incorrect or stylistically improvable, but star articles have to have absolutely impeccable grammar and style, and the following question in hidden text has yet to be addressed: "What does "they" refer to- emus and roos?" Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing redundancies like this: 'It's also possible to join the "Willandra Lakes guided tour" as well.' "As well" and "also" are synonymous. I also saw "there's" used for a plural subject. That may be common in Australia, but to this reader, it's not standard English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that. I'll fix them just in a moment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed 90% of those in the article. I might've missed one or two, so please let me know if I have missed any. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your copyedits :-). Nothing factually incorrect. I've just clarified the wildlife and the climate section so hope it's more clearer. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First thing I noticed is that the map has several colour codes for features that do not appear to be shown on the map. On closer examination I found them hidden under the numbered markers. Do we usually just expect readers to know this?
  • Second thing ts that there is no immediately obvious graphical indication of where the park is relative to the rest of Australia. By zooming out a lot on the dynamic map the information can be found. Do the readers just know to do this? I would suggest a small static outline map of Australia with a dot to indicate the location of the park, possibly in the intro section.
  • Where does one get more information on Mungo man, Mungo lady, the local indigenes?
  • It's different during a total fire ban, but while you may be as far away from the greenery on the east coast, you haven't escaped fire. - what does this mean? Cheers,• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback Peter :-). Well appreciated. I'll implement them. However, regarding "static outline map of Australia", I don't know how to make static maps, but I'll try and add more in the #Get in section. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And if you do have special dietary requirements, don't be too surprised to pay twice more than usual." Does this mean twice the usual price or three times the usual price or just a lot more than the usual price? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a lot more than the usual price in the capital cities. I'll clarify that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it is three months and three hours since I nominated this article for star, any last final objections before I upgrade it within the next twelve hours? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support unless I look through the entire article with a fine-toothed comb. The writing style has to be completely free of grammatical, spelling, syntax and punctuation issues and just generally impeccable. So consider that an objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a very quick look, I found a long run-on sentence and several other things I corrected. No, not yet. I haven't made editing this article a priority, but that doesn't make it thereby a star article by default or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can also clearly see that Peter Southwood had objections above. You can't unilaterally declare a 12-hour deadline while ignoring the comments that didn't support the nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already fixed those issues except the static map thing (which I can do by just downloading a freely licensed map from OSM). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has not passed judgment on whether you have and I voted "not yet" above, noting that I hadn't read past "Understand" or whatever and had already found a bunch of problems. And an article can't be a star because you promise to do something afterwards. Not yet, and that vote stands forever unless I change it. Star status is supposed to be extremely difficult to achieve. It's not owed to articles that are good and unpolished. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but per policy, "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. In this case, it is well over two months since the nomination. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe it has to be slushed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not pinged so did not notice there were changes. Will check now. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will edit this article with a fine-toothed comb if I feel motivated to do so; it's only fair for me to say that I don't feel under any obligation to do so, and I hope that doesn't come off as unfriendly. As long as any article isn't impeccable in writing mechanics and style, it isn't a star article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and there's no rush. The article isn't going anywhere, and so are we. The sole reason why I made that list is because the "what to do" is now all over the place (but that's what happens when you get long discussions). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What IK means is that he might not do that at all, and unless somebody does, this won't be a star article. Saying "Perfect spelling and grammar {{done}}" and "Prose near-perfect, and tight, effective, and enjoyable. {{done}}" at nomination was obviously a mistake. Those "dones" should be removed, and reinserted only when somebody who feels qualified to judge has done the thorough check, or we get consensus on it, when several people have done the check without feeling like making the judgement on their own. –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of anything that'll significantly improve this article. Maybe a few copyedits, but apart from that, I believe it's complete. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also deliberately left out chains such as Domino's, Chatime, Zambrero or 85C per Wikivoyage:Boring, if anyone's wondering. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, a star article also has to be impeccable in writing style. It's very hard to get to star status. Here's the first paragraph:
"Acton is a small affluent suburb west of Civic and is Canberra's university district, with the Australian National University taking up most of Acton. Right next to the ANU is the Australian National Botanic Gardens containing one of the most diverse ranges of Australian flora, and places that can make you feel you're in the middle of either the Wet Tropics of Queensland or the Tasmanian Wilderness albeit it just two kilometres from the city!"
I'd never call that bad or unacceptable or anything like that, but I don't find it impeccable. This might not be impeccable, either, but it's my attempt at an edit:
Acton is a small, affluent suburb west of Civic. It is known as Canberra's university district, since the Australian National University comprises most of its area. The Australian National Botanic Gardens, right next to the ANU, contain such a diversity of Australian flora that you will feel like you're in the middle of the Wet Tropics of Queensland or the Tasmanian Wilderness, even though you are just two kilometres from the city!
I feel like I could go through the whole article and edit it with a fine-toothed comb. Anyway, I think it is not yet at star level, and that's no insult whatsoever. I will probably find time to look through more of it some time in the next couple of weeks (no promises, though). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, thanks for the feedback. I'm aware that star articles need to be perfect, and that's why we even have the vigorous process ;-). A lot of the content in the article is content that's been moved from Canberra so I might've dismissed it while proofreading it, though I did a proofread through the content. But thanks for the copyedits though.
On another note, I'm just wondering whether you find the bus line that's marked on the dynamic map distracting? I've been commenting out transport lines on district articles recently (as you probably noticed my edit on Manhattan/Financial District), but I sort of wanted the bus line marked, so I traced the bus route myself so the grey dots don't appear. Do you find that line distracting, or would you say that line can stay? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many bus lines are shown, and in what color(s)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just the one bus line that's coloured in red (in ca0707). If you click on the bus line it should display "ACTION bus route 53". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the thumbnail in the article, that looks to be outside of the district. The thinner blue and green lines looked more likely to be bus routes to me. I see the bus line much more distinctly when I blow the map up to a full page. Are the other colored lines in the district all footpaths? It looks like they are, and I have to zoom in further to see that. Clicking the bus line isn't producing the route name or number, which I don't seem to see regardless of the degree of magnification. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A view of ACTION bus line 53 on SHB2000's screen on June 27, 2022, 09:35 (UTC+10)
That's strange. When I click the bus line, what you see on the right is what appears on my screen. As for the other thinner tracks, they are bushwalking trails inside the Black Mountain Nature Reserve. It's not a full list though; only the trails that were available on OSM were included. I did find various maps of other trails, but I'm not sure whether they're freely licensed and are compatible with Wikivoyage:Copyleft so I've deliberately omitted them just to be on the safe side. I'll clarify in the article what those other colored lines mean. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just another remark by me (the nominator), but I do hope that this article sets a good precedent on how university articles should look like so we never have a University College Dublin situation again. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Revisiting this – what does this article need (apart from copyedits) that's preventing it from being slapped on with the star? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't know what's preventing this from becoming a star article – it's essentially complete, as far as I can tell. The article will need a few major updates when stage 2A of Canberra's LRT opens, but that's about it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also haven't finished adding {{time}} throughout the article, but I'm in the process of doing that right now. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've finished most of what I wanted to do, but it's worth noting that I have specifically chosen not to truncate Centre and Square to Ctr and Sq – the top of the page requires such to be abbreviated, but I've rarely seen Centre abbreviated to Ctr (this is the only place I've seen it abbreviated IRL). If the consensus is to abbreviate both, I'll happily do so, but until I receive a reply, I'll leave it as is. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right, Pashley (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I just started looking at the article. The first sentence is a little awkward to me: "Officially known as Canberra's city, Civic is what is now Walter Burley Griffin's design for a Civic Centre." Was Civic ever something else? Could you rephrase this sentence more clearly and elegantly? And then the second sentence is also awkwardly phrased: "Established in 1927, it's one of the oldest centres of Canberra and is the capital's central business district, surrounded by North Canberra and Acton." How about using what I'd consider a more standard word order? "Established in 1927, this is Canberra's central business district and one of its oldest centres." I'm not sure that's elegant enough, either, but I do think you could leave the remark about which neighborhoods surround it for later (maybe the end of the lede). Let's tackle this, next:
There isn't one agreed way to name this district, but Wikivoyage has chosen to go with "Civic" for simplicity. Other names for Civic include the city, Canberra CBD, or Canberra City Centre. What you see on signage may also be confusing, as whoever designed them couldn't pick a name for consistency.
How about:
This district is also called Canberra CBD and Canberra City Centre; signs are inconsistent.
"Understand" starts with "Civic was established in 1927, 14 years after Canberra was." How about "Civic was established in 1927, 14 years after the city was founded"?
I don't feel up to going through the entire article with a fine-toothed comb, but I will just point out that star-level articles don't get that way purely due to content but must have exemplary writing style - elegant, vivid, beautiful and not merely a little rough but practical. It's no shame to be primarily responsible for the creation of a good guide-level article, but this is not a star-level article and will not become one unless it is edited to have exemplary writing style. Look at the way Chicago guides are written for some examples of beautiful writing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, Ikan Kekek. As you may know, travel writing isn't exactly my forte, but I've implemented most of your feedback with a few tweaks. The only major bit that I left was "There isn't one agreed way to name this district, but Wikivoyage has chosen to go with "Civic" for simplicity. Other names for Civic include the city, Canberra CBD, or Canberra City Centre. What you see on signage may also be confusing, as whoever designed them couldn't pick a name for consistency.", purely because I wrote it wordy to add a bit of lighthearted humour, though I'm not sure if I'm the only one who sees it that way (as a side note: I sort of took the Copenhagen districts as a source of inspiration, which is perhaps also why I didn't think twice). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited most of the history section – what do you think of it now? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Now done with the Orientation section – this section is much less important, but what are your opinions on this? If this works out, I'll apply a similar level of writing style to the rest of the article, while trying to keep it as concise and less of a yellow pages fluff book (a la Buffalo) as possible. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible improvement that I've had in mind is to split the "Eat" listings based on location (as defined in "Outline") in addition to price. The only peeve with this is that most listings will end up falling into the "City Centre" or "City West" category. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I dumped a bunch of markers indicating every single carpark in Civic. It will need some minor tweaks which I'll do in the next few days. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this region article is ready for Star status, since it meets all of the requirements that the Wikivoyage: Region article status guidelines give except for a map depicting various routes throughout the region (which probably are not necessary in this case). The one thing I would note that differs from the set manual of style on this page is the listing for Historic Sites in the 'See' section: The countries are listed in reverse alphabetical order. When you rank the countries from most historic sites (Silk Road, etc.) to least, it lines up almost-perfectly with the Z to A listing of the Central Asian countries (the exception is Afghanistan, which has many sites, but due to the current situation there, very few people are likely to visit it so I feel it can go at the bottom of the list). I'm also not sure what all else needs to be done for region articles to make them Star status - most of the linked articles are Usable or better. I'm also happy to help edit things to make it a Star. Tuyuhun (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia doesn't meet the requirement to have all linked destinations and subregions be guide status or better. Mind you, neither does Bali, despite its star status, but the majority of its destinations are guide status. Even if there's a bit of leeway on that requirement, very few of Central Asia's destinations are above usable status. Feed Me Your Skin (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining status

[edit]

Tasks and checks:

Article needing attention or maybe de-star nomination candidates.

  • As I pointed out, the map is better than a Wikivoyage-style map, so that's not a good reason to revoke star status at all. I also suggested that if it's really important to do so, the list of campsites could be subdivided by region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations to remove Star status

[edit]

Number of articles currently in review: 1

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".

This has the same issues with Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom except with fewer coordinates. Too much for a single person to do. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added about 20 coordinates but given the number of listings in this article, adding all coordinates will take a while. It should be clarified that coordinate markers do not match the numbers on the static map. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding them :-) I might speedy slush these once you and @Tai123.123 have finished adding coords. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be alot of chains listed in "Buy" that may violate Wikivoyage:Boring, an example of this is Levi's. Tai123.123 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Levi's is definitely a boring place. I'd say remove those. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tai123.123: I slushed the other one, and here's what I think are boring:
  • Lacoste
  • Levi's (as what you mentioned above)
  • Orlando Harley-Davidson
  • Superdry
  • Under Armour Brand House – tho the description makes me feel a this and that to be fair
  • Uniqlo (the Japanese clothing store is everywhere now)
  • Zara
  • Starbucks
However, I'm not going to remove any of these except Levi's because I'd want to get an opinion of one of our Americans first. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Uniqlo, Starbucks, Zara and Under Armour are boring as we have those in Canada, not sure about the others Tai123.123 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are worldwide chains (we have them here too), so definitely not worth mentioning. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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;
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Star_nominations&oldid=4942118"