Wikivoyage:Star nominations

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Archiving checklist[edit]

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

Nominations for Star status[edit]

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


The last nomination was slushed due to the map. Now Saqib made a new static map from scratch. I asked User:LtPowers if he is fine with the static map and got a positive response. In about three weeks the first crosswiki presentation starts and imho a star article would be a nice touch to it. Joachim helped with the map, User:Jjtkk had initially the first support and User:Danapit was so kind to help out as well. Any feedback is welcome. I will try to expand some parts but the season just started, so new businesses will show up in the next weeks. jan (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nitpick: In my opinion, if you think this guide is substantially complete to the extent that it deserves Star status, I will certainly respect that and defer to you, and it's surely a beautiful guide. The one nitpick I have at the moment (not having read through the current version of the article in detail) is that the last photo goes past the end of the text (at least on my screen). It's not drastic at all, but it doesn't seem like an absolutely optimal practice. Ideally, a photo of a train station probably should be in the "Get in" section, but that would displace the map. But I don't think that's essential, and the solution is just to move it somewhere where it's not in the way of anything but also doesn't go past the end of the text. It could be as simple as putting it in the "Connect" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek, good spot. Corrected, guess my perspective concerning the train station is leaving rather than arriving. Concerning completeness: I listed all businesses who come to my mind and are well establish (Travemünde tourism only lists one more business than i did). I know Drink is short but that is due to the seasonality of the town. There are some other waterholes but they are seedy (lets say you need a certain level of alcohol to find that places funny) and for serious nightlife you have to go to Lübeck. Travemünde is a rather calm place, where people stay in their apartments, hotels etc. and might go dancing in the Maritim or Columbia hotel later on. jan (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning some of this at the beginning of the "Drink" section. Thanks for moving the photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Nooooo, the photo has to be in Go next cause it shows this huge departure clock to Lübeck. Also someone broke the rhythm of check/Lübeck verse ;) Jjtkk (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Sorry Jan but I'm not satisfied with current state of article. I would like to see the lead section and well a few other sections a little bit more expanded. (i) How much a train ticket cost to get into Travemünde from Lübeck and on weekends, many more trains arrive from where and how much they charge? It would be helpful to have same information available for by bus and by ferry. (ii) Are they anyway other to get around the town such as taxis, local train et cetra? (iii) Beach is towns main attraction and I would like to see the listing expanded as much as possible. --Saqib (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, travelling by train in Germany is a sophiscated topic. The Germany articles tries to explain it but the mixture of network vs. regional vs. DB tickets leaves even Germans lost sometimes.
  1. Price: Same for bus and train if you travel point-to-point from Lübeck (network ticket three zones = 3 Euros). I can add that easily
  2. Extra trains: Trains are operated by DB and regional transport, on special occasions e.g. Travemünder Woche there will be a special schedule This is a complex and can only be explained very general or you will need a mathematical model
  3. Get around: The core area of Travemünde is pedestrian only (bikes are allowed as well) e.g. Vorderreihe and the Promenade. German towns/cities pride themselves to keep cars out of the city center. Theoretically you can use a taxi and there is a local bus that run some streets every two hours but in real life people either walk or use their bike. Also keep in mind that Travemünde is compact (with the exception of the harbour but there you will end up on the ferry). To give you a better understanding: The big street between harbour & town is blocked on purpose to not allow cars to go directly to the town.
  4. Expansion: Keep in mind that all major infrastructure (airport, central train station), public buildings (town house, hospitals etc.) or nightlife (clubs) are in Lübeck. This is only a very small town which happens to have a center you can circle in 30-45 mins depending on your walking speed. I don't hide places, i can add supermarkets, bakeries and a newspaper station but it remains a small place. jan (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition, though I can't address this specific case, my experience is that, forgetting about various kinds of discounts, the price of a train ticket depends on how long before your date of travel you buy your ticket. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Saqib no worries, i prefer straight and hard talk. Your second opinion is valuable and i think it needs to be clearer for other people. As Ikan says, too rail travel in Germany sometimes requires analytical skills;) Too many dimensions. Germans are aware of that but the traps for travellers are hardly avoidable. I will try to improve but see Travemünde in essence like a district of Lübeck which is out of town. jan (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet; the map you showed me is not actually in the article. Powers (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Powers, you raise an interesting point which is due to the dynamic maps. The map i linked on your page is their {{Mapframe|53.9603|10.8735|zoom=15|width=500|height=500|staticmap=Travemünde travel map.png}} The link to the mentioned static map is below the dynamic Other maps for Travemünde: Full-screen version - printable static map. (Edit GPX). Do i understand your point correct, you would prefer to have the static map as default and the dynamic in the back? Or shall both be presented? jan (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well if I didn't notice it I don't think we can expect the average reader to. And certainly, one of the points of having handcrafted, static maps is to facilitate printing of the article; that's mooted if the map isn't actually displayed in the article proper. I believe the hand-crafted map, if it's well made, should be sufficient but if you still wanted the dynamic map for some reason, it seems reasonable that they could both be in the article. Powers (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Powers i will change according to your suggestion as this seems to be the star standard. I assume this will be a topic for any nomination (dynamic is pretty widespread already). Is there any other topic? Regards, jan (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, now that I take a closer look I have very strong concerns about the prose. There is very little of it. The lead section is bare-bones; the Understand section is dry and encyclopedic; and the See, Do, and Buy sections have no introductions. The Wikivoyage:Tone throughout is very dry and perfunctory; there is none of the sparkling prose that we usually expect as examples of our best work. Powers (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Same concerns here. --Saqib (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Also, our star standards ask that listings be in alphabetical order (geographic order is also acceptable, but I don't see any strong case here for that). Powers (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (again): ready to become a star. Danapit (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the Old Town should be marked on the map, not with a pinpoint but with perhaps a certain color to show the road(s) and extent of the Old Town. This is one of the strengths of the static map, after all. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Bump; discussion seems to have died out several years ago. Is it now ready to go?
In a quick peruse, the only problem I see is a few dead links. Pashley (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side[edit]

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

Looks good to me, but I'm afraid I'm not going to give my judgement on this as I'm not native. However, I'll take care of Wikivoyage styled map. Will do it once this nominate garnish support votes. --Saqib (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Good work. It is a very detailed article, possibly even too detailed. It is missing a geo template to give a link to a full page map at the top of the article (and to appear on maps of articles). I think that there needs to be a paragraph near the start giving an overview of the itinerary. I had to read quite a bit to find that this was a tour by car, not on foot. I would also make it clear that this is mainly (or only) a tour of the exterior of churches - I had expected to be able to go inside all eighteen churches. A quick look at the area bus map suggests that a section of the route could be done by bus, and this maybe could be looked into. AlasdairW (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Bump; discussion seems to have died out several years ago. Is it now ready to go? Looks it to me. Pashley (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Since we're no longer requiring static maps for star status, should this article be reconsidered? This article now has a much better chance of reaching star status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Maybe I'm biased (who are we kidding here? Of course I'm biased), but if there's anything keeping us from elevating this article to Star status, I can't imagine what it might be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. This is really an excellent set of guides. All of the district pages are marvelously detailed (seriously, the descriptions here might give the Chicago pages — my traditional gold standard for Wikivoyage guides — a run for their money!). It's clear that a lot of hard work and enthusiasm went into the creation of these guides, and it seems only right to bestow a star upon it. If you haven't already, I would recommend going through the district pages and making sure the content in there is up-to-date (admission prices haven't been raised, restaurants haven't closed, etc.). There are a couple of minor things I would like to see addressed before the main Buffalo page becomes a star, but neither of them are serious hurdles:
  • I would like to see district names on the district map. The current color-coding is fine, but a little extra reinforcement wouldn't hurt. Plus, it would help those who are colorblind.
  • The opening paragraph of the Understand section is uncharacteristically dull for this guide. Not that there isn't a place for some of these facts in this guide, although I think we can do without the long list of awards — I don't think what the New York Times had to say about Buffalo six years ago is that noteworthy, nor is an award bestowed literally almost twenty years ago now.
Other than that, nothing comes to mind. Fine work! PerryPlanet (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A few small items that might be worth addressing:
  • In the Buffalo#Architecture section, the "Buffalo Architecture and History" link, while valuable, seems like a violation of WV:XL.
  • While the "See" section notes that more information can be found in the district articles, there isn't any indication what district each museum can be found in ("Located in the XYZ district, the ABC & DEF museums...").
  • Given the article's length, a few more pictures or some infoboxes might be helpful. There are several sections where you can scroll through 2-3 screens and see nothing but text.
  • There should probably be an "Itineraries" section to specifically call out articles like Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side - while that article is linked in two other places I think it would be best to also have a separate section like we do with Chicago#See.
Nice work! -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Responding to some of the points brought up thus far:
  • District names on the map - it might be difficult to find a place for the labels in the case of Allentown and the Delaware District and the Elmwood Village: districts with long names that, on the map, are taller than they are wide and not adjacent to any water or gray space. It's a good idea in theory, though, so if anyone can manage the logistics of it that'd be great.
  • "Buffalo Architecture and History" website as violation of wv:xl - I think this might very well be a case of "the exception that proves the rule". This website is undeniably a greatly valuable resource for architecture buffs, which make up one of the largest niche tourist markets for Buffalo. Yet there's far more information on that website than could ever conceivably be summarized in the Buffalo article, any of the district articles, or even a hypothetical Architecture in Buffalo travel topic.
  • Dull lede in the Understand section, clarifying to which district articles the name-checked attractions in the See section belong, and an Itineraries section - points are well taken; I'll get to work on those ASAP. (I especially like the latter idea, given that I have brainstorms for about a half-dozen more Buffalo-related itinerary articles.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
With the district names, you could try shortening them (such as just Allentown or Allentown/Delaware). I also think the map would benefit from such additions. James Atalk 02:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - While useful suggestions have been made, I'm not sure anyone would have complained if you had upgraded this one unilaterally ;-) The quality is obvious, and it has been clear to me for a long time that you are the most eloquent writer on this site. I would welcome more images, too. The sheer amount of words is somewhat... overwhelming, especially on mobile. Without wanting to suggest deletions, and with a lot of admiration for the work, I will say in general that this is a little overcomplete for my taste. At least, for a travel guide; I imagine it is the perfect expat guide. I'm only saying this because I find it important that this kind of guide does not become the new benchmark for great articles. It holds literally dozens of places of worship and dozens of laundry services. It list a bunch of colleges and schools, with information about their history and such, but without information about the relevance for travelers (e.g. summer courses, short language courses). There are many eat listings, most with rather lengthy descriptions; it's hard to scan the articles for the best places to eat without spending some serious time reading. About safety, the Buffalo-article states that "Follow general precautions that would apply in any urban area (..) and you should be fine pretty much anywhere." And that's indeed the main message I get from reading the stay safe sections in all the districts - so they could be much more compact, or in some cases even be left out, for me. Again, I'll gladly admit that some of this is a matter of taste. As for wv:xl; unfortunately, value has never been the determining force in our linking policy. I have no objections to the link (and many others), but technically, there's no reason a valuable site for architecture buffs is any different from links that hugely benefit history buffs, shoppers or who-ever. The only thing that puzzles me, is why Eat, Sleep, Buy and worship listings all get such extensive descriptions, while Drink-listings get nothing but an address and a phone number? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's not conflate the Buffalo article with the district articles. I'll be the first to admit that the district articles are not perfect and are probably overly wordy, but they contain all the information a Guide-level article needs, and if we decide that promoting a Huge City to Star means holding its district articles to the same standard, we'd have to demote most if not all of our Huge City Stars.
The reason I feel that Buffalo Architecture and History should be an exception to the usual wv:xl procedure is that, inasmuch as Buffalo has a great deal to offer visitors in any given specialized niche, it's architecture. While we obviously have shopping districts, Buffalo wouldn't be the first destination on anyone's mind who's travelling for the explicit purpose of shopping; while there are obviously historical sites in Buffalo, they're not prominent enough on a national or international level to draw huge numbers of people from outside the region on their own merits. On the other hand, the list of reasons why Buffalo is an unusually important city for its size in the domain of architecture is long enough that architecture buffs make up a significant proportion of tourists here, so IMO it seems fine to offer a little more in the way of detailed information for that particular group.
As for your questions about the Drink sections, the short answer is I'm not a drinker myself and don't have much use for nightlife. I can give enough general information about the bar scene in any given area of Buffalo to fill out the introductory blurbs at the beginning of each district article's "Drink" section, but I think it's better to leave descriptions of the individual listings to someone with more expertise than myself.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course - and as I stated, I fully support the upgrade even without any changes. I just feel that districts are at the heart of any guide, and this is the most obvious place to comment on the general approach of the package of articles (individual district nominations will stand alone even more). As for the link, I should perhaps have said history buffs or shoppers in other destinations. Looking at the link however, I too find it very useful and I'm happy to support allowing this one per consensus, even if it's not in line with policy. It's weird anyway that suggested reading in terms of books or movies to watch is fine, but websites are by definition unwanted. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not that they're unwanted, per se; it's a slippery slope, though. It's much easier to ban them all than to be able to define which ones are acceptable and which ones aren't. Oddly enough, I think we might allow bare URLs to valuable online resources on par with books in information value, so long as they weren't linked -- but that would be just silly from a usability perspective.
  • Not Yet.
    1. While I share Julias' concerns about length, I think most of this article (as opposed to the districts) is fine. Some of the Eat listings go on a bit. (The name-dropping in the Charlie the Butcher's entry is particularly egregious.) There's a tricky balance to strike in travel writing between explaining what makes something worth experiencing and providing an overwhelming amount of background information. I fear this article is just a bit on the high side. Some of the more tangential (but interesting) tidbits could be moved into infoboxes.
    2. I also agree that the external link is disallowed by policy and shouldn't be in a star article. I would welcome proposals that would allow highly valuable links such as this while keeping out the rabble, without greatly adding to editors' workload. (The links to buffaBLOG and the Guide to Buffalo English seem to have the same problem.)
    3. The Drink section, by contrast to Eat, is crazy short. Are there no chain bars or coffee shops of note? No individual shops worthy of calling out as destinations? And while I know it's a well-known chain in Canada, seems like Tim Horton's would merit at least a mention given its proliferation in the region. =)
    4. A few formatting issues: the titles of television series should be italicized, not quoted. Template:SeeDistricts should be used below each section header rather than the custom text in bold.
    5. The lede section is pretty short considering the length of the rest of the article. I would like to see some of the city's biggest highlights called out here. The same goes for the district listings.
    6. I totally understand the impetus behind putting the suburb listings in the Districts section, but I really think they belong in Go Next.
    7. Speaking of Go Next, I believe by policy these are supposed to be one-liner listings.
    That's it for now. It's really close, but I don't feel comfortable holding this up as a star just yet. -- Powers (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Where are we with this one? I has been several years since there was any comment here. To me it looks like there are some unresolved issues in the comments above.

For the question about linking to the Architecture & History website, I'd say that is fine. See Talk:Shanghai#Policy_question_for_listing for two somewhat similar cases. Pashley (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. It's been almost two years since I chimed in here, and since then my thinking has changed a bit on a lot of the sticking points, most notably when it comes to external links. I think the link to buffaBLOG can definitely be jettisoned, as it's not nearly as popular a source of local music news as it was when I first included it, and The Guide to Buffalo English is outdated to the point of near-uselessness. Buffalo Architecture & History will still hurt a little bit to excise, but after the current phase of my work on Buffalo winds down (shortening blurbs in the district articles and reorganizing the district hierarchy), I intend to shift focus to itinerary articles of walking tours for architecture buffs (I already mocked up a first draft of one), which will cover more or less the same ground as BuffaloAH. I also would have no problem shortening the blurbs in the "Eat" section (indeed, I'm already hard at work on that task in the district articles) and adding length to "Drink". I feel like I do have to continue to push back about listing the suburbs under the "Districts" section (having them in "Go next" would be problematic since none of those places can really hold a candle to what's already in that section in terms of visitor interest, yet they obviously deserve to be linked from the Buffalo article in some form or fashion), and the length of the blurbs in "Go next" (they can be shortened a bit, I guess, but reducing each to one line would make the section near-useless). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Quy Nhon[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 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

South Boston[edit]

Hello! I have been chipping away at this for awhile, and it feels like I've gotten it to a much better place. I don't know if it's star stuff just yet, I doubt the writing is up to par mainly. (It's kind of why I started contributing, to work on my written communications skills. But then all the other cool things you can to play with here keep distracting me!) Also, not sure about the whole map situation. Is it cool to have only a dynamic map in a star article? Any feedback or pointers (especially on writing) would be very welcome. I'd love to incorporate the feedback as I keep chipping away at these Boston articles. It looks like most haven't been updated in 10 years!

  • Is the writing any good? (tips to improve?)
  • Are dynamic maps cool, or do we need flat ones for stars?
  • Can you star a bare-ass district, or should we wait until all Boston pages are up to snuff?

Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Answering your questions in order:
  1. Copy-editing a Star nominee is a fine-toothed comb kind of thing, so based on my admittedly less-than-thorough reading of the article just now I can't give you a definite answer of whether it will need to be edited more. I can say that there aren't any major glaring problems that jump out at me. The tone seems right: informal, informative without being too encyclopedic, no misspellings or grammatical mistakes that I could find.
  2. We currently don't have any Star articles with dynamic maps, and whether a static map is a requirement of Star status has been a matter of dispute pretty much since we first introduced dynamic maps. It's been a while since the issue has come up (as you can see, Starnom is a lonely place these days), but IIRC a slight majority of our users are in favor of allowing dynamic maps on Star articles, at least in some cases. But the anti-dynamic map minority is large and vocal enough that it really can't be called a consensus per se. I wish I had a better answer for you, but that's the scenario.
  3. Finally: yes, it absolutely is possible to Star-ify a district article for a city where not all districts are up to snuff.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the response Andre! For me personally, building static district level maps isn't an interesting problem to solve. Plus it would be odd to have a static and dynamic map of the same content, no? On the other hand, if a printable guide is the primary goal, a flat map seems necessary? Anyways, I'm sure I'm rehashing old arguments at this point, I'm fine leaving this as a guide until map-consensus is reached. I would still be interested in any feedback on how to improve the writing, still think that's the real weak point. Thank you all! --ButteBag (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
In addition to printability, static maps have a huge advantage in readability and customization. It's difficult to suggest that an article with only a dynamic map represents our best work, same as if we had an article with auto-generated text. Powers (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
While I don't want to derail a star nomination to re-litigate the dynamic vs. static map debate, it should be noted that there are a number of editors here who hold the opposite opinion regarding whether a dynamic map is "our best work" - I'm obviously one of them, and would consider removing a dynamic map and replacing it with a static map to be something that would significantly weaken an article and overall make it a far less useful tool for travelers. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha, thank you for the feedback! But "dynamic map" === "auto-generated text" is a little bit of a Straw Man for me. Is there another thread where this map discussion is taking place? Happy to post there. Anyway, I'd still love some feedback on how to improve my poor writing abilities if anyone has the time. Thank you in advance! --ButteBag (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think your writing is anywhere near as terrible as you think it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@ButteBag: The subject of dynamic vs. static maps is a hotbutton topic that hasn't been re-opened in a long time, but for some of the original (& heated) discussion you can review Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition#Missing images and missing maps, which is probably the most exhaustive debate on the subject of dynamic maps - you'll also find other threads on that talk page that are relevant. You can also review Wikivoyage:Star nominations/Slush pile, in particular Wikivoyage:Star nominations/Slush pile#El Camino Real, for discussions of whether an article with a dynamic map can be a star article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, and pointers to previous discussions. Looks like I really kicked the hornets nest on this one! --ButteBag (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I should apologize for lumping all dynamic maps together. My complaint is not with dynamic maps per se, just that the current implementation leaves a lot to be desired aesthetically. If a dynamic map can be devised that resolves issues of overlapping labels, excessive detail, crowding, and such, then I'd be happy to support a star nomination for its article. But no one has yet shown me such a map. Powers (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I put my map-thoughts here. I've also added a few missing blurbs to the South Boston article, and some other boat information I just remembered. I think it's pretty complete now, please let me know if there is anything I can improve. Thanks again, everyone! --ButteBag (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


Curious as to why this isn't a star? Seems complete, has a static map, good writing that conforms perfectly to the MoS, and a few nice and well placed images. After reading this I feel that; not only do I not need to consult another guide, I'd really have no reason to want to. Is there anything about this article that could be improved? --ButteBag (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I know it has in the past been considered doubtful whether the argument should "count" but have a look at Copyscape which tells us something like 56% of the WV article has not been touched since the migration. It may be that some prose is indeed so perfect it shouldn't be touched, but I fear some of this untouched stuff may have become outdated over the last half decade. At any rate, promoting it to "star" would likely set those wordings even more in stone than already, which might hurt our SEO attempts. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the SEO argument but honestly, the reason we migrated the way we did was so that we wouldn't have to re-write everything. I'm not going to claim my prose is perfect but it's very hard to re-write one's own text and feel the second attempt is as good as the first. Powers (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
And also, while I find the SEO issues in general very important, an individual article is not going to make the difference. Considering the fact that star nominations can be counted on one hand, I suppose SEO shouldn't be a major concern here and 56% is actually not all that bad, compared to our average articles. That said, I'm not sure how to feel about this kind of article for star. In itself, it's perfectly complete - so it's not that. Star rating suggests it's the best we have to offer. That's true, to the extent that you simply can't write much more about a place like this, but I'm not sure how it would come across on the average passer-by. Making tiny places super-complete is much simpler and less work than doing the same for a huge city, so I do think we'd have to make sure that this remains somewhat of an exception. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Look, I've been trying to avoid coming to this conclusion for a long time because Hobbitschuster is a valuable contributor in most ways. But it's no longer possible to avoid noting the similarities between the SEO agenda-pushing that he's been engaging in for the past few months and Frank's agenda-pushing vis-à-vis section headers et al. some time ago. Other editors have been trying for some time to impress upon HS the need to let it go, but apparently those entreaties have fallen on ears that are equally as deaf as Frank's were when we tried to reason with him. So let me try one more time: HS, your ideas about making Star certification, DotM readiness, etc. contingent on WT/WV Copyscape comparisons have been duly heard out by the community, but unfortunately it's become obvious that you're not going to get a consensus behind them. It's imperative that you realize it's time to stop trying to force the issue. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
You do realise we forked in 2012 and it's now 2017? If the majority of text in an article has not been updated in roughly five years that is very much something we'd want to know. For an article to represent our best work, it needs to be current and up-to-date. K7L (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
That could easily be because descriptions of old buildings don't need updating beyond changes in prices. However, I have a specific substantive issue with the article, though only one that's easily resolvable. From the "Eat" listings for the Tillman Inn: The smaller main dining room is in the carriage shed that was built after the War to connect the two businesses. "The War" usually means WWII, but in this context, it would seem to indicate the Civil War. The ambiguity should be ended by simply specifying which war is being referred to.
Another thing, unless I've somehow read it without registering, is that when and how the hamlet was renamed "Childs" should be recounted in "Understand"; I can't remember seeing that information anywhere.
But once those two things are taken care of, I would support starring this article, with the caveat that it's appeared in previous star nominations that my judgment in these matters is not necessarily to be relied upon, as there are various things I might miss that others see. I'm having trouble seeing what else could be added to this article, though, other than perhaps what kind of fish are most plentiful in the creek, if it's fished in Childs, and whether that one store sells fishing equipment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The previous sentence refers to the "Civil War"; it seemed redundant to repeat the name in such quick succession. Would the antecedent be clearer if "War" was lowercased? ... I'm not sure anyone fishes in Proctor Creek; the convenience store is typical of any suburban or urban store of the type, not the rural fishing-town general store one might envision. ... I don't actually know when or why the hamlet was renamed. Powers (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a good article, but there are a few small points that might be looked at. "Get in" assumes that you are in a car; I think that it should give some indication of public transport (bus to Albion then taxi / walk?) and maybe cycling options too. There are no lat/longs on the listings (maybe not important as there is a good static map). I am not sure that the content of "Connect" is standard - should it not be about wifi, phone coverage etc? AlasdairW (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Connect" is about any form of communication, including snail mail. However, some remarks on cell phone signal strength would be relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a silly comment, but I am not really fan of small random towns being rated as star quality articles. I want to see cities, and areas of interest such as Mohenjo-daro as star article. --Saqib (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Why not? Are you perhaps mistaking the star rating as a reflection on the destination rather than on the quality of the article itself? Powers (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to say that I want to see detailed and comprehensive guide as star rated articles. Guides on small hamlets and towns which don't have any major attraction or distinction rarely become so detailed. I just feel that guides of small towns may get more easily star rated articles because they don't require much work in the sense they don't have much to offer. I hope you get my Pakistani Engish? --Saqib (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Powers, I think the clearest way to indicate which war is being referred to in that context would be to use the phrase "that war". I kind of think that we might hold off on starring the article until a bit of background on when and why the hamlet's name was changed to Childs could be included, simply because all the other information leaves that implicit question hanging. I suppose it might not be too hard to find that out, if someone wants to contact a historical society or library in the area, or perhaps the local museum or government, but it seems like a nice thing to include in the article. The stuff about fishing was just a brainstorm on my part and nothing I consider important to include, especially if it's not relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have stated before, and I continue to state, my utter opposition to the idea of any article being considered permanently ineligible for Star status, or any double standard between small and large destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Origin of name[edit]

Ikan, Powers - here's what I could come up with.

w:Childs, New York and w:Gaines, New York claim that the hamlet was named after Judge Henry Childs. The Genealogical and Family History of Western New York, Vol. 2 further confirms the existence of an Hon. Henry A. Childs, who was born in Orleans County, educated in the Gaines District Schoolhouse (one of the buildings that today make up the Cobblestone Museum complex), and ended up a State Supreme Court justice.

Additionally, the Historic Map Works website has several old Orleans County maps in its archives, and going by those it appears that the change in name of the hamlet from Fair Haven to Childs happened some time between 1890 and 1913. This would have been contemporaneous with his term on the Supreme Court bench.

Interestingly, however, the aforementioned Genealogical and Family History was published in 1912 yet makes no mention in its lengthy biographical sketch of Judge Childs that his hometown was renamed in his honor.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it! If that's all we've got, I think we should run with it. Perhaps some librarian or local or regional historical society might be able to eliminate the ambiguity, but this is alright for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
So, now that this information has been incorporated into the article, and taking advantage of the renewed interest in Starnom effected by SelfieCity: where do we stand with this nominee? Ikan? Powers? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I renewed the interest here, actually, but I'm willing to the take the credit. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let's put it this way: since the last remaining problem that anyone specifically had with this article (i.e. the information regarding when the hamlet's name was changed) has now been addressed, does anyone not think we should go ahead with elevating Childs to Star status? Pinging Ikan and Powers one last time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to look at the article again lately but don't see why I would have a problem with starring it, as you said. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good overall, but have a little question on the Fair Haven Inn. It says it was "The Tillman family opened it several years ago in an 1837 Greek Revival house." We usually don't use relative units of time as they become outdated, and trevellers don't know if it was written last week or in 2006. The Inn's website says it was "established 1824" without any more context, so even before we say the house was built. Anyone know more about when this inn was bilt, (re) opened, etc.? JakeOregon (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I'm going to wait a little bit before acting because I'd really like for others to chime in here, but if not, I see no reason to hold this up. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Have a look at this edit. If there is anything the slightest bit incomplete or not fully clear about these charges, that must be rectified before we can star the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that we need to improve Get in before it is a star. The article only describes getting in by car - the requirement for a guide city is "There are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in". Childs may not be on a bus route, but we should say where nearby is accessible by bus or train, and how to proceed from there. My comments a year ago suggested a bus to Albion (New York) then walking, but I don't know how practical that it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


OK, let 'er rip! I think I've basically covered everything I can think of. Got a WV styled static map in the commons as an SVG. Following the manual of style to the best of my ability. (Although I'm sure a typo or two has snuck in.) All boring lists have been prose-ified, with judicious use of bolding for the more important bits around town. I would like to add a few more pictures as the summer goes on, but I think the article is pretty pretty pretty good as it stands. What does everyone think? Anything I can improve? Thank you for your feedback! --ButteBag (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Haven't given the article a thorough read yet, but something that immediately jumps out at me is that some of the district articles are still at usable status. The requirements for a major city star article is that all districts be at least guide status, so those are going to have to be improved first. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, shoot! I knew there must be something missing. Please let me know if there are any other issues with the article itself, I can fix them while I'm improving the districts. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've got them up to guide status now. Please let me know if I've upgraded any in error, or if you notice any other issues with the Boston article. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Very solid stuff. I remember being underwhelmed by the Boston guide the last time I gave it a good look (I think this was about a couple of years ago), so it's pleasantly surprising to see it in such great shape now. I'll try to give it a very thorough read when I get the chance, but there were a couple of things I noticed off-the-bat: 1) some of the listings in Downtown and Charlestown lack coordinates, and 2) although they're not technically district articles, the adjacent cities listed in the districts section (Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline) should also be tidied up (I notice a lot of dead links in Cambridge, in particular) and upgraded to guide status, since (as the Boston page points out) casual visitors think of those places as part of Boston too, and every great Boston guide must have great coverage of those cities too. On a similar note, the Freedom Trail itinerary should also be spruced up and upgraded.
On a more general note, I would recommend digging through some of our other major city Star articles (e.g. Chicago and San Francisco) to get a sense of what we expect from a city guide of Star caliber. We hold these up to very high standards, and doubly so when it comes to a major destination like this, so don't be surprised if the feedback you get on this gets extremely particular. I'll also add that I've never been to Boston, so we should definitely get a second (and third and fourth and fifth) opinion from someone who has. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
On an extra note, did you remember to post a note in the traveler's pub to draw attention to this discussion? PerryPlanet (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, before I started, the Boston article felt so out of date as to be considered misinformation! I have been constantly referencing the ORD, SFO & DCA star articles as I went, I often find examples more enlightening than documentation. It's very tricky to balance the facts a traveller needs to know without going overboard on details, while adding the complexity of phrasing it so that someone might actually want to read it.
I don't mind getting into the weeds either, as long as we don't lose the forest for the trees. I had noticed the Chicago districts are stars themselves without having lat/long for every POI. Maybe that was then, and this is now; so if that is the only criticism of Boston, I would happily take it! (Also: to be clear none of the Boston district articles should be considered stars, they don't have hand drawn maps and are not qualified.) --ButteBag (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I only bring up the coordinates because the lack of hand-drawn maps in the district pages makes mapping them in the dynamic maps even more important. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm wondering if there are any comments on the Boston article itself? I'm in the process of updating the Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline articles now. That was the only feedback so far about next steps to take for granting star status. Does that sound right? Thanks for your input! --ButteBag (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Wondering if anyone has had time to review Boston yet? The summer is well underway, and I'm getting pulled onto other tasks, but I've been cleaning up the Cambridge / Somerville / Brookline articles so Boston can be eligible for a star. Just wondering if there were any comments or feedback on the main article?
It also looks like someone corrected some of my typos and misspellings, yay! They also removed (in my opinion) some "lively prose", boo! Not sure what the actual "prose" criteria is, or how/if to rectify the edits. Thanks for your help! --ButteBag (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to revert or revise any prose changes that you feel damage the tone. Powers (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @ButteBag: I think the article looks great! A few suggestions:
    1. I find the links for the "Central" district confusing. (This might be true of other star articles too...I find Chicago's district links similarly confusing.) There are five links, with little indication of how the reader should choose which one to click on, but once you do click on them you realize that they only go to two articles. Instead of having a one-liner description for "Central", I would suggest splitting it up into a one-liner description for "Downtown" and another one for "North End"—then there could just be two links, and the reader would have a way to decide which one to click on.
    2. It might be nice to have an indication of the locations of North Station and South Station (maybe addresses or cross streets?)
    3. The article says "It takes about 15-30 stressful minutes to transfer between the two stations." Could that sentence be adjusted to say how travellers should transfer between the stations (subway? bus?)?
I've never been to Boston, but these are the thoughts that occurred to me when I looked through the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

North Vancouver[edit]

This article meets all the criteria. dowling002 (talk)

  • Not yet - It's cool that you like the article and nominated it for Destination of the Month and Star status, but as someone who's contributed quite a bit to the North Van article, I don't think it's at Star-level. A few things off the top of my head and from a quick glance are:
    • The Do section needs some work -- two festivals have no info and the third is missing location info, not all the hikes have adequate information, many of the other subsections are missing info that would make them more useful for the traveller
    • The Buy section isn't standard
    • The Connect, Stay safe and Go next sections need additional info or tweaking (e.g., no mention of Wifi, rec center or library computers, raise awareness that it's wilderness/back country very quickly if you go hiking)
    • The static map doesn't show all listings
    • A lot of the article reflects my style of writing and spelling, which is a hybrid of Canadian and American English, so it should probably be reviewed for consistency with the Manual of Style
I think it's a really good article (although I'm biased) and possibly the most complete travel guide to North Van out there, but I don't think it's up to our Star standard yet. -Shaundd (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Not star. For a start, I don't even see a hand-drawn map, and I think a star needs one. It's perfect in every other way, although I just scanned through the article. Selfie City (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: a consensus was reached here that a static map isn't useful for city articles without sub districts because the Eat, Sleep and Drink listings change too frequently to make updating static maps practical. ArticCynda (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, okay, ArticCynda. Of course I wrote this quite a long time ago. Selfie City (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


This article has recently been updated with all the template modifications (most notably for public transport) and appears to meet all the criteria for star nomination. What do other Wikivoyagers think? ArticCynda (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Not yet. It is a city article, but understand has a districts section like a Huge City. I think that these would be better renamed "localities" or something, and the map changed to just show the border of the districts, not shading which makes it difficult to read the map. Alternatively this could be shown on a small static map, and the dynamic map without the shading moved to the standard section of Get Around. Carrefour is mentioned 8 times in the article, but does not have a listing. Kraainem Shopping is not "free" unless the shops give stuff away. AlasdairW (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: Thanks for the feedback, I added Carrefour as listing along with other supermarkets in a new section, and removed the (very unfortunate) "free" designation for other shops.
I lack the skills to make static maps, could you produce one for Kraainem, please? ArticCynda (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I have never made a static map, and I don't have the time at the moment to try. AlasdairW (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
ArticCynda trusted me to support this nomination and do what I can to get it through. Therefore, I hope in the fairly near future to read through it and get an opinion on its nomination. Considering the user's ban for their antisemitic comments, etc., I would like to check that through, but when I did a quick search for either "Jew" or "Jews" (I can't remember which, maybe both) in the article, nothing came up that seemed like harmful language. I would like to see this become a star article, especially since ArticCynda is de facto no longer an editor here and because it's definitely a good article written by a good contributor who unfortunately went the wrong way in the end. Selfie City (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
By the way, by reading AC's first comment on User_talk:ArticCynda#Blocked, you will see what I mean in my above comment here. Honestly, saying I appreciated ArticCynda's work on Kraainem is true but at the same time a stretch from his/her point of view. But still, I'd like to see this become a star considering the article's main contributor will no longer be able to improve other articles on the website. Selfie City (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • So I've taken some time to read through the Understand section and I've developed an opinion. First, it's detailed, overall quite well-written, and clearly one of Wikivoyage's best articles. The districts section works with the article, and I think this is a reason for it to be a star, not for it to stay at guide status. But still I am going to vote oppose until some changes are made. Here are the changes I think should be made:
    • Shortening basically everything would be helpful. Tourists will not want to spend hours reading the article; they want to find quality with some quantity but not too much.
    • The article is not poorly written, but at the same time the writing style indicates that the writing quality could be better. Here are a few examples:
      • "The Second World War put a temporary stop to the development of South Kraainem, but from the 1950s the deforrestation accelerated and had completely urbanized the area by 1967." For a start, I'm not sure the spelling of "deforrestation" is right here, and also it's not the deforrestation that urbanizes an area. This may seem like nit-picking but if this is going to be a star article it needs to be the best of the best and, since we're the sister website of Wikipedia, our articles should be very well-written.
      • "Kraainem has 5 districts, each with a distinct personality." Personality has the word person in it. City districts are not people. Character is a better word here.
      • "Upscale residential and commercial district around the Dumon Square with expensive flats, and a large shopping district with countless overpriced boutiques." The now-stereotyped ArticCynda edit that I've often called "lively travel writing gone too far". It brings memories of other statements AC made like "more money than brains" and "thriving on ... unemployment", and travelers who have been reading the Brussels article as well may think our whole travel guide is written like this.
    • I think these are fixable, however, and in the longer term I can definitely see this going in the star article direction. I sincerely hope that no-one tries to stop the nomination purely on the basis that AC wrote it; that's a very unfair view since ArticCynda put a lot of work into the Kraainem article that should be appreciated. Selfie City (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't necessarily agree that "personality" cannot be used as a word to describe a district. Inanimate objects and concepts are described using anthropomorphic metaphors all the time. Gizza (roam) 02:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but at the same time "character" seems like a better word to me. But anyway, if you read through the understand section you will get my general message (that the article's writing quality is not bad but could be better). Selfie City (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the very detailed and unprejudiced analysis of the article, Selfie City. I really appreciate the efforts you've put into supporting Kraainems nomination. I agree with the points you made, including that the language could be further improved, and recognize that its current state is a best effort of a non-native English speaker with inevitable linguistic flaws. Ideally, the article should be copy-edited by a native English speaker. I personally still don't see a problem with referring to some shops as overpriced (particularly since at the time of writing 554 other articles on WV also make use of the word to refer to restaurants, shops, services etc.) but if there is a consensus on removing it from the Kraainem article then I don't object if it is considered in the best interest of the article's quality.
P.S.: Selfie City, I intended to leave this message on your talk page to express my appreciation, but it appears to be protected from editing, hence I left it here. Feel free to remove it after reading. Thanks! — AC
Yes, I was getting quite a lot of vandalism to my userspace. Therefore, it's now protected so only autoconfirmed users can comment there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Well written article. Ran a quick google search, and by far the best travel (free) travel guide to this city. One remark: perhaps there are too many illustrations in this article. It is likely not necessary to have a picture for each See listing, and doing so will be detrimental when printing the article. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
Some of the pictures are just of fairly boring looking houses too. I don't think there are too many, but that they are unnecessarily bunched in the 'See' section, when they could be spread more liberally around the article.
The way the districts have been handled, sticking them under 'Orientation', makes sense, but are we really sure they're necessary to list, either at all or in that formal list + coloured map way? It's only a town, a village really, of 13,000 people, so the districts themselves are tiny, are never going to be articles, and navigating such a small place shouldn't pose much difficulty.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Significant parts of this article were written by a user whom we know to have inserted factually wrong stuff deliberately into articles to push an agenda. I would moderate the vote if we had somebody on the ground who could go check, but we don't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think the personal views of AC should influence this article’s star nomination, but at the same time this article does need to be well read and checked for antisemitism and the like. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This is not about the "personal opinions" of AC. It is about us knowing that no9t all written by this editor is to be trusted and said editor being (one of) the main author(s). If we had somebody local who could check this would be much less of an issue, but frankly they could be making up a bizarre war and inserting it in WV for all we know... It might not preclude guide status or even featuring, but star status is definitely a bridge too far... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


In terms of quality, I think this fits well. @SelfieCity, Traveler100, AndreCarrotflower: Libertarianmoderate (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a good article, and is at guide status. But a quick scan through quickly reveals that it needs work before becoming a star article. For a start, it has too many listings in my opinion (which maybe should mean districtification or some cleanup), and a lot of these don't have coordinates. If this is going to be a star article, all of the business listings in See, Do, Eat, Drink, and Sleep should have coordinates. However, the article is well-formatted, so that is a plus.
But there are some other issues as well, I'm sure, so I actually think this would make a better destination of the month at the moment, and then perhaps in the longer term become a star article. Selfie City (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Indianapolis was up for DotM a while ago and ended up getting slushed. If you want a rundown of what improvements the article needs, that's a good place to start. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's close but not there. :/ I've had districtifying the city as a project for years--it's such a mammoth undertaking. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with the comments made above; more work is necessary before Indianapolis can be promoted to a star. All listings must have a marker and contact info, attractions must have Wikidata/Wikipedia references, and districtification is likely necessary. Yes it would be a mammoth undertaking, but the recent example of Brussels proves it can be done step by step.—The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
Yep, definitely needs work, of the kind already mentioned. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


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

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

Yellowstone National Park[edit]

This is a long article, with plenty of information and a static map. I think the article actually needs to be shortened a little, and some listings need coordinates, but it’s still a good article and worth nominating for star. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Like Indianapolis, Yellowstone is a former DotM candidate that got thrown on the Slush Pile, so the discussion there should give a good indication of what needs to be fixed. (That was a while ago, though, so the situation may have improved in the intervening time.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The issues there seem to line up pretty well with what I think. The number of listings is overwhelming and coordinates are needed for some listings. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
My vote would be needs work, although I'd have to mention that since June 2012 around the time of the failed DOTM nomination, this article has increased by almost 20,000 bytes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


I have not read through the article, but it's a long, detailed article with plenty of content. Seems to be a good choice for a star article. It's currently at guide status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Windsor (Ontario)[edit]

Years ago Stephen Colbert on his Colbert Report show once said that Windsor was the armpit of Ontario. I don't know if he's even been to Windsor, but I'm pretty sure he's not been to Sarnia, Hamilton, or Sudbury or he wouldn't have said that. Windsor used to be a blue collar town closely tied to Detroit and all the pros and cons that go with that. Windsor has come a long way baby. It's still no heaven for hipsters and can't compete with the cultural Mecca's of Vancouver, Toronto, New York, San Francisco, or Austin, but it just may in time as the Internet levels the playing field. Or not. I just went over the whole article. Please review as you see fit. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Thanks for making a nomination, and a good one too if I may say so. This is a good article with plenty of listngs but an overwhelming number, either. However, for it to be nominated it needs some work but at the same time is fairly close to star status. Quite a lot of listings lack coordinates and there are minor formatting issues here and there. There's also a listing with just an external link, and nothing else.
We should remember though that we don't nominate articles based on the city's culture, either now or in the past. Different cities are popular with different people. We give the status on the basis of the article's quality, not the place itself.
Also, just a quick note: there's an at least seemingly contradicting statement in the article which says that it is multicultural and then says it has small town charm. Could this be tweaked a little so it doesn't sound like a contradiction? Wouldn't affect star status much but would be a good thing to do. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


A great travel guide. I also hear that its main author is very handsome. More to the point, I have edited this article extensively over the last 18 months, and feel that the result has turned out quiet nicely. I vouch that it is complete by any reasonable standard, and as far as I can tell it follows our policies meticulously. The one exception would perhaps be that when sorting listings I have left out the place name Uppsala and words like café (i.e. sorting "Uppsala Cathedral" by Cathedral, and "Café Linné" by Linné). This is because pretty much any café can be called "Café X", and almost all sights can be called "Uppsala Y". I have listed most sights by their Swedish official title, which visitors are most likely to find on signs or when searching online, but used the English names for the two largest attractions, as their English names are widely adopted. It has the perk that it gives a more prominent place to highlights, but if it is a deal breaker for someone we can easily fix it. Rather than creating separate "Orientation", "Etymology" and "Read" headings, I have integrated that information into the "Understand" lede, as I think that it reads better. Not being a native English speaker, I might also have missed one or two places in need of copy editing. Anyways, I'm eager to hear any feedback, comments or praise you may have. MartinJacobson (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominations to remove Star status[edit]

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

Failed nominations[edit]

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