Wikivoyage:Article status

Wikivoyage articles evolve and mature, as they are edited by various contributors, over time. When assessing an article's status, many factors must be taken into account. The following subjective guidelines are to assist editors in making this assessment, considering the amount of information in an article, and its quality and usefulness. The article's compliance with Wikivoyage's goals and Manual of Style should also be considered.

Status criteria
The status is on a 5-point scale:


 * 1) Symbol plain grey.svg Stub – An article with little or no information in it, or not formatted even close to the manual of style. An article with no skeleton template would have this status, which tends to be short-lived: If the article's subject is valid, adding the standard section headers will quickly bring it to "outline" status. If the page has no real chance of ever becoming an article (or even being redirected or merged to an existing article) that meets Wikivoyage's goals, it will typically be tagged delete and removed. An article unrelated to travel, or a page of graffiti with a nonsense title would be speedily deleted; an article whose ability to meet the criteria is merely questionable or borderline could be nominated for vfd.
 * 2) Start-icon.svg Outline – Has at least an introduction and a template outline laid out for the article, but not much more. Some of the sections may have content, but others are empty. You can tell what this article is going to be about, but it doesn't have enough information to be useful (e.g. get you to a destination and keep you alive there) or it needs major content or Manual of Style fixes.
 * 3) Symbol keep vote.svg Usable – An adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources. For most articles, this means they could probably get to the destination, eat, and sleep with just this information. It would probably enable them to find at least the most prominent attraction there. For countries and regions, linked sub-destinations like cities and other destinations should have meaningful content too.
 * 4) Symbol support vote.svg Guide – The article would be helpful for the average voyager, offering alternatives (where applicable) for where to stay and eat, what to see and do, how to get in and out, etc. It provides enough information for at least a few days there, but at least a few things are missing to make this a star article. It follows the manual of style in spirit if not in detail.
 * 5) Symbol star gold.svg Star – 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 each status vary depending on the kind of article it is. For more concrete guidance on assigning status, see:
 * City article status (also for districts and rural areas)
 * Region article status (also for continents and continental sections)
 * Country article status
 * Itinerary status
 * Travel topic status
 * Phrasebook status
 * Park article status
 * Airport article status

A similar system for article status exists on Wikipedia, however the categories have different names:

Changing status
Only articles in the main namespace have a status. Extra-hierarchical regions, disambiguation pages and redirects do not have one.

The status is expressed by the status tags at the end of the articles, such as and. In these templates the status is the first word and the article type is the second word, with no space between the two words. See the links above for the full article status list.

Anyone is strongly encouraged to plunge forward and update the status tag of articles to stub, outline or usable as appropriate. If you're not sure, or if you don't feel comfortable judging your own work, then you can ask on the article's talk page or on a help page such as the Travellers' pub. If you do change the status and somebody objects and reverts your change, that does not mean you have made a faux pas: on the contrary, as anyone can revert you, don't be too concerned about whether others agree with your assessment.

Don't ever edit war over borderline cases. Someone might rate the page a little generously or a little stingily, and the borderline cases are just not important. If you think the status should be raised, then address any deficiencies by adding listings, contact details or whatever the other party thought was needed for the higher status. If you don't see any significant deficiencies, or those you see cannot be addressed because of the nature of the destination, ask or explain on the article talk page (or in the Pub) and try to reach a consensus. If you think the status should be lowered, similarly express your concerns (or improve the article to meet the higher rating!).

Upgrading to guide can also be done by anybody, though it is common to ask on the talk page whether there still are improvements to be done before upgrading.

To change an articles status to or from star status they must go through a nomination process.