Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates/Archive/2016-2019

Adelaide

 * Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. A few "See" listings are missing addresses, but otherwise no obvious problems. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's support vote number four. I have full confidence that the missing addresses that Granger pointed out will be attended to (by myself if need be) - it's an easy fix. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for December 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Pakse

 * Support? -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 20:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's fine, but I think the "Go next" section could be better organized and perhaps shorter. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 04:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have I not voted yet? Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for December 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Visa

 * Support as nominator. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. An exemplary article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find many sections quite confusing. Partly it is in the nature of visas, but I think the article would benefit from a detailed check of the language and some rewriting. An example: "Some countries permit certain nationalities to enter without a visa, but other conditions may apply for entry and the stay." Should this be "different" instead of "other"? I think there are similar mistakes here and there. There is also redundant prose, where it is not clear whether the writer tries to convey some different nuance. --LPfi (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support unless someone can find a really serious problem with this article and the information it provides. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for December 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Zhuhai

 * I am not certain how up-to-date this article is & it lacks a map, but it looks near ready. The city is interesting & fairly heavily touristed, mostly northern Chinese fleeing their harsh winters or Hong Kong & Taiwan people coming for cheap shopping & entertainment. Pashley (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Overall the article looks pretty complete. Our coverage of the city's islands is currently weak—for "the city of a hundred islands" that's not great, but I don't know if it's a barrier to featuring. I'm going to be traveling to Zhuhai for a few days later this month, so I should be able to get a sense of whether there's anything else that needs work.
 * One thing the article certainly needs is coordinates for the listings and the ferry terminals. A map showing the districts would be nice too. Anyone who wants to add coordinates, be careful not to copy them directly from Google Maps or Baidu Maps (see Talk:China). —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not yet. As Granger said, the lack of coordinates for the listings is the most significant barrier to featuring. Also, regarding the comment in the feature nomination template: DotM has become popular enough that the wait time between nomination and Main Page feature is generally between 6 and 12 months barring an extreme mishap with an already-scheduled article, so summer 2019 isn't going to happen. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Needs work; mostly coordinates and a checkup that each listing still exists. After a look at the climate table in Wikipedia I think this should be run in the Northern Hemisphere winter, just as stated in the "time" parameter. -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 12:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Close. I got back from my trip and think the article seems pretty complete. Once coordinates are added, I think it'll be just about ready for featuring.
 * It would also be good to improve coverage of the Wanshan Islands (currently only described very briefly) and to rewrite the "Eat" section so all the restaurants have names and addresses (some just have general descriptions and somewhat vague directions). I'm not sure those fixes are necessary for featuring, though.
 * I agree with Northern Hemisphere winter—summer around here is hot and humid. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Needs work. This is, on the whole, a well-written article. It starts well and gradually declines, in terms of coordinates &mdash; for example, as one reads through the content. Coordinates in all the listings would be useful, as well as some more useful information than, "Swim, sunbathe or go diving. At a number of islands which are approximately 50 minutes away by ferry (see Zhuhai Islands Section for more details)" as the first listing in "Do". It doesn't have far to go, however, and it would be good to see this article become featured at some point in the future, hopefully not too far away. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Looks like the coordinates issue has been taken care of, and the fact that someone has visited the city and considered the article complete is a pretty good proof that there aren't any big problems with the article. One small thing though, in Eat and Drink there are many subheadings with just one listing underneath them. Are those headings really needed in those cases? Ypsilon (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for November 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Jost Van Dyke

 * Support as nominator. ϒψιλον  (talk ) 13:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. As usual with Ypsilon's work, there are no problems to be found. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with AndreCarrotflower; it's the kind of article that looks like it has been developed carefully to be useful. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written and as the nom says, good to feature a destination from the somewhat neglected Caribbean. Gizza ( roam ) 21:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for November 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport

 * Support -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 09:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this airport is important enough that it should be nominated for DOTM. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Airport articles are always FTT. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I have read through and made a couple of suggestions for improvement at the talk page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a side-note (my computer is a bit kablooey at the moment which means I can't give it a thorough enough read to weigh in) there is still a VfD discussion on the talk page that we could move to an archive page... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, as the biggest contributor to the article, I support the nomination. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Although many coordinates are missing, gate information for business listings is included, which is probably more useful than coordinates in this situation. It's a good article designed with travelers in mind. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 12:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for November 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

San Miguel de Allende

 * Support as nominator. ϒψιλον  (talk ) 12:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Thank you Ypsilon for taking the time to finally clean up the article. As you've suggested, this would be a good candidate for either spring or fall, or Día de Muertos. My only comment is that the listing for the UNESCO site of Atotonilco should either be expanded, or possibly split into a new article. This has been brought up before, and I'd forgotten about it (again). –StellarD (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. However, the climate data needs to be turned into a proper template before featuring. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - It's a nice article that makes me want to drop everything and head to San Miguel. There are still some updates and copy-edits needed, as evidenced by the past few days of my edits, but these are all relatively minor.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for October 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Letchworth State Park

 * Support as nominator. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of Powers, the article's principal author. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost: any issues can most likely be fixed before this is featured. This article should be more helpful to the traveler before being turned into an OtBP. For example, the climate subsection is completely empty, buy, eat, and drink should have more content, and only the sleep section has any coordinate markers. A good article needs plenty of coordinate markers, especially for attractions like this one, so people know exactly where the attractions can be found. The good thing is that the lack of coordinates is an easily problem to solve and can be easily done before this is featured. When we've fixed the coordinate issues, we should also add a dynamic map (that's what they're called, right?) so tourists get a better idea about the place. Still, it looks like a really nice place for Off the Beaten Path. Selfie City (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Selfie City - the reason why "Buy", "Eat", and "Drink" don't have more content is because there isn't much content to add in the first place. State parks aren't shopping or nightlife meccas; what more do you feel needs to be said about the few unremarkable gift shops within the park boundaries? As for "Eat", the Glen Iris Inn is a renowned fine-dining restaurant, but we have a policy of not double-listing the same establishment in multiple different sections, so all the information is in "Sleep". As for the coordinate markers, policy says they're not required in articles with static maps (which include the markers directly on the image file, making coordinates redundant). However, I agree with you that this particular static map is pretty useless and we'd do well to jettison it in favor of a dynamic one, which would entail adding coordinates to the listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've solved some of the problems by merging eat and drink - however, more information about the Basics would be useful. Also, I understand that coordinates are not required for articles, but I still think they're extremely useful to the traveler and should be included in any one of our featured destinations. Selfie City (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Very close...heck, I'll say support right away. Adding someting to the climate section and coordinates to the couple of listings that still lack them (it can be useful even if there isn't an embedded dynamic map in the article; readers can click on the icons and open one), and perhaps a photo in the end of the article are things that anyone can do in a couple of minutes. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, with the additions of a climate section and one or two more photos showing off the landscape. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per ThunderingTyphoons! above, we should either add a climate section if one seems necessary, or not include the section heading at all. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for October 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hotels

 * Support as nominator. ϒψιλον  (talk ) 14:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very close; the section that lists notable hotel chains ought to have some descriptions and probably should mention Best Western, Motel 6, Super 8, etc. Or maybe it's the kind of list we shouldn't have at all. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Best Western is mentioned in Hotels, and Super 8 and Motel 6 are motels so they're listed in that article. -- ϒψιλον (talk ) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a little curious &mdash; why are there chains listed under the Hotels section? (Thanks for the response, though; I understand better now &mdash; sort of...) --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As examples it seems, not sure if they need to be there, though. ϒψιλον  (talk ) 19:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Almost I think it covers large modern chain hotels quite well, but has little about the 10 room family run hotel in a 300 year old building. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, so the inns, boutique hotels, and grand old hotels sections need to be expanded (though many small family-run hotels could also be classified as Bed and breakfasts, which we have a separate article for). -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 19:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Although further improvements would be welcome, I now support this. AlasdairW (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment In summary to the above, I think maybe the article could do with a little organization in some places, I guess that's my point. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't feel up to reading through this entire article, at least not now, but what in the heck is this supposed to mean? "Hotel rooms constitute a separate moral universe." I've speculated a bit at Talk:Hotels, but I would suggest deleting that quote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ikan Kekek. The quote's meaning is not clear without context, and it also appears to be misquoted. In trying to find the quote, the sources I find says, "Hotel rooms inhabit a separate moral universe." ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted, it doesn't add anything meaningful to the article. Ypsilon (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for October 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Birmingham (Alabama)

 *  Very close , and I don't envision the fixes requiring more than a few days' work. Many listings are missing geo coordinates and there are a few of the wrong type (I'm talking specifically about the "Buy" section here), much of "Do" needs to be moved to "See", and the "Get in", "Get around", and "Go next" sections could use some further development. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Needs work, as André just said. Coordinates, descriptions for many listings in Buy and Sleep, and of course photos. And when adding coordinates, closed attractions and businesses should be removed. BTW this is the only U.S. DotM candidate in 2019 so far, though there are indeed a huge number of American OtBP candidates. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Birmingham has been chosen to host the 2021 World Games. If we could coincide our feature with that event, I think we should. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should definitely get back in the habit of synchronizing our featured articles with timely events that will be occurring at the respective destinations, but forcing a nominee to wait nearly 3 years on that basis before being featured would be unprecedented and unwarranted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Needs work, for sure. And I think this could wait until 2021, and we could if necessary make Pleasanton or Great Basin National Park a DOTM for 2019. That way we'd fit in with the Birmingham event (since OTBP is overcrowded with North America destinations anyway). Selfie City (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, I really don't want to play the "I've been here longer than you and know what I'm talking about" card, but let me repeat myself: making nominees wait three years to be featured is something we simply don't do here. The more time passes between when an article is checked over and when it goes on the Main Page, the more of a chance there is for restaurants, bars or hotels to close or change their opening hours, URLs to go dead, new attractions to open their doors, etc. There have actually been instances when we've thrown nominees on the slush pile rather than having them languish on the DotM nominations page for too long. Now I'm sure there are plenty of other events taking place in 2021 that we can coordinate with a DotM feature, and three years is more than enough time to make whatever improvements are necessary to whatever article we choose. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Pleasanton is tentatively scheduled for May 2019, and the fact that Great Basin National Park has to wait until 2020 has nothing to do with the DotM column, but rather with the fact that there are so many U.S. OtBP nominees. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. How important are the 2021 World Games? Selfie City (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not ready yet. I just moved the "Learn" section of naked names to the talk page, but there is a longish list of mere names of shopping malls in "Buy". Ideally, too, everything in a fixed location should have geo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I felt that my earlier vote showed poor judgment, so I have taken another look at this article. I still see a lot of markers missing, sections that feel a little thin, etc. Is there anything we can do to improve this article before it is likely featured? Honestly, this discussion doesn't look like consensus for it to go up, unfortunately. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We don’t need to be sounding alarm bells about this yet (and we certainly don’t need to be insinuating that a nominee should be slushed less than two weeks before go time, with banners already made). The problems you describe represent maybe two hours’ worth of work total. You know that minor tweaks of this kind tend to happen very soon before the article is put on the Main Page. As it happens, I was planning to tackle them as soon as I’m through with the current round of updates to South Buffalo, which as you can see shouldn’t be more than a day or two. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it indeed doesn't take too long to fix these things. I might have time to help out in the weekend if there are still some things that need to be fixed. Ypsilon (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After looking over the article a second time, the fixes are more extensive than I originally thought but still nothing that can't easily be taken care of between now and September 1st. I've finished my work on South Buffalo and am now beginning to address Birmingham (right off the bat, I'm noticing a lot of listings that belong in other articles) but there's a good chance I won't be done by this weekend, so any help would be appreciated. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Following the work that has been done on the article, I feel that is now well-enough developed that I can vote support. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's more work yet to do (the major portion of which involves the "Buy" section), but I'm prepared at this point to change my vote to support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek and Ypsilon, you both voted "Not yet" before the recent push of fixes to this article; would you care to opine on the current state of affairs and perhaps revise your votes? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I voted needs work and listed "Coordinates, descriptions for many listings in Buy and Sleep, and of course photos. And when adding coordinates, closed attractions and businesses should be removed" as things needed to be fixed before running the article. All listings now have coordinates, some kind of description, and overall it starts looking like a DotM article. When finished with this comment I'll take a look in Commons for some nice photos for the last third of the article. As the list below says, Eat and Drink listings need to be checked (I think you did some of them already?), and Buy could use some more info (if there are just boring type stores maybe there's not much point in adding those but then we should say so...). So I'll support right away when those have been looked into. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I made a bunch of edits to the article, but all of them were really fine tuning. The article looks to be in fine shape, I'm quite satisfied, and I now support a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Charting our progress on the fixes to this article
Just so I can keep track of all this (and so those who want to jump in and help can know what to do), here are the fixes to the Birmingham article that have already been accomplished...


 *  Move listings that belong in other articles 
 *  Add geo coordinates to listings 
 *  Verify continued existence, phone numbers and URLs of "Sleep" listings 
 *  Break the "See" section down into subcategories 
 *  Fill out the "Go next" section 
 *  Cull some of the "Annual events" 
 *  Add descriptive blurbs to listings that have none 
 *  Reformat the "By car" subsection of "Get in" 
 *  Add information about the Zyp BikeShare program to "Get around" 
 *  Expand the intro lede 
 *  Add "See" listings for prominent POIs that are missing 
 *  Fill out the "Eat" and "Drink" sections 
 *  Fill out the "Sleep" section 
 *  Fill out the "Cope" section 
 *  Verify continued existence, opening hours, phone numbers, URLs, and price ranges of "Eat" and "Drink" listings 
 *  Expand blurbs in "Annual events" section 
 *  Fill out the "Buy" section 

...and those that have yet to be accomplished (in descending order of importance, roughly)

(none)

(This may look like a long list, but keep in mind I knocked out the first three of these bullet points in a couple of hours. We're still in good shape for these things to be done by 2019-09-01, especially if we have more hands on deck than just mine.)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. With a plan to get things fixed, this should be possible. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone around who is familiar with Birmingham, and would have some suggestions of good places to add to Eat, Drink and Buy? Ypsilon (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never visited. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * TripAdvisor, Yelp, etc. are useful to get a good idea of what consensus holds the most popular and renowned restaurants in a place to be, and as long as we're fair about it and take scrupulous care to summarize, rather than plagiarizing from, the reviews we read, there's nothing in policy against it. I'll take care of that in a little bit if no one else gets around to it first. By the way: Ypsilon and SelfieCity, i owe you both a big "thank you" for your help here. I hate to admit it, but the more I sink my teeth into making these fixes, the more I doubt I could have made the September 1st deadline if I had been working alone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, this is what we need to do, if more of them is needed. Which might be the case as the article says Birmingham is "a city which has numerous well-known restaurants with famous chefs". Ypsilon (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm unexpectedly going to be out of town this weekend beginning Saturday morning and will only have Internet access via mobile. Tomorrow and Friday, I will devote my full attention to the remaining items on the list of things to do. In that time, I am very confident that I will be able to fill out the "Sleep" and "Cope" sections and verify opening hours, URLs, etc. of the listings for which I have not yet done so. The "Buy" section, I'm afraid, might be a tougher nut to crack, and I might need another set of hands on deck (Ypsi? SelfieCity? anyone else?) for that particular task. As for updating DotM, I've got the procedure for doing that via mobile down pretty well, so no need to worry about that.

Again, thank you guys x 1,000 for all your help getting this article up to speed. I'm happy to say we're in the home stretch and the finish line is in sight.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess I'll chip in and do my bit. I think I'll have time on my hand this weekend, given the Labor Day holiday and a lack of items on the schedule. I also plan to update Florida with a warning notice, but I have plenty of time for that. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been unusually busy off-wiki as of lately (and guaranteed to be so for the next week or two) but will try to find some time and energy to help out with something little that needs to be fixed over the next days. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not at home and mostly editing on my iPhone, so I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to reread the article but will try to do so tonight. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I've thought over my plans for the weekend and I might not have quite the time I expected, but I should have enough to help out. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm making fast enough progress on the other items that it might be moot in any event. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Just a brief comment to say a massive well done to all you guys who have been working to get Birmingham up to scratch over the past few days. This dedication is what makes Wikivoyage an awesome community to be a part of. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Once more: brilliant work, Andre and everyone else :) . Ypsilon (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's good is that we've not only made a DOTM ready for featuring, but that Wikivoyage is just a little better thanks to our work. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for September 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Kamphaeng Phet

 * Support, but what's with the non-standard "Nearby" section? That's not how we handle that kind of thing. Those listings need to be merged into either "See"/"Do" or "Go next". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A "Nearby" section is explicitly proposed in the guideline WV:Region article template ("If something is in a tiny rural village too small to justify its own local article, (...) adding a section 'Nearby' in an adjacent city article (before the 'Go next' section).") and also explained in WV:Article templates/Sections. "Go next" should only include places that have their own article (but these scattered, rural destinations do not warrant articles of their own), while I find it confusing to place points that are up to 65 km off the main city under the "See"/"Do" sections. To me, the "Nearby" section seems to be the perfect solution for this case. --RJFF (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I argued with another user a few months back about this Nearby section, which apparently is real. Yes, if an attraction is far outside the city it's misleading to put it in the city article's See or Do section (perhaps then in the surrounding region's See or Do). But given that very few articles in practice have it, it does look strange and out of place and I think Nearby should be a subsection of Go next instead it's own section.


 * Support. My instinct is to think the "Nearby" section should be merged to "See"/"Do", but I don't feel strongly about that at all. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — I don't really have anything to complain about, save for the Nearby section which I think should be a subsection of Go next. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Granger and AndreCarrotflower that the "Nearby" section should be removed and its content put somewhere else, but it's otherwise a well-formatted article with plenty of useful information that will be good as an OtBP. Selfie City (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this one going to sit here until September 2019 (as per time to feature)? In that case, I believe we'll need one more nominee for one of the spring months 2019. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I had indeed envisioned this for September 2019. We actually need two more spring 2019 OtBPs - April and June (leaving room for Gaspé Peninsula in August) - as well as DotMs for May 2019 (I have one in mind for May that I'll be nominating shortly), July 2019, and everything past September 2019. Oddly enough, we've come to a point now where FTTs are pretty consistently the most well-stocked of the three categories. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The nice Bouzigues article TT has been working on is one that I'd really really like to see as OtBP; maybe next spring :). Ilulissat is another one (per Wikivoyage_talk:Destination_of_the_month_candidates), though at the moment we have quite many OtBP candidates from North America.
 * For DotM, Kaunas is one article I've had my eyes on for several years (yes I know, there's currently a ton of European DotM candidates, but over the years we've had surprisingly few DotMs from Europe east of the former Iron Curtain). Kaunas could work as OtBP too. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for September 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Canadian

 * Support <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 19:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Almost The article lacks a good description of what you can see on the route between the stops, which the WP article has. in a way the article is too focussed on the facilities and not he journey. AlasdairW (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With the improved route description, I now support this article. AlasdairW (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice, detailed article. However, I plan to review User:AlasdairW's point. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have quickly looked through the article more closely and, considering how beautiful the route is, I think some more information about sights to see (while on the train) would be good. Otherwise, looks like a good article. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll have a look at what's written about the route over at Wikipedia; probably there is a great deal to bring over from there. For the record, I think this article was modeled after the Trans-Siberian Railway whose article also focuses on the train itself and major stops. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 18:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably, that's accurate. And, interestingly, that one's a guide article too, so maybe some day it too could be FTT. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Transsib was, back in 2014. Articles that have the little orange pen logo in the upper right corner of the banner have been FTT at some point in the past (just as those that have the green check mark have been DotM or OtBP). <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 09:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The route description from Wikipedia is now imported. It did take a little while, especially as Wikipedia's description was written from Vancouver to Toronto (opposite direction of our guide until now) and the content included references, links to articles etc. What's more, some "smart" person(s) at WP had used imperial units at several occasions for mountain altitudes and bridges at least, but I'll deal with that later. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 21:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Mr Mark Smith, railway travel enthusiast and owner of the site seat61.com (I think all train travel fans and people interested in reading about long distance train travel know this site) is traveling from London (UK) to Victoria (British Columbia) overland and is right now onboard The Canadian. See https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone for some pics and videos of his trip (also includes crossing the Atlantic by cruise ship). --Ypsilon (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2019 UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for September 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sarajevo

 *  Conditional support per comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say districtification would probably be necessary before it gets promoted to Star, but for purposes of DotM I think the status quo works fine. There are no other problems with the article either, so I gladly vote support and send out my congratulations to User:Loaoa for his/her impressive contributions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree that districtification isn't needed for dotm right now, though if the article gets too much longer it might be worth considering. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is very readable, and although there are many See items, they are properly sectioned so I don't think that districtification would provide an added value here. Article looks very complete, why isn't this a Star yet? ArticCynda (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the Star nominations page is in practice dead since the last couple of years.ϒpsilon (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But feel free to nominate it if you think that's warranted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So does that mean we're not nominating Stars anymore? And if so, why is that? ArticCynda (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We are working to increase the number of active Wikivoyage editors. In the interim, however, it has sometimes proven difficult to sustain consistent participation in certain features of the site. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. It's pretty long, but in general I think the article looks like a fine feature. Selfie City (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lukewarm support. The problem is that public transport to Sarajevo has dried up. This will hurt the viability of its visitor amenities and attractions, so the listings need review. Grahamsands (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for August 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Olomouc

 * Support -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 18:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - lovely old place, wish I could have stayed longer. Grahamsands (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost - It is a great city, which I visited a long time ago. The See section looked good. There is no Buy section, which is an omission for a city of this size, and Sleep could have a couple more listings. The rail and bus fares need to be checked as they were the same in 2013. AlasdairW (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Like AlasdairW, I vote almost. I also agree that there ought to be a section with information about buying souvenirs, and there are not enough options for where to sleep. I think the adjustments can be made if someone knows the area or can translate it from another language wiki, but unfortunately in its current state the article just doesn't have quite enough options and information in some parts. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ For the Eat and Sleep sections I had already previously brought over everything possible from other language versions (not very much if I remember correctly). But luckily many places were name-dropped in text paragraphs in this article so I checked those up and created listings for them, and as you can see there are now more Eat and Sleep listings.


 * The Buy section I just brought over from the Italian version, and I would be surprised if souvenirs couldn't be found where potential customers for them (ie. tourists) usually roam, that is, at or near the sights, just as elsewhere in the world.


 * The public transport fare in the city seems to be the same, and I just updated the train fares from Prague. Though as long-distance fares on trains, buses, planes etc. nowadays can vary radically from what someone else has paid before, I think there's not much point to have them here down to the exact koruna (would be better to have it as train fares from Prague are in general 200-300 Kč) --Ypsilon (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Haven't had time to look through it properly yet, but one glaring omission is a 'By plane' section to get in. I assume there is no local airport, so really there needs to be information on where the nearest airport(s) is/are (Prague?), and how you can make the transfer to Olomouc.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The airport looks to be run by the flying club, so I have listed the 5 nearest airports with commercial flights, as the nearest 2 don't have many flights. AlasdairW (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I updated the "train" section as bits of it were out of date. Getting from Prague airport to the main railway station is trivially easy (and already covered in Prague). filelakeshoe (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: the whole "named after Julius Caesar" thing is just one of many possibilities regarding the unclear and disputed etymology of the name Olomouc (see cswiki which lists several others in the "jméno" section, some of which are unsourced and seem quite ridiculous, but the one attributed to Ertl and Polívková which suggests it might come from an old personal name "Olomút" is more believable for example.) I would not include the Julius Caesar etymology in the blurb as if it's a definite fact (the article frames it better with "legend has it"), for this reason and also that even if the Juliomontium > Olomouc etymology is the right one the fort might still have been named after another Julius. filelakeshoe (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point; the article says that "The first written mention of a settlement at Olomouc is almost 1,000 years ago..." That was long after Julius Caesar; therefore, we should be careful to make an assumption about the name where there is little or no evidence. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - the remaining issues that I can see (paucity of photos, slightly too few 'Sleep' listings, the aforementioned Julius Caesar blurb) are minor and can be easily dealt with.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I not vote on this one yet? Here's the fourth support vote to make it official. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for August 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice itinerary article, and I like the idea of featuring it for the 500th anniversary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Pashley (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work, Ypsi. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the problem described at Talk:Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation needs fixing before it is featured. Pashley (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, especially if we put it all in past tense. Selfie City (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Selfie City. I just did some copy editing. Capitalization was a problem, but I think I may have gotten all the stray "River"s and "Hill"s that were part of proper names (and the "strait" that wasn't). I definitely think everything that happened in the past should be recounted in past tense, both because it's more intuitive and to make a stronger contrast with present-tense advice on current-day travel. I made some progress toward that, but more needs to be done if everyone is OK with putting the past in the past. I hope some of the things that are presumed ("you can probably take a bus/boat to X") are confirmed before the article is run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * See also my comments at above about featuring that article around the 500th anniversary of his visit there, April 2021. Pashley (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for August 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Berlin

 * Comment - this is currently rated at usable, simply because I did not unilaterally want to promote it to guide. I think it is quite ready, but a bit of copy-editing might still be necessary. At any rate, we can safely hold this one in reserve (we have a lot of Central European places and topics as is imho) until we need an emergency replacement Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost some sections are listy, and then there are listings in See and Do that should be moved to the district articles. As such, I'd say there is enough information in the article so that the average visitor wouldn't have to consult another travel guide. Therefore, it can probably be upgraded to guide status. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support — there are still some listings in the Do section that need to be moved to the districts and replaced here by a paragraph or two of text. When that's taken care of, this can be considered a full support, I might fix the issue in a few days if nobody else will have. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was about to move the listings to the districts, but now I notice they are already there. Should we maybe just leave the cultural institutions there as they are and remove the style tag from Do (e.g. we also seem to list the "must sees" in Paris with coordinates and descriptions, and the top sights in Tel Aviv are similarily listed in the main article)? Or just delete them or list them some other way? Ypsilon (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest emulating Chicago and Chicago. It's a star article, and it doesn't have templated listings for anything in those sections except for some college sports teams. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Close, the main problem being the issue Ypsi brought up about "See" and "Do" listings that need to be devolved to district articles (there also seem to be some "Do" listings that violate our tour policy and should thus be deleted outright). Also, though it's not usual practice to do so, I wonder if there's anything that can be done about the exhaustive list of embassies and consulates in "Cope". If not, no big deal - Berlin is a national capital, after all - but it seems pretty Yellow Page-y. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Another thing: The article currently has no routebox whatsoever. How important should the existence and completeness of a routebox be for featuring? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Should the districts Berlin/South and Berlin/East Central be broken into smaller chunks? I have asked as much at Talk:Berlin. This may or may not affect this nomination. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Before featuring, I'd like somebody to go over the language and a sprucing up of the district blurbs. Otherwise I think the article is fine and getting better. And the district layout now makes sense for the most part, though I am still not 100% sure what to do with Wedding... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I would support this completely, except that the "Do" section has some problems and the article seems to be understand- and get in- heavy. Selfie City (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not a regular participant on this project, just someone who came to read this particular page.  I noticed that quite a few of the external links in the museum section need to be changed, as they're leading to 404-pages.  Other than that, I found the article informative.  Risker (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well WV:Plunge forward, then. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment we never quite resolved the boundaries of Berlin/East Central and whether we should redraw them and if so, how. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I created a (quite crude) approximation of the "Wedding and Gesundbrunnen" district in my userspace. Obviously the lede and the understand section would have to be worked on and some other issues as well... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for July 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yuryev-Polsky

 * Not yet, though the problems with this article are easier fixes than it may look like at first blush. The most demanding task here is the need to flesh out the "Get around" section. (For starters, it looks like much of the prose in the "Orientation" subsection of "Understand" could be retooled and moved there.) There are many others which, while also major deficiencies, require relatively little actual work to fix:
 * There is no dynamic map, nor any geo coordinates for the listings.
 * The bullet-point lists in the various "Get in" subsections should be converted to prose, and in "By plane", we might want to give directions to the town from the various Moscow-area airports.
 * The "Eat" and "Sleep" sections might need to be expanded; "Drink" definitely does.
 * "Go next" and "See" need to be reformatted to conform with Wikivoyage convention.
 * The article looks like it could use a thorough copyedit.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for all the things that need to be fixed, but one quick and tangential comment: There is no convergence between Shanghai and the Ottoman Empire. You might as well say there's a convergence between Tierra del Fuego and Alaska, considering the distance and cultural differences involved. Asia is the world's largest continent, and I believe that featuring two places at entirely opposite ends of the continent at the same time should never be considered any kind of issue by us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I said, the majority of Asia is unsuitable for featuring in summer for climatic reasons (which incidentally is why we see a disproportionate abundance of Asian destinations in the Northern Hemisphere fall and winter; this year's relative lack thereof is an anomaly). The Ottoman Empire at its height stretched as far east as Iran and the Caucasus, we already have a Chinese feature, and anywhere south of there is a no-go for the summer. Among regions for which we have Guide-level articles, what other than Russia is left? Japan, which we've seen plenty of on the Main Page in recent years (Kurashiki, Kyoto, Taketomi, Nagoya) and what else? Not much as far as I can see. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I get your point. What else there is, I would say, would be primarily hill stations and mountainous areas. There are actually a fair number of them. We featured Shimla some time ago, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Parenthetically, "convergence" referred to those two destinations converging on the schedule into relative proximity to one another and to a hypothetical additional Asian feature, not to any presumed cultural or geographical redundancy between them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Needs work — André already brought up most things that need to be fixed in the article. In addition several prices given as per 2008, so everything in the article should probably be checked up.
 * And yes, summer in Northern Hemisphere usually means rain in the tropics north of the Equator (the same goes for Austral summer in the southern tropics) and the during that time of the year places like the Arabian desert are only for hardcore fans of hot weather. So viable Asian places to visit during Jun-Sep probably amount to Russia, some of Central Asia, some of East Asia, and then places in the southern tropics like most of Indonesia. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW I came up with an alternative to this one, see below. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Slush? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * André? (also, see 's nomination above, probably that one should also be slushed when we're at it) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why the push to slush? Just because we didn't feature Yuryev-Polsky this year doesn't mean we can't feature it next year. Also, Venice is already on the schedule for September, with several months remaining in which its problems can be ironed out. (And please don't underestimate the possibility of that; Underground Railroad is a great example of an article that went from extremely problematic to feature-ready in a short period of time. Thanks go to K7L for his efforts, BTW.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost. The fact that this whole article doesn't have one coordinate marker almost immediately gave me doubts about it. Also, it would be nice if see and do had some listings beside man-made structures. The understand and get in section seem to make this article okay until you realize that the article only has one picture, excluding the banner. Selfie City (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I should mention that Andre's statement "Though this article appears to be a more-or-less straight translation of its analogue on ru: and there's little if anything more to be gleaned from translating from there" is not true. The Russian article has been re-worked based on the recent on-the-ground research, and there is a lot to learn from it, should anyone be interested. --Alexander (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: Has anyone translated the additional text from Russian since February 1? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the article history hardly any substantial edits have been made to the article as of lately. Ypsilon (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So it presumably isn't ready for a feature. I can't help because I don't know Russian. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've brought over (and translated) stuff from the Russian version and otherwise cleaned up the article a bit. Should be ready or almost ready for the Main Page now. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual, Ypsilon, you're a lifesaver. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for July 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Vikings and the Old Norse

 * Comment: It's interesting and likely to get my vote, but a quick read of the first few paragraphs demonstrated to me that this article is going to need to be edited with a fine-toothed comb, for both clarity and standard, clear English. I think the editing will take a while, but the content certainly looks to be there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Almost Otherwise a good article, though I would imagine there'd be a some more places in Iceland and Norway worth listing. --ϒpsilon (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In addition to the relative dearth of Icelandic and Norwegian POIs pointed out by Ypsilon, it's strange that the article simply ends abruptly after the lengthy list of "Locations". If there nothing to say in the realm of "Stay safe"? No "Related topics" to delve into? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, can't tell if the article needs copyediting, but it's probably better to let native English speakers take care of that :). I recently added a stash of destinations in Norway and Iceland, and a See also section with some links. For Stay safe; well the Nordic countries are nowadays some of the safest in the world so I don't really know what to add. If the problems many users have pointed out with the Underground Railroad article aren't resolved, here is a spare article. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. After scanning through this article, it has plenty of good images and a lot of listings of places like L'Anse Aux Meadows where Viking remains and reconstructions can be found. This definitely ought to be a Featured Travel Topic at some point. Selfie City (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm belatedly noticing the additions Ypsilon made some months ago, and now I feel I can support this candidate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Not quite yet. Still needs copy editing. I just edited through The Vikings and the Old Norse. The entire remainder of the article needs to be copy edited with a fine-toothed comb before we feature it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for July 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Fukuoka

 * Very close, and the fixes are fairly easy. The "Do" section is the biggest problem: it contains plenty of content but is disorganized. Many of the listings belong in other sections: "See", "Buy", "Eat", and even "Go next"; the rest should be broken down into subcategories. In addition, "Eat" could use a few more restaurant listings to go with the copious information about local specialties, there are many listings without coordinates, and the lede needs to be expanded and made more interesting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Needs work . André already listed the article's issues. The fact the so many listings lack coordinates may indicate that they have been added before we introduced coordinates and dynamic maps here on WV, so we should check if the establishments still exist.<font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 21:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Time to run everything through Google Maps, I will probably do it during the weekend if I have time. Thanks to AlasdairW for starting. Ypsilon (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly I haven't had too much time to contribute as of lately, but I added some coordinates yesterday. Kudos to everyone who has been improving the Fukuoka article for its upcoming month on the Main Page. I think I will give the article a support vote as of now. Ypsilon (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Almost . I have done some edits, but more are required. I added co-ordinates to a few listings, but this is slow as our map uses Kanji characters. I spent one night in Fukuoka in 2005, but I didn't have much time to explore. I don't see massive errors, but I don't know how up to date it is. AlasdairW (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I now support featuring this. It is still a little short of co-ordinates, mainly in Buy and Eat, but See and Sleep are now complete. I did delete quite a few closed places, so feel free to add a few more listings. AlasdairW (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In a country like Japan there's really no excuse for any listing to lack coordinates. If no one else gets to it first, I will do my best to add those that are lacking, but can't in good conscience change my vote to "support" until that happens. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. The time formatting was all over the place, even shifting from 12-hr to 24-hr within a listing. I've fixed it now. I'm afraid I can't help with coordinates, though. Ground Zero (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support- Well, This article is not bad as it is... I think this qualifies as a DOTM. The buy section is not filled at it's entire capacity, but other than that, i do not see much bigger flaws in this article. I think it's almost good to go...  Arep   Ticous   09:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ypsilon for coming through in the clutch once again. Since coordinates are no longer an issue, I'm able to support this nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per others. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for June 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ilulissat

 * Support as nominator. Looks reasonably ready, but there are a few listings in the "Do" section (Arctic Adventure and Sports Centre Ilulissat) that lack descriptions. Also, are we sure all the tours listed in the "Tour companies" section are value-added? --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. There are a few redlinks and the "Understand" section could be better, but I think we can do it for a particularly off-the-beaten-path DOTM. --Comment by <font color="Olive">Selfie City  ( talk | <font color="Olive">contributions ) 05:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as the one who polished up the article a little while ago. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 21:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Just needs descriptions for those last couple of "Do" listings and it looks ready. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for June 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Seinfeld Tour

 * Support, pending the improvements outlined at Talk:Seinfeld Tour. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - I'm confident you will make those additions, but it's undeniable that most of your suggestions would be an improvement so ought to be in place before featuring.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional support As always when there are several contributors (Andre, Ikan, ARR8, ויקיג'אנקי...) that are much more knowledgeble about a topic or place than myself, I'll support it when you will. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 17:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Condition support ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 23:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to seem blunt, but I oppose until it reaches guide status. When it reaches guide status, I plan to comment here with a different vote (I will put the page on my watchlist). --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 01:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SelfieCity, this article is now at Guide status. Would you care to update your vote? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as promised. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 04:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Very impressive guide with star potential, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Outcome - FTT for June 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Kaunas

 * Support, but those updates need to be done a little before the article is featured. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but as the second-largest city in the country, I think this is a DotM rather than an OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Could work as both DotM and OtBP, it's a major city but in one of the lesser visited parts of Europe. If it wouldn't result in too many European articles in the DotM section (which I was afraid it would), feel free to move it up there. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's more in the OTBP section than DOTM, so it would make sense to be moved to DOTM. Also, I haven't voted on this one yet, and from what I've seen it looks quite good, and I support. What I would like to see however, considering the Pleasanton nomination I made, is longer descriptions for listings in Kaunas' eat section. Selfie City (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess Kaunas should be moved up to the DotM section, then. I'll try to expand the listings when running them through Google maps a few weeks before the article is featured. --ϒpsilon (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No objections, so I'll move Kaunas up to DotM now. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for May 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pleasanton

 * Support, not just because I’m the nominator and I know the area well, but also because this is now a well-developed article about the place. Selfie City (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Qualified support - You've done great work and I trust you that this content-laden guide is comprehensive. However, some work remains. I just made these edits for brevity, and I think the whole article could probably merit the same kind of careful reading and editing for style and brevity. Also, I see the Main Street sign arch in at least 3 pictures, so I think 2 of those should be removed from the article. The remaining images should be distributed a bit more evenly through the article, not bunched up, thereby leaving areas without images. A further comment would be that "By car/Driving" looks too detailed for visitors. I agree with naming and describing the most important roads, but for the rest, I'd rather let readers consult a map. I'll look more closely at other sections another time and may have more comments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done some work removing two pictures and removing some listings from "By car/Driving". I will now do some reorganizing of the pictures. Selfie City (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. This could also be a Destination of the Month. It could work as either - Pleasanton isn't far from Silicon Valley and isn't at all a rugged, out-of-the-way place. On the other hand, it's not a big tourist destination. Where do others think this should be featured? Selfie City (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost. Otherwise a good article, but some listings have short or no descriptions at all. As for DotM/OtBP, you could have a look at Wikivoyage_talk:Destination_of_the_month_candidates/Archive. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can get to work on the listings. I don't know a lot about every business I've listed (some, hardly at all), but I could add to some of the listings. Selfie City (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, ϒpsilon, having improved the listing in the "eat" section of Pleasanton, I have gone back and checked the link you made to the archive. Pleasanton only has 80,000-90,000 inhabitants, so I would say it's probably OtBP as I initially stated. Selfie City (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Very close, echoing Ypsilon's reasoning. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AndreCarrotflower: I'm assuming you are referring to the listings in the sections "buy", "drink", and "sleep", which definitely need more information. I'll get to work on this right away. Selfie City (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Good, thorough article. You can tell it's had a lot of careful attention from someone who knows the city. I agree with Ikan Kekek that some editing for brevity wouldn't hurt. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - really nice article written with plenty of local knowledge and a dash of humour.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been through the article to make sure I didn't do any copyvios (some of the stuff was written in my very early days of experience with wikis). Apart from a few dates (as in years), information I likely got from scrolling through a street or two on street view, and a little information about Xfinity that's half based on local knowledge and half on a diagram from Wikipedia, I don't see any issues whatsoever, and these little things honestly don't seem like serious issues to me. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for May 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Roman Empire

 * I want to vote Support here, because it's a well-written article on one of my personal favorite historical subjects. However, I'm not sure if the marker counter being capped at 99 is a bug so much as a feature. The plain fact of any article having over 99 listings (even a travel topic article, and especially an article with a dynamic map) is a pretty big red flag for me that says maybe we need to think about whether all of these places really need to be listed, or whether it should be split up into smaller articles (much as previous FTT Fundamentals of flying was), perhaps with Roman Empire itself serving as sort of a "Huge City" analogue: a summarization of and portal to the more fine-grained information in the daughter articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Conditional support. The 99 problems (now I got Jay-Z's song on continuous replay in my head, thanks a lot :P) need to be fixed. One possible workaround would be splitting them up geographically (e.g. 1. today's Italy, 2. France+Iberia, 3. British Isles+Central Europe+Benelux, 4. Balkan+Greece, 5. Turkey+Middle East, 6. Northern Africa) and use different markers for destinations in different regions. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not yet; there are just too many listings. I think many of them should be pushed down to destination articles and just a summary (maybe with listing for cities, but not individual attractions) kept here. A recent discussion of a similar issue is at Travellers'_pub. Pashley (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Almost. The listing types should be changed to use different colours, and to avoid the present problem of having eight #1 listings. Individual listings should be trimmed to remove phone numbers, hours, prices etc, and these should be in a linked destination article. A bigger job is that all the destination articles need to be checked to see that they have related listings with the full details - I found four listings in Algeria linked to Batna but only one was in the very outline article. I don't think that there are too many listings - I would actually say the reverse that there are a few sights are missing (no Antonine Wall in Scotland). A few listings might be combined, but not many as most listings appear separately on the map at a zoom of 8. AlasdairW (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, what does a good article do? Does it include every possible listing, or does it try to avoid overwhelming the reader with too much information (not to mention the dynamic map with too many markers, a problem that the proposed color-coding solution doesn't address)? I think the answer is pretty clearly the second option. I think this article really needs to be split up in the same way as Flying is split up into Planning your flight, At the airport, On the plane, and Arriving by plane. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Breaking it out into Roman Britain, Roman France etc would be fine, just having a paragraph about the countries with more than a dozen or so listings, with a link to a country article. On reflection, a paragraph introducing each country would be a worthwhile addition (when was this territory part of the Roman Empire etc). AlasdairW (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's remember that unless we're fine with having laundry lists of attractions, if the main Roman Empire article is splitted up, we also need to add more content to each of those subarticles. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I really look forward for a solution to the "99 problems" and the completion of this article - it's very incomplete yet (p. ex. Skopje and Sevastopol both deserve to be mentioned), as I stopped adding to it when this bug got evident. For the record, I don't like very much the idea of splitting up the article, as it has already been very useful to me for reference purposes, both on planning stages for trips, and on the field itself. Having said that, I can very clearly see Pashley's point stated above, and don't want to suggest any hint of being "jealous" or "possessive" about what is written in the article. To be brief: Not yet. Ibaman (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ottoman Empire is now nominated as an FTT. IMO, that article should go first. /Yvwv (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Slush? Still only at usable status. Moreover, we'll have Vikings and the Old Norse in the summer of 2019, and I've envisioned Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation for a summer month 2019 too, as it will be 500 years since that journey started. And three historical topics within about half a year is perhaps a little too much. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support in the long term. I'm not sure why Palmyra is a red marker and all the others are green, but other than that, the article seems well-developed and good enough to be guide status. However, with several other historical topics (like the Ottoman Empire) this summer, and all the issues addressed above, let's leave this nomination up here a little while longer and maybe see this article develop some more. Selfie City (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because Palmyra was largely destroyed by IS. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense (I've read a book about the city), but I still think the red marker will be more confusing than informative. Also, it interrupts the flow of the numbered listings (it shows up as listing #1 but would normally be #38). Selfie City (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is a great reference travel article, which enthusiasts of Roman civilization can read while planning trips to France, Italy, Greece or any of another umpteen countries. I just copy edited through Roman Empire (the subsection in "Understand"), and I'm sure the article can benefit from more copy editing, but it sure looks good enough for a feature to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Slush?
No one seems terribly interested in addressing this article's myriad problems, we already have another Featured Travel Topic on the docket for next year related to European history (Vikings and the Old Norse), as well as a soon-to-be FTT nominee with a summer 2019 timeslot envisaged (Seinfeld Tour). Is it time to throw Roman Empire on the slush pile? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral At least the problem with the numbers is fixed now and the article is in my opinion definitely complete when it comes to listings — are there still some important Roman sites that aren't listed? That said, if y'all would like to divide the article into regions and rather feature the Roman Empire as a series of articles, then it'd be best to slush it and renominate e.g. in a year or two. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 18:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon, thank you for bringing to my attention that the issue with the numbers has been resolved and that the POIs are now spread out onto multiple different dynamic maps rather than all clustered together on one enormous one. Despite those fixes, I still think the article is longer than it ideally should be, and ultimately should be broken up into regions. But I also am not sure that those concerns are necessarily severe enough to preclude the article going on the Main Page. And of the many other upcoming FTT candidates that need a great deal of work before being featureable - Judaism, Jazz, LGBT travel for example - it's probable that at least one of them won't get the required fixes in time and will need to be slushed, thus making room on the schedule for the Seinfeld Tour. So I guess mark me down as weak support for Roman Empire. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see I gave the article a conditional support a year and a half ago when the POI numbers still were a problem, it has been fixed long ago. The article is about to go on the Main Page relatively soon, many users have given the article a (kinda) support vote, there are other articles in worse shape that are going to be slushed (which means it could be hard to find a replacement for this one), and the article has also been sitting around here for almost a year and a half already so let's not drag out this further. Some users have suggested the article is still incomplete and there are Roman sites that still need to be listed, but mirroring the discussion at LGBT travel's nomination below, I'm starting to think that if there are too many places listed, the article becomes too heavy to read (this is also why we have theAvoid long lists policy). Therefore: full support from me. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 12:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Istanbul

 * I want to vote oppose on political grounds (Yeah, I know, I am a major class A hypocrite, having been there this year) but I know we don't do that here, so *shrug emoji*. That said, if we have an article of equal quality and similar geographic position and so on, we should prefer that over this... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The ethics of tourism to authoritarian countries (or countries which have become more authoritarian during recent years) have not been issues against featuring destinations in China, Thailand, or Qatar. There is no clear evidence that tourism to such countries would either erode or support democratization, so IMO it is a question for each individual traveller's conscience. /Yvwv (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Yvwv. The current regime in Turkey is certainly not my favorite, but I have no issues with the fine people of Turkey. But perhaps keep clear of politics in this context. Istanbul is one of the great cities of the world and deserves a proper article. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost Pretty comprehensive article, and the districts range from excellent to decent (all are usable, and a couple of them probably deserve guide status). The main issue I have with the article is the overuse of bullet points in some sections towards the end of the article, and among them a manual of style warning box. Also, if there are things to update, the new airport and possibly other things, they certainly need to be updated. Though anything that is updated today should probably be checked up again a month before the article is featured.

It should be up to the travelers, not us, to decide what they think about Turkey, and whether they'd like to travel there or not. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost. There are some formatting issues and a manual of style issue with the article, but I think these can be fixed. Selfie City (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Istanbul is one of the world's great cities. I'd say that, whatever the political situation, if the article is up to scratch & there are no travel advisories against going there, then we should obviously feature it. Pashley (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for April 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bouzigues

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks ready to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it could do with some more information in some sections, but at the same time I wouldn't say it "needs work". It's also not a North America destination, which is good considering the schedule. Selfie City (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously, though I'm honoured this would be noticed and liked by others. I would look to improve it still further by adding some more history and organising the restaurants by price. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, it should be featured when there's an R in the month, which is when mussels and oysters are harvested (so basically not May-August). April or September would be ideal. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's an open slot in April with Bouzigues' name on it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: per TT's comment on Talk:Bouzigues, I have now nominated Bouzigues for star status for the second time. TT's hope is that we can get the template on this article by the time it reaches the Main page. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 03:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for April 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Southern Ridges Walk

 * Support -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 20:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It looks a good walk, and is in a country / city where going for a walk is not the first attraction that springs to mind. AlasdairW (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – looks like a solid article about an interesting walk. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for April 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Siem Reap

 *  Conditional support per comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, except for one issue: in the "drink" section, there are several listings with no content. Selfie City (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Close. In addition to the foregoing issues, "Get in" needs to be redesigned: there are lots of bullet-point lists that ought to be turned into prose, as well as pseudo-section headers of italicized text that need to be brought in line with proper Wikivoyage format. Secondly, the "Sleep" section is too long: just because the choice of accommodations is "seemingly inexhaustible" doesn't mean we need to list every single option; let's keep the best and get rid of the rest. Also, there are lots and lots of listings without geo coordinates. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's right, actually. I didn't really notice that at first. Selfie City (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much ✅ except for the Sleep listings. I removed the ones that were out of business, but there are still 51 of them, should they be reduced to 40 or 30? When adding coordinates I looked at the Mapnik layer in the dynamic map and it really looks like half of all houses in Siem Reap are some type of accommodation. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 20:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 15-27 would be the appropriate amount per 7+2; if you had 27, then it would 9 under the budget section, 9 under the mid-range section, and 9 under the splurge section. But as that page says, "further subdivisions can be invented as you go along". I'd say, though, 27 total with 9 in each section of "sleep" would be more appropriate than the current ~50. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 22:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for March 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Chapel Hill

 * Support as nominator. Thorough article; I don't notice any major omissions or problems. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, and a case could also be made for DotM rather than OtBP. Again, though, please understand that given the abundance of current U.S. nominees, Chapel Hill is going to have to wait till 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. With so long time before the article goes on the Main Page, a few weeks before it does we need to check that everything is still up to date. --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Unlike Keenjhar Lake, Chapel Hill is a very complete article that should be a DotM, especially when you consider that North Carolina has never had a DotM article. Someone could definitely make a vacation out of the Chapel Hill article, which is the kind of service we want every article to be. Selfie City (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for March 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Common scams

 * Support as nominator. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is very detailed; in fact, it almost seems like too long for the traveler to take in, but I guess I'll support. Selfie City (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm unconvinced on pane e coperto, though. If the charge is reasonable, it could be OK. I remember that in the 90s, around two thousand lire was standard in all trattorie. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Regarding pane e coperto, this kind of cover charge is common in Uruguay too. I've rephrased the section a bit to try to address Ikan Kekek's concern. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the blurb should be a little shorter, if possible. Selfie City (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed "supposedly" from the shorter version; either they are supposedly closed or just "closed". --LPfi (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted back. Methinks the implication of the blurb text escaped you. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for March 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Zurich

 * Comment: We slushed this article last year. The comments in the archived thread should be a good barometer of what issues still need to be addressed before Zurich can be featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One objection was the excess of Germanophonic destinations. That is no longer an issue. /Yvwv (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * History, climate and language sections have been added. /Yvwv (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue that we still tend to have too many Germanophone destinations "in the pipeline" to feature any that is merely "meh". If there is an outstanding article, by all means, we should feature it, but if we have to chose from articles of similar quality, geographic balance should be one of the tiebreaking factors imho. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I think the article is okay for a DotM, but the latter parts of the article need more pictures and the article itself could probably do with fewer listings - they're pretty overwhelming and hard to maintain for us. Selfie City (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Could Zurich make April 2018? It is Sechseläuten, and some nearby ski resorts are still open. /Yvwv (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that was already two months ago. :D ϒpsilon (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * D'oh! April 2019, I mean. / Yvwv (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Close Some listings still need coordinates, and the bottom third of the article could use some photos. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, will run an up to date check of the listings in the weekend if I feel like, but you can consider me supporting Zurich. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for February 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Khasab

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I think it needs work. The Car Rentals should be a subheading of "By Car" which should just briefly state how easy/difficult it is to get around by car (by the looks of the map, it may just need to say "Most sites are located along Khasab Road"). If there are no rentacycles, "By bike" might not be worth mentioning. The "See" section could use a bit more information. The first listing is okay, but the second site states it's in city with some dubious conjectures. The Irani Smugglers bit is kind of interesting but it doesn't seem to make sense as a listing. Overall, more concrete information about the sites would be nice in the "See" section. In the "Eat" section, convenience store ice cream isn't worth a listing. The "Drink" section should have some actual listings (places other than the hotel that serve alcohol and places to get the mentioned smoothies). I don't think it's far off, but a bit more information and listings would really help. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I'm not crazy about some of the formatting, but I still support this nomination. Selfie City (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I agree with what ChubbyWimbus identifies as the article's weaknesses, but I don't think they're quite as big a deal as he makes them out to be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:StellarD? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Conditional support . I agree in essence with ChubbyWimbus's comments. Most of the fixes are fairly straightforward, although there is a bit of organizational and formatting work to do. A couple of the bulleted points in 'get around' I think should be converted to simple prose. The second listing, Al Khmazera Castle, does in fact exist, but I haven't seen it myself and so can't comment on the worthiness of its inclusion here. The listing for the Dhow Port should be moved to 'do', because this is where visitors will pick any boats for dhow cruises or snorkeling and diving excursions. The information about Iranian smugglers is relevant (as it accounts for possibly most of the traffic in the port area); however the smugglers operate out of a different area of the port which should be described and/or geotagged.


 * The 'do' section should be reorganized, into port-related activities (dolphin-watching cruises, snorkeling excursions, etc.) and other activities. The information about Jebal Harim ('Mountain Safari') should be expanded in the related article about the Musandam Peninsula, as the mountains are outside of Khasab proper and covered, albeit briefly, in the second article.


 * In the food and drink section, the ice cream listing and the bulleted points in 'drink' should be converted to prose. Regarding actual listings in 'drink', it's been a few years since I visited the place, but I don't recall seeing any juice bars – juices you would commonly order in a restaurant anyway. The handful of cafés I saw were the exclusive domain of local men and not terribly welcoming, and I didn't try any of them. Perhaps other visitors have tried them however and can comment.


 * I see by looking at the OSM map that there's a newly-opened large hotel on the south side of the port. Given the dearth of accommodation in the town, a listing for this should be added.
 * –StellarD (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for updating and polishing the article, StellarD. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite finished yet, but am happy to help. :) StellarD (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixes have been completed. I now support this nomination. –StellarD (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for February 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/SS Lusitania

 * Support as nominator. Looks reasonably complete, with the exception of the "Photography" subsection, which consists in its entirety of a note the author left for himself: "(photographic equipment suggestions)". Perhaps Peter can fill that in for us; if not, it would seem not to be of such vital importance that we couldn't delete it or at least the parenthetical memo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaand the above problem has already been addressed! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just about to come back here to say so. The article is, as you say, fairly complete and up to date. I would be happy to see it feature on the Main Page. I am also open to suggestions to improve the general appearance - layout of photos etc. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I also thought about nominating one of Peter's diving articles for sometime in early 2019. Speaking of Cape Town, I learned yesterday that the city has severe problems with its water reserves (also see the warning box in the article), don't know how much this affects diving travellers who probably have access to cars and boats and thus can easily eat, drink, sleep and buy supplies e.g. 200 kms away if needed. And according to Previous_Featured_travel_topics we've had dive guides as FTT in January 2013 and May 2016, so this will only be the third time. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost. The "get in" section needs more information and there's a red link in it. Selfie City (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for February 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yaoundé

 * Support as nominator, I guess. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tentative support. Impressive work. My only concern is that many of the listings just have general locations rather than exact addresses, but I don't know how realistic it is to give exact addresses in Cameroon. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a bit too many pictures and some of low quality and appeal that could be deleted. Are all of the "cuisine" listings specific to Yaounde or could some be moved to the general Cameroon page? Most of them seem like general Cameroon foods. For those that are relevant, do we have listings for places where you can eat them? Are the supermarkets necessary? It looks like contentless clutter. Overall, it's a decent article, but the large amount of lists kind of overshadow the listings that do have content. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it possible to make a map of the districts or to organize them differently? Although the text claims it is "helpful" to know, that list is extremely long. Are they all equally useful or could the most useful be listed while the others are dropped or grouped together somehow? Maybe just list the ones the traveler are most likely to visit/be directed to along with any to avoid?


 * Support Looks pretty great! There's a lot of good information here. I think we should nominate this, and that way we can get an African destination as a DotM. Selfie City (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet, possibly not at Guide status. This article needs pretty extensive work before it can be featured. There are a lot of pointless overlong lists, such as in the "Orientation", "Buy", and "Eat" sections, that seem to function as filler more so than imparting any truly valuable information. For instance, is it really necessary to list every single residential neighborhood in the city, with seemingly no regard to the presence or absence of anything interesting to visitors in each one? I'd say confine the list to quartiers that contain at least one POI or are prominent enough to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, and delete the rest. Similarly with the naked bullet-point listings for "small markets [that] can be found all over the city"; are they really interesting to visitors, or are we including them just for the sake of having them? And I echo ChubbyWimbus' comments about the "Eat" section; most of these are Cameroonian dishes in general rather than specific to Yaoundé, and thus belong in Cameroon. Also, there are a lot of naked POIs with no blurbs, or blurbs that consist only of directions to the place. Can we find information on all these places, or should they be deleted too? And - perhaps most importantly - if we find that most of this information is indeed mostly fluff, and have to delete it, will there be enough left in this article that it's truly at Guide status? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, I've removed most of the districts, moved the dishes to the Cameroon articlen and hidden the small markets and supermarkets. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for January 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Chatham Islands

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support, with only minor fixes necessary to upgrade that to full support. In reading the article, I found it hard to get a real sense of the place. I think the intro lede, the "Understand" section, and a lot of the section ledes need to be fleshed out to something more than just rote information about geographical location, population, lists of species of endemic wildlife, etc. I'd much prefer to see lively prose used to paint a picture for the reader. What makes the Chatham Islands special and worth a visit? Also, the "See" section could be better organized; categories like "man-made attractions" cover an awfully broad range of types of places. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I have been to other New Zealand islands, but not here. However doing some edits on this article has increased my desire to make the trip, despite the expensive flights. Although the islands are remote, there is a reasonable amount of information online, and some edits have been done by an editor who was there a year ago - I am reasonably happy that it is up to date. I have expanded Understand, but maybe the prose could be more lively. There is not a great selection of large images on commons, but I think that there will be enough to make a banner. AlasdairW (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for January 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Indonesian phrasebook

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  Support.  Definitely. No need for debate about this one. I think we should do this one this winter, or perhaps in the spring of 2019? See Ikan Kekek's comment. Selfie City (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We ran Italian phrasebook in February and try to have at least one year between topics of the same type so yes, winter or spring is probably when we'll feature this one. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the issue of how to represent glottal stops in pseudo-translations on this phrasebook is resolved and the changes are thoroughly implemented (I'd like to insist on a solution for unaspirated Ts and Ps, too, but mistransliterating glottal stops is a more severe defect, IMO). I brought this up at Talk:Indonesian phrasebook, but no action was taken on it. See Malay phrasebook for an example of how to deal with glottal stops and unaspirated Ts and Ps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You clearly have a good understanding of the language, so I'll go neutral and leave this to an expert. Selfie City (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

[unindent] In addition, I'm noticing inconsistent psuedo-transliterations of "mau". I'd probably use "mah-oo", not "ma-oo" or "mah-hoo" or "mah-woo", but it's important for someone to knowledgeably pick one approximation and use it consistently. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Fortunately we have several Indonesian speakers active here, so they can probably help if they have time. Pinging User:Othello95, User:Ibhi19, User:Gsarwa. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'm going to go with Ikan's proposal to make all pseudo-transliterations on the page to be more consistent and try to help as much as I can. Meanwhile, I found this page to guide us later for editing the pseudo-transliterations on the page. What do you think? ibhi19 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Great. That guide to pronunciation is very good, except that a rolled r is not like "tt" in "butter" in most English dialects. Anyway, I think that if anyone doesn't understand what "rolled r" means, there's really not much hope for them other than to learn by listening to Indonesian-speakers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, once the aforementioned issues are dealt with. A great and detailed phrasebook. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm impressed with all the work that's been done on this phrasebook. It's probably ready to run now, but if not, I am completely confident it will be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for January 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Denver

 *  Close . Though there are numerous issues with this article, they're all pretty easy fixes: some sections need to have their listings alphabetized, "Drink" has some naked bullet-point listings that need to be filled out ("Breweries" and "Music venues" subsections) or that lack geo coordinates (both of the foregoing subsections plus "Coffee" and "Nightclubs"); live music venues belong in "Do" rather than "Drink"; the information on altitude sickness is largely redundant to what's already written in the travel topic article on the subject and can be excised; some of the tours listed in "Do" look like they might not be value-added; "Go next" needs to be redone. Still, this doesn't constitute as much work as it might look like, and we have north of a year in which to do it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment given that it is listed on our United States without a car guide, we might wish to expand and update those sections a bit. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Almost support No big issues with this article. Some coordinates are missing here and there and there are long stretches without any photos and like Andre I also noticed there's a section dedicated to tours, some of which may not comply with our tour guidelines. And, as always, a while before the artilce goes on the main page we need to check if everything is still in business, prices are still correct, links still work etc. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to full support after fixing pretty much what I just criticized. Will still add a few photos to eliminate photoless stretches. -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 17:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I haven't spent any time reading through the article, but I can tell that this article is well-formatted and has a lot of information about this well-known city. Selfie City (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I visited Denver many years ago and the article looks ok, but possibly not totally up to date. I fixed a few dead links, but I noticed that almost none of the eat, sleep or drink listings had last edited dates, and so the information may be a couple of years out of date. AlasdairW (talk)
 * Support. I took care of the last few fixes on my list above. It's ready for the spotlight now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for December 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Baños

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The "buy" section needs work, but everything else looks good. Selfie City (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Some minor copyediting and reformatting would be good, but nothing to the extent that it would give me pause if we were to feature this article the way it is today. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for December 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Winter in the Nordic countries

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. We're actually fully stocked with FTTs up to and including November 2018 (as Hobbitschuster said, I don't think concerns about an overabundance of U.S. destinations really apply to an article specifically about not visiting that country), but IMO it would actually be better to run this in December — it would make a nice holiday feature. Article looks complete, no complaints or issues from me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * December is fine too. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While November and December are usually terrible for winter sport (short days and little snow), articles should on principle be featured well before the desirable season. /Yvwv (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Historically, consensus has disagreed with the above philosophy on when to feature. However, it's perhaps worth mentioning that "December" FTTs actually spend more time on the Main Page in January than in the previous month. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Well before the season" is applicable when featuring it during the season in practice would mean a prospective traveler would have to wait until the next season (e.g. the Inca trail nomination above), and this is not the case here. On the other hand, the article is not only about winter sports but also the Christmas season and the Polar night among others. December is fine, but I would rather not have it postponed until January, let alone February. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The peak holiday for Nordic ski resorts is Easter, which in 2019 is on April 21st. A December/January slot would be prospective for skiers, and in synch with those who want to experience the polar night. /Yvwv (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like December is a good month, then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (although I am biased...). The polar light (aurora borealis) season starts in September and lasts throughout the winter until early April. The skiing season mostly begins in December (or even later), but in some parts of Norway skiing begins in (early) November. Some ski lifts actually open in May and stay open during summer, but I guess that is a different topic. Erik den yngre (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I can see there's a lot of useful content in this article. I think, though, I need to address some issues with this article:
 * 1) This article could do with fewer pictures. There are some really nice pictures but there are others that do not need to be in the article and could easily draw an article's readers attention from the article itself to the pictures.
 * 2) In the weather section is a chart that shows general climatic conditions. This would be more attractive if it was formatted as a table, which would help out with my first point.
 * 3) The weather section would probably be more accurately titled "climate".
 * 4) The quote in the "daylight" section doesn't add much to the article and doesn't even make much sense. I think we should either find another quote to replace it or remove the quote altogether.
 * 5) Due to all the red links in the ski resorts section, that section looks kind-of messy. Also, I don't think the formatting of those listings is totally consistent.
 * 6) The "buy" section could do with some more information, although it doesn't need to be too long for an article about a season.
 * 7) Because this article is really about the cold weather in Nordic countries, I think the entire "stay safe" section should be devoted to weather only, and the first part of this section and the "weather" heading should be removed. Still, in general, this is a good, detailed article that should be a Featured Travel Topic either starting late November, late December, perhaps late January, or be featured in the late 2019/early 2020 winter. Selfie City (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What do others think? I started a section at Talk:Winter in the Nordic countries, as I think this kind of changes is better discussed in the article talk. --LPfi (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for December 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Colonia

 * Support as nominator. I've been in Colonia for several weeks now and have expanded and updated the article quite a bit. I'll still be here until mid-November if there are any concerns that require someone "on the ground" to address. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Dunno if anything needs to be added, but if you stuble upon some nice shop, restaurant or bar, do let future visitors know about it. As a top destination in a country that's somewhat off the beaten path, Colonia is an article that I think can work both as DotM and OtBP. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm leaning toward DotM rather than OtBP as the category, and toward November 2018 as the time to feature - we could run it sooner, but November is probably the hardest month of the year to schedule for, and if we have a suitable candidate now I'd just as soon save the headache. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - It seems like this article is an easy feature: no glaringly obvious grammar or spelling problems, lots of content, plenty of good pictures, easy and fun to read. The only nit-pick I have is that the banner looks a bit dreary. I don't think that's any reason to not feature it, however. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm not crazy about the "Do" section but I think the article in general is a good choice for OtBP, not so much as a Destination of the Month. Selfie City (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for November 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Keenjhar Lake

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Saqib, you asked me earlier about which Pakistani destination we might feature next, and I regret never getting back to you about that. I think this one is a fine choice. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article needs more content and hardly even passes Wikivoyage's "What is an article?" requirements. If that is all there is to write about in this place, this article will never have the potential to be a DotM. Selfie City (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding things. This is an article about a lake that is halfway between two cities and would be an overly long listing in a city article. If this is all there is to say about the lake, the article is exemplary and should be featured. Show us where in the criteria for judging articles nominated for Off the Beaten Path there is a requirement for a certain length. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Gizza ( roam ) 05:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to Ikan Kekek, I'm not saying that there is a length requirement. However, this article is hardly a guide article and it needs more information before becoming a OtBP. Selfie City (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What information do you think it's lacking? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For a start, there needs to be at least 50% more information in Keenjhar_Lake; information about the local climate climate would be useful. Also, if this is going to be a DotM or OtBP, it should have metric-English conversions because the article will most likely receive many readers from around the world. Also, the "get in" section needs to be broken up more so it is easier for Wikivoyagers to read. The Keenjhar_Lake section needs more than a shrine and two basic activities, and the "eat" section largely needs to be taken out of paragraph form and have some good listings; there needs to be a drink section or a heading with the word "drink" in it. If these things were improved and the general article was expanded, this article would be ready to be a DotM/OtBP. Selfie City (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of what you're asking for seems to be based on the notion that there could be more listings. If you know this, add them. I assume there are not more things to list, and that Saqib knows the park well. I also don't agree on making "Understand" longer just for the hell of it, if that's what you're suggesting, but I do agree that adding a "Climate" subsection would be helpful; that's a good point. I doubt it'll be hard to add, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for November 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding travel through the United States

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, as I already indicated on the article's talk page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It would be good to update the flights shortly before the article is featured, if someone has the energy. The details of Trump's travel ban should also be brought up to date shortly before featuring. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον (<font color="#333333">talk ) 19:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support. I don't find it easy to support this nomination because it doesn't exactly sound patriotic, but I think the article in general is okay for a Featured Travel Topic. However, it could do with some more general information: for example, what exactly is the "no fly list" and how do people get on it? Also, there could be more information about various legislation (old or new) about travel/immigration in the US. The travel ban is only one aspect of this. I also wonder if there are very many people who would want to avoid travel through the US. Selfie City (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Addressing this topical issue is long overdue. K7L (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all, we are not here to write patriotic travel guides, much less since most of our editor base are not Americans, much less patriotic Americans. Second of all and more to the point, I think there are still some points about the No fly list for example listed in the WP article that could bear mention and of course before this goes live the flights would have to be checked and rechecked. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost. I try to avoid travelling via the US, unless it is my destination. Travelling from the UK to New Zealand, it takes about the same time via the US or Asia. However the US is much less welcoming to transit passengers than China. The article is good, but it has no advice on how to search for an "avoiding US" flight. Are there particular flight booking websites that let you specify a list of countries to avoid? AlasdairW (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Selfie City, this article is generally speaking not intended for American citizens, but for everyone else who wants to avoid the hassle of U.S. security theater and hassles with U.S. immigration, etc. Otherwise, I'd simply agree with Hobbitschuster that this is not a site that has "touting the U.S.A." among its goals, but rather, has the traveller comes first as its prime directive. And avoiding the U.S. is definitely a good idea for loads of people around the world. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ikan Kekek and Hobbitschuster: I think there was a misunderstanding here. The beginning of my original comment didn't mean that patriotism was a reason not to include it. I was just saying that I personally found it hard to support, but I'm still going to ignore my personal bias. And I was not being completely serious in that statement. Selfie City (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Should the questions at Talk:Avoiding_travel_through_the_United_States be discussed & perhaps some text added before this is featured? Pashley (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they are worth mentioning in some way. Being put in jail for actions legal at home where you performed them, just because your flight went via USA, is something indeed worth a warning. The article warns Canadians, but the problem potentially concerns many more than IT experts. --LPfi (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, to the extent it might also concern non-IT people. <font color="#0000ff">ϒψιλον  (<font color="#333333">talk ) 21:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could concern people with political views not liked by the US government or doing business in countries not liked by them. Although not everybody is arrested, quite a few could be in the right circumstances. --LPfi (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for November 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Gyeongju

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost – some listings need coordinates, but other than that it looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Granger said, "Go next" needs an overhaul - the first half of the section consists of individual listings that don't belong in "Go next" (briefly perusing them, it looks like either Gyeongju or Pohang might be better places for them), and the second half mentions Daegu and Busan but doesn't say why they're of interest to visitors, and contains extraneous information about transportation from Gyeongju that, again, doesn't belong in "Go next". Despite that, I feel I can provisionally support this article as there is still plenty of time until autumn 2018 in which to address these minor issues, though we should maybe also keep an eye on the political situation on the Korean Peninsula (recent calls by some in the U.S. government for families of military personnel to be evacuated from South Korea due to the threat of war strike me as overreactions, and prospects for diplomacy seem to be better than they have in months if not years, but a year is a long time when it comes to this). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it's a good article, but the formatting, particularly in the "go next" section, could be better formatted, as AndreCarrotflower stated. Selfie City (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like all the listings have coordinates now. Granger, would you like to be the fourth support vote for Gyeongju? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was unable to find coords for a few of them, and I'll still need to fix some things in the Go next section. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be nice to get those last few coordinates, but I think I can support anyway. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅; I believe Google Maps has improved their coverage of the region as of lately, and thus I could find the rest of the coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like the issues with "Go next" have been taken care of too. Upgraded my vote to full support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for October 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Valletta

 * Weak support at present. The article needs a better lede and more pictures, the "Do" section could use expanding, there are a few listings without geo coordinates, and I'm not sure "in debatable order of importance" is a valid way to organize the "See" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost First off, Valletta seems to have been demoted to usable. The article needs geo coordinates, photos, possibly more POIs and an update. And FWIW I imagined Chicago Bronzeville would go into October's slot.
 * And I don't support a blanket closing down of the nominations, but we could do that for (Northern Hemisphere) summer articles given that spring and summer 2019 are already slowly filling up, almost a year and a half ahead.
 * Why? Because the next slots we're looking for articles for the winter months 2019. And traditionally it has been about as hard finding suitable articles for slots in the "colder half of the year" as there has been to find suitable months for the tons and tons of summer or shoulder season articles. The articles that sit around for long periods are the likes of Lodz, Palmyra (New York), Brownsville and Groningen, but almost never articles like Entebbe, Praia, Hobart or Merida (Mexico). ϒpsilon (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ypsilon:


 * Valletta is very clearly a Guide. Granted it's not the most complete Guide-level article on the site, but it's not the least complete one either (Bisbee, as one of many possible examples). I'm not sure what happened there, but I've updated the article accordingly.


 * Chicago/Bronzeville could be featured in October, but now that I look closer, Valletta probably could not be featured in September, the same month we run Venice as DotM - two Mediterranean destinations sharing the Main Page for not 10 but 20 days, I think, is out of bounds.


 * You make a good point about the difficulty of scheduling winter destinations, but it perhaps bears mentioning that once an OtBP nominee is introduced for December 2018 as I indicated above, 50% (6 out of 12) of the available slots for winter 2018-19 will have been filled:


 * Dec 2018: Denver / new nominee / Winter in the Nordics
 * Jan 2019: ? / ? / ?
 * Feb 2019: ? / ? / SS Lusitania
 * Mar 2019: ? / Chapel Hill / Judaism


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I must say I oppose featuring Valetta at this point in time. The understand section contains barely anything, the "do" section is a joke, there is the issue with the order of the see section,  "get in" is barely adequate and even fails to mention air travel  while "get around" did not even have a single subsection until just now. Furthermore there is a weird digression about audio guides which may or may not violate WV:Tour. "Learn" says something about language learning institutes but links to none of them. The article also has surprising language- and flow issues for one covering an English speaking place. This article might be polishable, but with none of us being based out of Malta and English language as well as Mediterranean destinations overexposed as is, I see few reasons besides the capital of culture thing to spend the considerable effort it would take to fix the issues with this article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, English, though it has official status, is not the majority language of Malta. 95% of Malta's citizens speak Maltese natively, and virtually all of the 89% of Maltese who speak English do so as a second language, with varying degrees of fluency. We went over that point already at Talk:English language varieties.


 * Secondly, I'm not based out of the Gaspé Peninsula either, and I have been there a grand total of once in my life, for only three days. Despite that, I've managed to bring five articles in that region up to Guide status - Gaspé Peninsula itself, Percé, Chandler, Forillon National Park, and Gaspé - that were previously either nearly-empty outlines or redlinks. Valletta, meanwhile, is already a Guide, and only needs a few minor tweaks. Clearly, the fact that we don't have any editors in Malta is irrelevant. We are not limited to solely firsthand information here; it's perfectly fine to draw from Google, Facebook, Yelp, Tripadvisor, etc. to fill in missing information.


 * Valletta isn't perfect, but its issues are not insurmountable, certainly not with eight months of advance warning. Frankly, if we're going to sound the alarm about any OtBP candidate, it should be Erlangen, which you nominated almost a year ago and is still in worse shape than Valletta is now only a few hours after I nominated it.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have more than once offered to do on the ground research on Erlangen if a specific thing is pointed out to me. I don't think the criticism is fair, given that it is incredibly vague and I am perfectly clear as to atrás in which the Valetta article is deficient. And ceteris paribus on the ground knowledge is always preferable to Internet research. Tell me what I should research with regards to Erlangen and I will. But I stand by my opinion that the Valetta article has the mentioned deficits and probably more. Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this is what I believed the onwards schedule would look like:
 * Aug: North Vancouver, Goroka, Rail travel in Germany
 * Sep: Sarajevo, Kamphaeng Phet ("September preferred" according to the nominator), Avoiding travel through the US
 * Oct: Gyeongju, Bronzeville, Sydney Airport (or other airport)
 * Nov: Colonia, Keenjhar Lake, Winter in the Nordic countries
 * Dec: Denver, ?, Inca trail
 * Jan: ?, ?, Lusitania
 * Feb: ?, Chapel Hill, ? (some phrasebook?)
 * Mar: ?, ?, Judaism?
 * Apr: Venice if not slushed?, ?, ?Roman empire if no Venice
 * Later: Berlin, Yuryev Polsky, Roman Empire, Vikings, Rail travel in NL


 * Concerning Erlangen, as I said above there are some listings that lack a description (particularly in Do and Buy), and in the case something has closed down it should be removed, also some photos should be added to the latter 2/3 of the article. Otherwise the article looks quite OK. --ϒpsilon (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I know you hate that argument, but I just ran copyscape on Valetta and more than half that article are the same since the migration should we really an article that may well be outdated by over five years in more than half its content? And with that background us not having someone on the ground does exacerbate the issue. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost Valletta is the sort of destination where it may not matter if half the text has not changed in a decade, particularly for the see listings. I have done some edits, but I think that there is quite a bit more to do: Understand is 10% of the length it needs to be; Buy needs quite a bit of expansion - are there no department stores?, and if not then we should say where the nearest ones out of town are, a supermarket should be here or in Eat; although there are 16 See listings I think that there are still some missing - e.g. WP has articles on 24 churches, 17 palaces etc. AlasdairW (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet. This article doesn't yet have enough solid content in some sections to be a DotM. Selfie City (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I think this article has just enough information about places to see and could just about be an OtBP. Selfie City (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm upgrading my vote to a support, after having imported and translated some Buy, Eat and Sleep listings from German, Finnish and Russian Wikivoyage. The relative lack of listings in some sections was bothering me, so I didn't want to fully support the article before. Valletta could still benefit from a little polishing here and there, and I should maybe also test all links in the first few sections, but other than that I think it's now good for the main page. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As we have plenty of OTBP candidates, but a lack of DOTM candidates, shouldn't Valletta be featured as DOTM? It is after all a capital city, and a well-known destination. /Yvwv (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You had eight months to argue that. Five days before the article is due on the Main Page - with banners already made and voted on, nothing to replace it on the schedule with, and nowhere else to put Valletta on the schedule until next year at the earliest - is not the time to be bringing it up. Have some consideration, please. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I now support the article, as there as been quite a bit of work since my earlier comments. There is still scope for improvement by adding some history to Understand, but this is a "nice to have". I think that it is better to feature it this year when it a European Capital of Culture. AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for October 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sydney Airport

 * Support And as always, if anyone thinks there's anything missing, feel free to add it. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Is there any information about specific shops, restaurants, bars etc. to put in "Buy", "Eat", and "Drink"? (I realize that most "Eat" listings would likely consist of fast food, but I think it's more appropriate to list places like that in airport articles than in ordinary destinations.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the talk page I pinged some voyagers who I guess use the airport every now and then, and Eat was updated including some restaurants. Perhaps they have something more to add, otherwise we can always take a look at the airport's home page. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I just made a minor edit to this article, and it looks fine for an airport article. Selfie City (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for October 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Naples

 * Not yet, though this article is in much better shape than the last time I checked, and it's closer to being feature-ready than Venice, which (despite my comments to Ypsilon a few weeks ago) needs a lot of work in the short time between now and 1 August, when it's due on the Main Page. If we can get the problems with Naples ironed out - namely, "Do" needs expanding, "Eat" and "Drink" absolutely need expanding, much of "Stay safe" is Captain Obvious, and the "Naples' surroundings" subsection of "See" should be moved to "Go next" - then I'd be in favor of slushing Venice and running Naples in its place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I've merged "surroundings" section completely into "Go next" now. Selfie City (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm growing less and less confident by the day that the admittedly major issues with Venice will be resolved in as little as two months' time, and meanwhile I'm very impressed with the work that User:Pepemanuele is putting into Naples. So I went ahead and put Naples in the September 2018 slot to replace Venice. I'm not sure if Pepe was previously aware of Naples' DotM nomination, but since I pinged him I suppose that he is now. One specific suggestion I would make to him: it's great that you've expanded the "Eat" section and it's even better that you're emphasizing local cuisine, but for the sake of balance it would be good if you could include some recommendable restaurants that serve other types of food. It's easy to imagine that someone from another country who's visiting Naples for a longer period of time, say a week, might get bored with Neapolitan cuisine after a while and feel like a change of pace. This could be as simple as adding an "Other cuisines" subsection with maybe 6 or 12 listings. Same with the "drink" section; yes, the local coffee and wine are renowned, but surely there are places to list besides cafés and wine bars? What about discotheques? Aside from that, I want to again commend the great work that's been put in to this article, and I'd say I'm very close to being able to support this nominee at this time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd say the article looks great and informative. The Eat section isn't arranged like we usually do, but if it's OK (I've remember seeing this on some other guide status articles) I'm not going to complain. The "linea 1" and other icons are nonstandard too, but they are nevertheless informative and give color to the article. I'd rather see the consulates in an open list rather than hidden away, we don't hide them in other articles either even in cases where there are many more of them. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Andre's concerns appear to have been addressed. I personally would like the lede to be longer, to sum up the city from the tourist's perspective, but this is relatively minor. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Needs a copyedit (I made a few corrections just now but didn't thoroughly copyedit the whole article), but otherwise looks solid to me. I think I agree with Ypsilon that I'd rather not hide the consulates in this case, but I don't feel strongly about that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with ThunderingTyphoons! that the introduction/lede should be longer. But overall I support because I think, if this was the first WV article someone ever read, they would be impressed. Selfie City (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for September 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Chicago/Bronzeville

 * Support as nominator. Looks like the most recent substantive edits were in 2013, but it should be a simple matter to confirm the continued existence, opening hours, phone numbers, URLs, etc. of the listed POIs. Aside from that, there's a nice static map that actually appears up to date, containing most or all of the numerous listings, and - of course, this being a Star article, not to mention a Chicago district - the prose is skillfully and engagingly written. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Hell yes! I've read through this article before. It's a Star, with all kinds of good information. Like you, I trust that it would be acceptably updated before a feature. Given recent troubles with crime in some black neighborhoods of Chicago, it would be important to add a "Stay safe" section that addresses whether or to what extent Bronzeville has or has not suffered from this (I simply don't know enough about Chicago to know which neighborhoods have been affected). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As always, listings need to be checked and coordinates would also be useful, nevertheless this is a nice article and I can support it when the aforementioned issues are fixed (no point in updating them right today as it's a full year before we'll see it on the main page). Tangentially we have two Star itineraries in Chicago, Loop Art Tour and Along the Magnificent Mile. I brought them up two years ago and asked if it's OK to feature personal itineraries and consensus was that we should not. However, are these two itineraries "too personal" to be featured as FTT? What do you think? --ϒpsilon (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Almost, needs some updates. I have just compared this with LP's paper guide to Chicago. We have more see listings -16 against the 8 that LP have. (LP does have Roloson Houses and State Street Village, which might be worth listing and Pilgrim Baptist Church which isn't, and does have a stay safe warning, but no eat, sleep or drink listings). I have updated some of the eat & sleep listings, but quite a bit more is needed - with emphasis on the budget sleep listings. I think that the last sentence of Understand could form the start of Stay safe. Overall I would rather have our article than the LP book if I did venture to Bronzeville. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I would say that some sections of the article need much more information, but the pictures, Wikivoyage-style map, decent understand and get in sections, and Chicago/Bronzeville make this just about good enough to be a DotM. If some sections of this article were expanded, its nomination would be a very definite yes. Selfie City (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Still needs co-ordinates throughout and longer Eat, Drink and Sleep sections (admittedly the article says the district is a bit short on these, so maybe it's fine). But, more significantly, for somewhere that is supposedly "an excellent spot to shop for African-American-related books and art", the Buy listings are sparse indeed. Yes, there's something in there about a fire, but no indication of when that happened, so no way for the traveller to know if the hoped-for reopenings have taken place. I'm not sure how it got to be a Star either, for these reasons.
 * Overall, reading the article, and depending on when it was written, one gets the impression Bronzeville is several years past its heyday, but that change is afoot and in a couple of years it will be much improved. So why not wait until it's at its best? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at a old versions of the article it would appear that the fire was probably in 2010 - from 2010 on, for a few years, a "February 25th fire" is mentioned with no year. AlasdairW (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, so basically the article is hideously out-of-date, in addition to being disappointingly sparse. I oppose this OTBP nomination until it is brought into 2018, rather than 2010. Any Chicagoans on the WV crew? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a reason to oppose the nomination, least of all less than a month before its Main Page tenure is due to start with DotM banners already made. Neither City guide status nor Guide articles mention anything about a "Buy" section (not even that an article of that level must have one), so even if we were to de-Star this article, it would still be a Guide and thus eligible for featuring. As for out-of-date listings, that's a potential issue with all DotM candidates that is routinely attended to in the days before it's placed in its Main Page slot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That the article is a long way from being what I would consider complete and may be eight years out of date isn't a reason for it not to feature on our Main page for a month? The 'Buy' section is important because the article claims that one of the best things about visiting Bronzeville is its book and art shops - well where are they? Where are the budget hotels which the Sleep section claims exist?
 * I'm genuinely sorry to be so late to the vote, but I only chimed in because in the schedule table it says "pending stronger consensus to support", which - no matter what banners have been made - rather implies the vote is still open. The banners which you have so brilliantly made will still be there even if this article doesn't go ahead next month, so their existence alone is not a reason to plunge on with an article which doesn't seem to do its subject justice.
 * Again, I'm new to this so it may all be perfectly routine, but does the updating of candidate articles typically have to make up for eight lost years? If you can tell me that all these types of problems can be ordinarily fixed in less than a month, then I will gladly revise my vote. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All that needs to be done is to verify that the listed POIs are still open, and update their hours of operation, URLs, and phone numbers. Since a fire at the 47th Street Marketplace was mentioned, it would also be nice to explore whether there might be any worthwhile listings of galleries and bookstores to add to "Buy". In no way is an article obliged to list in its "Buy" section literally every shop located within its geographical bounds, nor every restaurant in "Eat", every hotel in "Sleep" and so forth, so it's literally as simple as that. I'd say it's three days' worth of work at the absolute maximum. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In which case, I will bow your much greater experience in getting these nominations ready, and will be happy to support an improved version of the article. But I do think budget hotels should be found as well, or if there are none, the paragraph about Bronzeville being a cheap place to stay in the city should be taken out. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't take much time to check things like this up, especially for articles from a first-world country where practically all attractions and businesses have some type of online presence. And now, a couple of weeks before the article is featured, is the right time to do it. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * About a year ago I went through the sleep listings and deleted a load of cheaper ones which I could find no info about. In some cases streetview showed that there was no hotel at that address, and in one case the "hotel" appeared to be a homeless hostel that a local politician had noted residents complaints about. I didn't find any replacements, although I didn't look hard. I did overlook updating the introduction, as I hoped that other would add replacements. I think that we should add a stay safe section before this district is featured - my impression is that this is a lot more dangerous than a certain district of Brussels that we have been talking about lately. As a starter the text in Chicago/Chatham-South Shore could be used although it may be more dangerous than here see Crime in Chicago. Are there any recent crime figures? AlasdairW (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just added the missing coordinates, and hid a Drink listing which seems to have closed. Also, I'm not sure if the chicken shacks listed exist, the chain as a whole doesn't seem to have a website, only one of the "shacks" had a web presence (fb with reviews from 2013!).
 * Per my comment from last year, I think I can support the article now. But is safety an issue in Bronzeville, as AlasdairW said? In that case, we definitely need to mention this. Is someone here familiar with Chicago? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for September 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Rail travel in Germany

 * Somehow this nominee fell through the cracks. Good work, Hobbitschuster. Voting support with no reservations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. You're on the right track. K7L (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Complaining about Deutsche Bahn and comparing it (unfavorably) to railroads in France, Switzerland, Japan or Italy is a particular "hobby" of a large subset of the German population. Meanwhile next to all non-Germans (excluding the Swiss, that is) who have an opinion on DB consider it an excellent transportation choice. The article currently partially reflects the latter but makes no allusions to the former. Is this the right approach or should we give the "Bahn-Nörgler" the light of day? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think exactly the kind of statement you just made would be good to put in the article. I'm really busy with professional and personal stuff right now, but I'll have a look through the article when I have sufficient time and mental space. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This article is a pretty good one. I don't see any obvious issues with it, having just given it a quick read-through. It has answers to everything a traveler might have questions about (and a few things they might not think to ask, such as the bit about passenger rights). DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support it's a really good-looking article, at least at a first glance. When the article is about to go live, we maybe need to check that all external links are still alive. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the condition that a good look is taken at it before it goes live. Maybe User:Griffindd and User:Xsobev who have also contributed to this article in the last months want to weigh in as well? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment some fo the night trains and trains that also carry automobiles have since been rerouted, canceled or new ones introduce. This should be checked before the feature goes live. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks great. Selfie City (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment So in addition to the night train thing mentioned above DB announced an overhaul of their ticketing system effective August First. I am not sure I will have the time and wherewithal to fit that into the article, and it obviously shouldn't be featured without that information. Anybody willing to assist me in that task? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unless someone edits in the new fare system (I won't be able to do it, being traveling myself). Yes, I nominated this myself and no, the change to the fare system is not all that major, but not mentioning it while it is featured would let us look badly outdated. Another issue is the night trains mentioned by train number of which some don't exist any more and some new ones have come into being iirc, but that is a minor point compared to the fare rules issue. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - does assisting you require any prior knowledge of German, Deutsche Bahn or Germany in general? If no to all of those, I might be able to help. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a reason to oppose a nominee. I am sure that if the fare change is as minor as you say, it will be easy to update the article accordingly, even for someone who doesn't speak German (that's what Google Translate is for). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The basic gist of the changes is that instead of two different fare types (Flexpreis and Sparpreis) now there are three (Super-Sparpreis, Sparpreis and Flexpreis). There are, as a consequence to this also changes to the City Ticket. I think the general outline of this stuff can be found online, some of it in English, too. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have looked at the article and done a few Google searches, looked on DB and Seat 61 (which isn't up-to-date) and it doesn't seem that simple to me. There are all sorts of ticket types listed on the article that aren't the three you listed here, so I think it would be best for someone who knows the system to do it. I appreciate your attempt to make it simple for us here, but rail fares are not simple in any country I've used the train in, never mind when you're looking at pages in a language you don't speak (Google translate is not reliable - yes you can get the gist of meaning, but a travel guide for buying the best ticket requires precision, and ground knowledge). Maybe could take over? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have much experience of rail travel in Germany other than local trains, but if the information is available on DB's website and nobody else has time I can certainly translate and add necessary information to the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Griffindd did a lot of work, and I added a bit as well. I wish I would have more time. Xsobev (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the great work of User:Xsobev and User:Griffindd the article now contains the gist of the fare change (fares for local trains haven't changed, and for long distance trains, those are the only three types of ticket of relevance). In short, there is nothing precluding my support although an update of the night train routes mentioned by name would still be nice to have... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Xsobev and User:Griffindd. I just realised I haven't voted yet. Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for September 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

North Vancouver

 * There was discussion about this guide for DotM at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates I'd be happy to support, as the article looks good and I understand from the linked discussion that Shaundd will continue to edit and update the article before it's featured (probably in 2019). Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, but is this truly a DotM or would it perhaps work better as an OtBP? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very close — A couple of listings lack coordinates and there are some things in Do that should be expended a bit (Festivals etc.), also it would be nice with a few photos in the latter half of the article but this can be fixed fairly quickly, I think. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's because of my comment from more than a year ago the article still needs stronger consensus. The article now has coordinates for everything and there are some nice photos also in the latter half of the article, so here's my support vote. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support -- I still need to refresh/expand a number of sections, and some things will need to be rewritten before featuring as Seabus service is expected to improve and a couple of attractions are moving and being expanded within the next 2-3 years, but I'll make sure that's done as it happens. With respect to DotM/OtBP, I'd say DotM is a better fit because people visit it as part of a trip to a DotM destination (Vancouver), but I'm not fussed either way. Note - I changed the featuring time to Dec-Sept. The fall, particularly Nov, isn't a great time to visit. It's between summer and snow season and the weather is usually awful (rain and more rain). I was also thinking a catchier blurb could be, Take in the views, or hit the trails, slopes or water, in Vancouver's mountain playground. Feel free to ignore/edit as fit. -Shaundd (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shaundd - There's no doubt that Vancouver itself is DotM rather than OtBP (in fact, it was DotM in June 2005, before we started running OtBPs, but if we were to rerun it today it would clearly be the former and not the latter). However, when talking about how to categorize a Huge City district article, the comparison to make is with other districts of the same city. Take Toronto for instance: Canada's own Great White Way, Yonge-Dundas, would clearly be DotM, while the spread-out and suburblike Etobicoke would be OtBP. I have no familiarity with Vancouver, but you obviously do. So, imagine you're a first-time visitor with a workable but limited amount of time to spend there, and think about which districts you'd spend the most time in, and you'll be a long way toward an answer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, thanks for clarifying. On that basis, I'd still lean towards DotM, although it depends on how far you take "limited amount of time". If you only have one day in Vancouver, you're probably not going to spend it in North Vancouver (most people would probably cover two or three of the City Center, West End/Stanley Park, Granville Island and Gastown). After that though, it's fair game for day two or three, I'd say. Two attractions often appear on top XX list of things to see in Vancouver (Grouse Mountain and the Capilano Suspension Bridge) and the Grouse Grind is considered one of the busiest hikes in Metro Vancouver (and it gets tourist traffic too). It's also really easy to get to from the city center -- you just hop on the Seabus and take a 12 minute ferry ride (which plenty of tourists do) -- and the City of North Van is adding a number of attractions that are within a 5 min walk from the Seabus station. I'm not fussed either way, but I'd say many travellers who spend at least three days in Vancouver probably spend some time in North Vancouver. And for what page view stats are worth, North Vancouver is (on a monthly average) second in page views to the City Center. -Shaundd (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely a gray area, but based on what you said, I would also lean toward DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to me, and I trust Shaundd and others to edit anything that needs editing. Maybe the exact positions of the start and end of the hiking and mountain biking trails listed in "Do" should be clearly indicated, but otherwise, everything appears to have coordinates. The one thing I noticed that seems weird to me is: Why are the fees for the water slide at the Fun City Festival listed in US dollars and not Canadian dollars? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The slide is run by a US company and the only way to purchase tickets is online through their website -- which prices things in USD. If things change for 2018 (they haven't posted details yet), I'll update it.
 * Does anyone know a guide that handles multiple hiking trails on a dynamic map well? I'm concerned adding markers for trailheads/endpoints is going to further clutter what is already a pretty busy map. If I have time, I'll look at drawing a static map, but that's a big if at this point. -Shaundd (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. It's quite a long article with a lot of useful information about the place. Selfie City (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for August 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Goroka

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, it's ready. Ypsilon: as to timing, Aug 2018 is the space I had in mind for Gaspé Peninsula, but in light of our recent conversation about that nominee and the mountain of work I have yet to do on updating the Buffalo district articles for the umpteenth time, I'm going to go ahead and slush Gaspé Peninsula and we can run Goroka in that slot instead. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks pretty good, though I moved "Goroka Show" from "See" to "Do", as it's standard practice to list viewing concerts or sporting events in the "Do" section, even though of course you're seeing (and/or hearing) something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me! —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost. It could do with more in the "Understand" and "Get in" sections and a little more information throughout. However, it looks well-formatted and with a little more information it would definitely be a good choice for OtBP. Selfie City (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for August 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Inca Trail

 * Support as nominator. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The article does look good; if you've also addressed the tour operator problem, then I think this is good to put on the main page. --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not yet.
 * Most of what's in "Understand" — "Acclimatize for at least 2 or 3 days", "Use trekking poles", "Pack appropriately", "Pace yourself", etc. etc. ad nauseam — actually belongs in "Prepare" (and, redundantly, much of it appears to already be there).
 * Also in "Understand" and "Prepare", the non-standard structure of brief snips of text headed up by bold pseudo-section titles needs to be jettisoned in favor of the standard paragraphs of prose we use here.
 * By comparison with the extensive information in the sections preceding it, "Go" — supposedly the meat of the article — seems almost like an afterthought. Interesting-sounding sets of ruins along the trail — Huillca Raccay, Sayacmarka, even Machu Picchu itself — are name-checked but barely (or not at all) described. Remind me again why I'm walking this trail?
 * The "Theft" subsection of "Stay safe" is another section that needs to be converted from its current weird non-standard structure to the prose format we normally use.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've edited the article to try to address these issues. The "Go" section is still on the short side, but I think that's because this is an unusual itinerary: the trail is always done with a guide, so preparation and planning are much more important than details about the route, and the point of going on the Inca Trail is more the overall experience rather than the specific ruins you see on days 1 and 3. Still, I've expanded the "Go" section with more information about the ruins. What do you think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding "the trail is always done with a guide, so preparation and planning are much more important than details about the route", I always picture the prototypical Wikivoyage reader as someone who's trying to decide where to go, at least within the parameters of some particular broad region, rather than someone who's trying to decide what to do when they get to a place they've already decided to go. For the latter category of traveller, the extensive preparation and planning information would be sufficient; for the former, we go back to my earlier question of why choose this trek out of all the possible ones within one's geographic area of interest? I notice you've expanded the "Go" section, and having no expertise of my own on the region, I have no reason to disbelieve you when you say the point of the trail is the trail itself rather than the ruins along the way. I just have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of an itinerary with such a short "Go" section. I'm going to have to think about this for a while before choosing "support" or "still not yet". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's important for Wikivoyage to be useful for readers who are deciding where to go, and I think there's a good amount of information in the lead, "Understand", and "Go" sections for those readers. But I'll try to think of more information of this kind to add.
 * As for the length of the "Go" section, I don't really think it makes sense to judge this article by comparing the length of its "Go" section to the length of most other itineraries' "Go" sections. A lot of other "Go" sections have detailed directions, logistical information, or large numbers of destinations, which wouldn't make sense in the "Go" section in this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost I think that the "Go" section could be expended a little, but the main omission is any mention of distance. I think that the introduction should say that it is a 26 mile / 45 kn trek - check these figures which I got from one of the tour operator's wwebsite. If there are any established ways of expressing te sea level equivalent distance that could also be added. AlasdairW (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Good point about the distance—I've added that to the "Understand" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC


 * Thanks for the edits. I now support it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm satisfied with the fixes, and certainly don't want to stand in the way of a four-vote quorum here. Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I haven't read through the article, but I've scanned down the page. It looks about as complete as could be and I think it should be a Featured Travel Topic in the future. Selfie City (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for August 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Wales

 * Not yet . Everything up through "Talk" is great, but after that point - especially in "See" and "Do" - things get too list-y for a country article. The bullet points in "See", "Eat", "Drink", and (especially) "Do" should be converted to prose, with listings migrated to articles further down the breadcrumb hierarchy where necessary. The blurbs in "Go next" also could stand to be expanded. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Should the events list stay as bullet points? Any suggestions on how to structure this and the Eat section? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It looks like the lists have mostly been converted to prose. Seems like a solid article to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see Traveler100 directed a question to me almost a year ago that I've yet to answer; sorry about that. The event listings should be moved to their respective bottom-level destinations if they're not there already, and Wales should be an overview in prose of the most important ones. As for the "Eat" section, it looks okay to me, though again, I personally have a mild preference for sentences and paragraphs in favor of bullet-point lists. At this point I'm very close to being able to change my vote to Support . -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost. it is a good article, and it would be good to feature a nation. However I think that there are a few points that could be looked at:
 * Only 3 cities are listed, but there are 6 cities in Wales. I think that we should add an introductory sentence: "There are six cities in Wales, including St Asaph, Newport, St Davids and:"
 * Talk is only about Welsh. Are there no phrases, words etc in English that are worth mentioning?
 * The list of events would be improved if the month or approximate date was added to most of the listings. This means that those planning a trip only look into events that might be on when they are there. AlasdairW (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, there should actually be no event listings at all. See my comment above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not too bothered about whether the events are a (shorter) list or an "overview in prose", but when needs to be mentioned. The details belong in the city articles. AlasdairW (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have restructured the section and updated the details on the city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. I now support it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I also am changing my vote to support. Good work, Traveler100. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Shall we also assume that Traveler100 himself votes "Support"? If so, that's four stamps of approval and we can remove the "pending stronger consensus" caveat from the schedule grid. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To my understanding nominating an article means supporting it unless you've specifically indicated otherwise. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Apparently I haven't voted on this one yet, but it looks good. If all the articles below it in the hierarchy also have a sufficient status I'd say it's ready. --ϒpsilon (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Decent article. Selfie City (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for July 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Höfn

 * Support per nomination.ϒpsilon (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Höfn is IMO perfectly featureable as is, however I'm noticing room for improvement in the "Buy" section: the article says "The arts and crafts scene is very active in Höfn and some good souvenir shopping is possible if you keep your eyes open" and "a few artists have workshops and galleries in Mikligarður, an old building by the harbor" yet none of these places have listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost . Overall, looks like a pretty good article. The "By plane" section currently says "The airport is some distance outside the Höfn, so you'll have to figure out a way to get into town." Can we give our readers a little more help than that? (Are there rental cars, can you call the sole taxi from the airport, do the buses stop there, is it feasible to walk, might locals be willing to give you a ride?) I think it would be good to give at least one suggestion for how to get into town from the airport. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I was there 6 years ago. I read through the article and don't believe anything major is missing. Regarding User:Mx. Granger's comment about getting from the airport to the town, there isn't any other way except driving. The only suggestion I would make is to explicitly write that out rather than leaving the readers to figure out on their own. OhanaUnited (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did a bit more research and found that rental cars seem to be available too. Having added that information, I'll change my vote to support. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I quite like the look of this article because all the basic parts are there, but it would be excellent if there was expansion in some sections. Selfie City (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for July 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Underground Railroad

 * Support. I haven't looked through all the listings with a fine-toothed comb, but the article looks very informative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This article is also representative of Wikivoyage's best work. Ibaman (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which month would be most appropriate? Are there any memorial dates? Or should we go for the best weather? /Yvwv (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This article covers a worthy topic and is well on its way to being featureable, but for the moment, not yet . Many of the listings in the "Go" section need to be expanded (especially in the "Tubman's Pennsylvania, Auburn and Niagara Railroad" subsection, which also contains an ugly bullet-point list that needs to be converted to prose and fleshed out with more context). In addition, there's some copyediting and mos-ifying that needs to be done (including some old-school, footnote-style external links that need to be converted to the inline style), and "Go next" and "See also" should have one-line listings explaining the connection.


 * As for the question of when to feature, there's not one large unified national commemoration to coincide the feature with, though many individual cities along the route have their own at various times throughout the year. I think it's best to default to the time of year with the best weather, which in this region of the U.S. would be March-September (October would be pushing the envelope, especially since FTTs don't go on the Main Page until the 21st of the month. There's liable to be snow on the ground by that time in the northern reaches of the route.)


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, just for the record, this nominee has taken the last available slot in 2018 for U.S.-related articles. Any future nominees will need to wait till 2019. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * February is Black History Month, but I agree that there's no reason to tokenize an article about such an important part of American history into the shortest month of the year that has been uniquely awarded to black history. And February is cold and can be snowy in many places covered in this topic, so I agree with a spring-to-fall timeline for best month to feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, given that Black History Month spans the month of February, if the article is featured for that month it should go on the Main Page on January 21st (if we'd run it in February's slot, there would be just a week left of the month), and as such it would be featured for 31 days.
 * But I agree with what has been said about the weather. Unless there are notable events happening at the monuments and museums in February, we should rather run the article in March-September. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Almost. The list of bullet points in "Tubman's Pennsylvania, Auburn and Niagara Railroad" needs to be turned into at least markers if not listings. Also, the lead section only consists of one sentence. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is usable but not complete. By definition, it may never be complete, but at a minimum we should cover any of the "what links here" points in Talk:Underground Railroad where a destination article has listings we can use here. That would most likely mean expanding the existing "two rail lines" to three or four by adding one along the Atlantic seaboard to Halifax and another through Illinois/Indiana to the Great Lakes. K7L (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Four months before it's scheduled to go on the Main Page, Underground Railroad now has two "support" votes (or three, if nominating an article is counted as a "support" vote), but one "not yet", one "almost" and even one comment saying that the aricle isn't even a guide yet. Andre's and my votes mostly point out mos issues, things that pretty much anyone can fix.
 * However K7L (who per the history is a major contributor to the article and hence presumably knows a thing or two about the railroad) mentions that there are two "rail lines" still missing (or even more?) and that the article is not complete but only usable. As I understand it we can't feature the article in its current state.
 * So how should we proceed? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One person's outlier opinion that the article is not truly a Guide does not amount to a consensus, so I think we can dispense with that part of your concern. As for the rest, there's still a good bit of work to be done with this article, but then again four months is a good bit of time in which to do it. I don't think we're yet at the crossroads that you fear we are. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd be willing to support this nomination; although there are still a few holes left to fill and the article could use better illustration, the most severe issues appear to have been addressed. K7L (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment In the last section in the "Then" part, what is the last line "it's coverage, while national, was uneven" supposed to mean? It reads better without that line. Delete? Also in the "Now" section, the line "While an ordinary degree of caution remains advisable on this journey" sounds kind of terrifying. It makes it sound as if the Underground Railroad is still treacherous to travel... The surrounding text does try to clarify, but that line is still really odd. No one will be harmed or in danger if they tour these sites or if they reveal to someone that they're doing a tour of Underground Railroad sites any more than if they said they were touring "Little House on the Prairie" sites, right?
 * Concerning the above concerns: It could be an outlier opinion but it's also possible those who support are ignorant of the topic. We should be looking at the critique for its validity not going strictly by numbers. It seems to me, we should at least consider: How much of the railroad is still left out? And then: How important are those sections of the road either historically or in terms of modern remnants that can be visited? My personal inclination is that the article looks good enough to feature (with the other routes being worthy requirements for star status) but I do not know the topic well enough to make any meaningful judgments about the routes or which have the best modern remnants. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, I see two gaps of sparse coverage (one between Reading PA and Syracuse NY, one between Boston MA and Halifax NS) which need to be filled to take this from "usable" to "guide".
 * By definition, we'll never find and document every possible route the fugitive slaves might have taken - and this is likely by design. There were many/multiple undocumented parallel routes with little to indicate they ever existed, that's the whole point of being "underground" and clandestine. The average 'station' on the Underground Railroad is merely an old house which looks like every other old house of the 1850's era. The depiction of four possible example routes (across IL from MO, across OH from KY, across PA/NY from DE, up the Atlantic seaboard to NB/NS) is an arbitrary choice, but if even these depicted itinerary choices contain obvious gaps (little or nothing after Reading PA until Auburn NY, little or nothing between Boston and Halifax) those gaps should be filled before promoting the article from "usable" to "guide" status. NYS has plenty of sites which aren't in the article which could fill some gaps, for example. There may also be portions of the historic context which need to be expanded.
 * The comment "it's coverage, while national, was uneven" refers to the Negro Motorist Green Book, a printed directory of businesses willing to serve the negro voyager in the "Jim Crow" days before the civil rights legislation of the 1960's. The directory was a list of hotels and businesses which were safe to visit, sorted by province/state then individual city. Some US states had many listings; others were so sparse as to be little more than what we'd call an outline. In some communities (such as 'sundown towns') there might have been no safe lodging for a person of colour to stay the night. In this respect, yes, coverage was very uneven. If the historic context isn't clear, by all means spell it out, but let's not revise history to claim this never happened? K7L (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. This article seems fine, except for some of the pictures and the maps, which do not have the quality that may be needed for a Featured Travel Topic. I haven't read through the article, but there is definitely plenty of content in this itinerary. Selfie City (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to state that I think the Black History Month timing is a neat idea, but the weather, even in a lot of the south, makes that impossible. At the same, I wouldn't recommend the summer either because the South would be pretty hot and humid. It seems to me that either May, September, or October would be good months for it. Selfie City (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The South? This article is about escape routes to flee to Canada. Summer is high season, and the proposed timeslot is reasonable as the anniversary of slavery being abolished Empire-wide happens to fall on August 1. I shall be no one's slave any more, I shall be free. K7L (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But wasn't the Underground Railroad a way for African-Americans to escape the South as well as providing a route to Canada? I mean, isn't at least some of the railroad in the South? Selfie City (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but there was relatively little aid available to freedom seekers until they managed to get out of the backwaters of the Confederacy - maybe by stowing away on a train or a ship, maybe by attempting to flee north under their own power. A ship's master may have "looked the other way" and allowed fugitives aboard, although this was not without risk. The southern locals were, for the most part, not helpful to fugitives - a likely reason why many violent or destructive local slave revolts were easily crushed. There were a few cases where conductors or agents of the Underground Railroad crossed from the north into slave states just long enough to bring passengers back, but the risks were substantial. It might be possible to add a couple of sites where a museum or an old plantation tells part of the backstory in the South, but the bulk of the listings are going to be for states which had already abolished slavery locally and were sending the fugitives north as an act of conscience, religion or political protest. That leaves this running in high season in Upper Canada, Ohio, NYS and PA because those jurisdictions (and the "northeast" in general) held most of the sites. K7L (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I actually have a question about this. I assumed that this article was about the slavery era, but what time period is this itinerary really supposed to represent? Selfie City (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Underground Railroad represents the antebellum era before the US Civil War. While the August 1, 1843 abolition of slavery in the British Empire is one commemorated date, Underground Railroad travel became most widespread after enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (which allowed American slavecatchers to pursue fugitives into nominally free states, forcing slaves to flee to Canada) and ended with the outbreak of civil war in 1861. K7L (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * With the recent expansion of this article, I'm ready to upgrade my vote to  weak support. It needs some minor formatting and copyediting work but is otherwise good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * On the blurb: I'd like it to say 19th-century American slaves, not just 19th-century slaves. Are we all OK with that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * But doesn't the bit about "an integral element of African-American history" (note italics) already make that point clear? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The things I complained about before are fixed, so I support the article for FTT now. --ϒpsilon (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In response to the discussion started a few days ago by AndreCarrotflower, I think we should use "19th-century American slaves" for clarity. Selfie City (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The aforementioned "minor formatting and copyediting work" (which, in typical AndreCarrotflower style, ended up ballooning into something not so minor) has been completed and I'm upgrading my vote to full support. Thanks go out to Ypsilon and K7L for their help. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for July 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Boston

 * Support as nominator. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I am also very handsome and intelligent. (And trying to keep this updated going forward, thanks AndreCarrotflower!) --ButteBag (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support User:ButteBag has really done superb work here, but as he (assuming he, please correct if wrong) has pointed out, there are some things that could still be improved. In the main article this mostly seems to be the history and the public transit sections, which do contain some old content as per http://www.copyscape.com (though history does not become outdated all that fast). All in all, I think we'll have a fine article by the time this goes live some time from now Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support without even skipping through the article tonight. I have confidence in ButteBag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support since the article itself looks ready on quick perusal & there will be time for district improvements.
 * I wonder, though, if the nomination should be broadened to Greater Boston since that would include Cambridge (Massachusetts) which for me is the main place to go in the area, mostly for the MIT bookstore & the pubs. Or perhaps Cambridge might be another nomination? Pashley (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Late reply: The Greater Boston article is an Outline. However, the Cambridge (Massachusetts) article is a Guide with plenty of content, and therefore very much a potential DotM at some future point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support--ϒpsilon (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for June 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Piton de la Fournaise

 * Support – there might be some details that need polishing but I will take care of that if nobody else has time. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I haven't read the entire article yet, but it's very impressive. I've copy edited part of the article; the rest will need to be copy edited with a fine-toothed comb in order to ensure that it's in idiomatic English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Ypsilon, I'm sorry it took me so long to respond here. I agree that this is a better candidate for June 2018 than Yuryev-Polsky (and just finished adding it to the schedule on that basis). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I've gone through and copyedited the whole article, as Ikan Kekek suggested. It looks like a great article to me. My only suggestion would be to expand the "Go next" section with specific destinations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for June 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Advice for nervous flyers

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks ready to go as is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks like a solid article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I see no reason to not feature this article DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. No issues that I can see. Selfie City (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for June 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Downtown Shanghai

 * Provisional support. There are several areas that need attention but again, this article is a work in progress, and I trust that Pashley will have things well in hand by next May. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, but while I may have done most of the work so far, others have contributed already & I'd encourage more to jump in. There is still a fair bit to do. Pashley (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, someone other than me should take a look at overall structure, determine whether some text needs to move between articles. Shanghai is pretty much unworkable as a city article, population 23 million last I heard, 17 official districts & more like 20 articles here since we treat Shanghai/Old City Shanghai/Nanhui & Shanghai/Zhujiajiao separately. I created this article mainly by moving text from there & may not have got it quite right. Pashley (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost per the article's talk page. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: it needs a better map. See Talk:Shanghai. Pashley (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for May 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Erlangen

 * As a former resident of a nearby suburb, attendant of this city's most run down high school and someone whose last visit to the town was a few months ago, I can assure that this article has been written with substantial local input and is quite up to date. There is no rush to feature it now, but I am nominating early this time, lest the Germany slot be already "taken" some time in the future. If you find fault with this article, do point out, where and how and why. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet. About a third to a half of the listings in "See", as well as a considerably higher proportion of those in "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep", are either bare bullet points like the Yellow Pages, or have blurbs that need lengthening. Aside from that, though, the article looks good and I'll be happy to support it when the blurbs are attended to. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * do you want to weigh in? You've edited on this article quite a bit in the past... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have experience or real comparison measures regarding nomination. As for the lists: I've just opened the article and deem the descriptions in the See section rather short. As a traveller I would love to read some more about the sights (mostly for palaces/notable buildings and churches, the rest seems quite ok). Maybe same applies for Do, although I think the titles are already more descriptive and at least I would have a look at the pages of everything that's happening when I'm at a place to see what I'm really interested in. As for the buy section, I personally deem lists enough. Eat and Drink are in my view long enough (would otherwise be hard to read). Comparing it with Groningen (the current off the beaten path destination), I would say: Erlangen still lacks some more descriptive content for the items in See and to some extent in Do and Sleep. In my view, it could be added with reasonable effort, I'm just personally very busy at the moment and would have a rather tough time doing anything on WikiVoyage except basic adding of a listing item I run accross by chance. Buan~dewiki (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Needs work. This is a really informative article. Nevertheless, many listings still need descriptions. There are maybe a little too many intermediate headings here and there, some with just one listing under them. Finally, there are no photos whatsoever after the Do section. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, I currently live there, so if you need on the ground research, do tell me what of... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Needs work. As AndreCarrotflower and Ypsilon said, some of the listings need descriptions, and others could use longer descriptions. It would also be nice to have a longer lead paragraph that gives more of a sense of why a traveller would want to come here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs work. Thete are random periods in the middle of sentences. This article uses the "See" template in the middle of sentences, which automatically puts a period after the name of the site, so it breaks up the sentence. This is not appropriate for a featured article. Ground Zero (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The blurb
I know it is a minor point but it irks me that what is (implicitly) called "old town" is not in fac the old town... So here goes an attempt at a totally reformulated blurb
 * "With a tradition of fine engineering and research from Huguenots to Siemens and Franconia's premier university town, its well preserved baroque streets and houses are perfect for exploration by bike"

I know not my best work, but maybe we can build on that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for May 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

 * Support, but wait until at least 2019. Roman Empire will be FTT next year, which is a thematically similar article that covers more or less the same geographical region, so I think it's less than ideal to run both of these articles in the same year. (I do agree that this article is already at Guide status, however.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ottoman Empire article has fewer issues than the Roman Empire, and could possibly go first. /Yvwv (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - First off, pretty pretty please upgrade articles to Guide before nominating them. The article looks quite good; I like the fact that all sections are well developed and balanced (i.e. the destinations section isn't disproportionately long). In this respect is is actually a better article than the Roman Empire whose nomination so far has two Not yet votes and no full Supports.
 * Tangentially, I hope there is room for more than one historical travel article in 2019, please see Talk:Magellan-Elcano_circumnavigation. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I took the freedom to add the guide label. /Yvwv (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is developed and tight, and is representative of our best work. It really should be featured before Roman Empire is, in my opinion. Ibaman (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per others. This article is excellent, really informative. It would be nice if the red-linked cities (Söğüt, Suakin) could have their own articles, but my support for featuring this article is irrespective of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I just took the time to read through the article and support it. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. As one of the main contributors to this article, I have recently realized that it was nominated and added a Template:Featurenomination at its top (which is lacked by some of the nominations here, by the way). I have created the article for Söğüt (although unfortunately not from first-hand information as I've never been there), but all I know about Suakin is limited to what's mentioned in the listing (and don't know even if it is worthy of an article or whether it is safe to visit there), so I'll leave creating the article for that town to someone else. As I said in the discussion page earlier, I'd appreciate any efforts of proofreading by native speakers for tightness and grammatical errors before this goes on the main page, although I realize that there is plenty of time until that happens. Vidimian (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for May 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Uppsala

 * Good timing for this nominee, as it's time (already!) to start thinking about DotMs and OtBPs for next spring. It's very close to being ready - about a quarter to a third of the listings lack geo coordinates, and that's the only deficiency I could spot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, some coordinates are missing but that's really about it. I can add them at some point before the article is featured (thereby google maps also lets me know if some places have closed), if nobody else has done it by then. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Upgrading my vote to support; looks like the issues I cited above have been attended to. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, looks like a solid article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Uppsala is due up on the Main Page in a month, and we need a fourth "Support" vote. Anyone? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support very thorough and worthy of the main page. Gizza ( roam ) 23:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I am very glad to see that Uppsala is deemed worthy of being a DotM! If you have any additional feedback on the article I would be happy to try to improve it before it hits the main page. MartinJacobson (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for April 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Poros

 * Support per comment. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Needs some very minor copyedits, but that's not enough to hamper my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll have a closer look another day, but some of the prose may be a bit purple, and I feel like "Understand" is too long or at least has too many of the details that belong in other sections. It would be fine to have an "Orientation" subsection, but in that case, attractions could be mentioned as an aid to orientation but not in detail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So, is the "purple prose" still a problem? ϒpsilon (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it still needs more editing. I edited the lede, but I'm still not completely satisfied that the writing is the best it can be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One issue is, look how stuff in the lede is immediately repeated in "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for April 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Military museums and sites in Australia

 * Support per nomination. --ϒpsilon (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what I like to call an "OtBP FTT". :) Nonetheless, this article looks perfect and it therefore has my wholehearted support. Thank you, Ypsilon and Nick-D, for your excellent work here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense to feature this one in April rather than March, as new FTTs get subbed in on the 21st of each month and featured articles tend to get the most attention at the very beginning of their Main Page tenure. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * April would be best, as it aligns with Australia's main day of military-related commemorations. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- The article seems lovely and is an easy feature choice with none of the "effort" that other nominations seem to need to get "up to snuff". It has plenty of well written information and a good number of pictures. I learn quite a bit about a facet of Australian history I never gave much thought to before. I think it will need a quick run through perhaps a month or three before featuring to ensure the information is up to date. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (as main contributor). Thanks for the nomination. As noted above, I think that this article now includes all of the major military museums and sites likely to be of interest to travellers in Australia, as well as as the most interesting local museums and sites. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, thank you for your work on this article - especially since it falls into a category (FTT) for which it's always a challenge to find good featured article candidates! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I wouldn't really know how to judge the coverage of this topic, but it's certainly a well-written, user-friendly article and I take the experts' evaluation of its coverage at face value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I have only been to a couple of the sites listed here, but the coverage looks good. I think that the individual listings should have links to the relevant city / district articles. Am I correct in thinking that little happens on November 11 in Australia, as the main event is Anzac Day? AlasdairW (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, 11 November is pretty low key Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Blurb
First, there has been war on Australia's soil, if you count Japanese air raids, and there's also been organized violence against Aborigines. So how about "Australia is notable for its many war museums and memorials" or if it's felt that more is needed, "Australia hosts many war museums and memorials to wars in which Australians have fought"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well no one would ever say WWII was waged in the U.S. either, despite the fact that there was a pretty major Japanese air raid in Hawaii, not to mention a couple of Japanese-occupied Aleutian Islands and all the ships sunk off the East Coast by German U-boats. As for the Aboriginals, we already discussed that that was unduly stretching the definition of "war" as opposed to genocide or massacre. We could debate these points till the cows come home, but frankly the place to get into the weeds about issues like this is in the article itself. The job of the banner blurb is not to split hairs but to sell the article in an interesting and brief way. I'm not convinced that changing the text is necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to point out: You just explained why anyone who says none of WWII was fought on U.S. territory is wrong - and really seriously wrong, as without the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack on and occupation of the Philippines, it's unclear what might have provoked an all-out U.S. involvement in that war. As for the rest AlasdairW had an opinion at Destination of the month candidates/Banners and might want to express an opinion here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I changed the blurb here on Friday, before I saw that a separate discussion had started on the banners page. The blurb was (on Thursday) "Though no war has ever been fought on its soil (apart from periodic skirmishes between European settlers and indigenous inhabitants), Australia nonetheless features a number of military museums and war memorials.", and was then shortened to "Though no war has ever been fought on its soil, Australia nonetheless features a number of military museums and memorials.". This prompted me to think of WW2 activity in Australia and I mentioned the air raid on Darwin on the other page (there was also some naval action), and I changed the blurb to "Although most battles have been fought overseas, Australia features a number of military museums and memorials." Ikan suggested "Australia hosts many war museums and memorials to wars in which Australians have fought", which is also acceptable.
 * I think that the "no war has ever been fought on its soil" is an absolute phrase, and we should avoid it where there is any significant evidence to the contrary. This could be off-putting to readers whose families were affected by the WW2 bombing, or are descended from indigenous inhabitants, and there is no need to do so when other blurbs are available. There is a difference between generalising about emotive history and doing so about travel. This is quite different from "Despite having no cheap hotels, Smallville is popular with travellers", when we know that there is one cheap but small hotel. AlasdairW (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not married to the current wording, but I think (by way of responding to the suggestions on the banners page) that "Australia is notable for its many war museums and memorials" is too short, and the other two sound too weak and wishy-washy. We need a blurb with some zip to it. Over the next day or so, I'll see if I can come up with something else for your consideration. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ikan Kekek and AlasdairW on this one. I think AlasdairW's suggested blurb ("Although most battles...") sounds fine, although of course it may be possible to come up with something better. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(outdent) How about "From Gallipoli to New Guinea to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Australian military has been instrumental in many decisive battles throughout history — and today a number of museums and memorials commemorate their contributions". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. Barring disagreement from anyone else, I'll put that blurb in the textbox shortly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for April 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Valencia

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Stellar guide. Great pictures, solid descriptions, map with all the listings marked, fun to read... don't see any immediate problems with this one. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, with a couple comments. I'd planned on nominating this myself eventually, after completing the following tasks: (1) replacing the banner (it's rather dull); (2) rewriting and updating the lede and understand section for SEO purposes; and (3) adding several more entries to the Neighbourhoods section. – StellarD (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - In skipping through it, it looks great, as was mentioned above, and with you all supporting and StellarD planning to make further edits, I don't feel like I need to read every line in order to support. I actually find the banner somewhat interesting and certainly unusual; however, I'll look with interest in what you come up with as a replacement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - On quick inspection the article itself looks fine.
 * I notice, though, that both Valencia (region) and Valencia (province) have many empty sections. It would be good to fix that before featuring this article. I do not know the area so cannot tell if that means just deleting the headings or adding content. Pashley (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding my perhaps redundant voice to the chorus of Support votes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for March 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Brownsville (Texas)

 * Support as nominator. De88 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very close — The article is informative and there are no stylistic issues. I assume it's up to date too, given De88's work on the article as of lately. There are just two small things that would be nice to have. Firstly the Connect section is empty. If Brownsville has some Internet cafees or Wi-Fi hotspots, they can be listed here, and if there are some problems travelers should know of when it comes to Internet and telephony (e.g. cell phones switching to the Mexican network during a call), this is the place to mention them. Secondly, the latter third of the article could use a couple of photos. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I've been following the progress of this article. I don't think De88 is totally done editing it (correct?), and I'm sure the article will be in even better shape whenever it's actually featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My support is in abeyance until the galleries are deleted, as per my remarks at User talk:De88. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted the photo gallery. Still would like to post the pictures just individually. De88 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By all means, post photos individually, space allowing, but it might be best to keep some space between them, so as not to overwhelm the reader. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * De88, you still have 3 photos of international bridges next to each other and 2 photos of shopping areas next to each other. That's not in keeping with Wikivoyage style. You might want to look at WV:Image policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad. I completely forgot about those pictures. Will delete them. Thanks for letting me know. De88 (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Close . Some notes:


 * The gallery-style horizontal rows of images are against policy (see Image policy) and have to go, especially the one at the end of the "See" section, which overhangs the text margin on my display (see image at right).
 * Some of the listing sections, especially #Museums and the "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" subsections, are a bit on the long side and should be further subdivided.
 * "Buy" seems noticeably incomplete, especially compared to the other sections.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First suggestion already executed. Second suggestion: By subdivided, do you mean adding more tabs on to what is already in place or compress the sections? Third suggestion: I do not know what else to write about there. Downtown, Pablo Kisel/Morrison and Boca Chica are three large places spanning a wide range of hot spots in the city. I tried picking a big area to avoid over-doing the section. De88 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The image galleries were by far the largest of those three concerns, so much so that I can probably upgrade my vote to full support.


 * As for the other two issues: there are a lot of museums that you've listed and they all seem valuable for the traveller, but we don't like to have lists on this site that number more than ~9 items. So what you should think about then is, what different kinds of museums are represented on the list? Historical museums? Science museums? And so forth. Then split the listings up into subcategories. For "Eat", "Drink" and "Sleep", I'd first split them up geographically (you mentioned that Downtown, Pablo Kisel/Morrison and Boca Chica are three lively areas; those three plus an "Elsewhere" category might be a good idea) and then break down each of those categories into Budget, Mid-range and Splurge. As for "Buy", are there any individual stores in Brownsville that travellers might be interested in? If so, you might want to give them their own listings.


 * Again, though, the major problem - the photos - has already been solved, so everything else I mentioned above you can consider opportunities to further spit-shine what is IMO already a worthy feature article.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestions. Will try to take your advice. De88 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As De88 continues to work on the article, I am reinstating my support. There are no more photo galleries or pictures next to each other, and the "Buy" section is also coming along. If there are any particularly good stores for jewelry, dresses and shoes, please provide separate listings for them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: I just finished my semester in college and will devote more time into editing this article. What suggestions do y'all have to make this article stand out even more? Feedback is greatly appreciated. De88 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - This article looks very complete and surely feature-worthy. I wouldn't mind another image in the last part of the article - but that's a detail. Good work. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to feature
It's certainly against no policy to change the months to feature, but let's discuss it. Do you really think that Texas summers are ideal for most visitors? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, South Padre Island is an extremely popular destination during Spring Break and summer months. The Island and Brownsville rely on each other economically since they are very close to each other. They are only 20 minutes away from each other. The city sees more tourists during these months, believe it or not. Winter Texans do come in the hundreds of thousands but millions come here, especially during March. *What do you think, Ikan Kekek? De88 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You're the expert, not I, and you explained your reasoning clearly, so I'm happy to defer to you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Isn't it a bad idea to feature Brownsville or anything near the Gulf of Mexico from July onwards, due to the hurricane risk? Though as Brownsville most likely (finally!) will go on the Main Page sometimes next spring, I guess we don't need to elaborate on that further. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You're correct about your last point; I had envisioned Brownsville on the Main Page in March 2018. As a general rule, however, while hurricanes can form anytime between June and November, they generally are a major threat to the U.S. mainland only between late August and late October, with the Caribbean season generally beginning a few weeks beforehand in early August. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for March 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hostels

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My trip to Quebec in 2012 (wow, was it really five years ago?) was the first one I ever took where I stayed mostly in hostels as opposed to full-fledged hotels. I knew a bed in a hostel was way less expensive than a hotel room and that hostels were geared toward solo travellers with minimal need for luxurious amenities, like myself, but otherwise I only had a vague idea what I was in for. It was a more positive than negative experience for me, I think, but in skimming this article, time and time again I kept thinking I wished I had read something like this beforehand to prepare myself. On that basis, I'm going to support this nominee pretty enthusiastically. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I often stay at hostels, and I don't see any major omissions. I like having the cooking facilities, and the chance to meet other travellers. I find that there can be quite a difference in character between a small remote rural hostel and a large city one (or even a small hostel in a major city), and maybe this difference could be explained. AlasdairW (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I didn't see any obvious spelling or grammar mistakes, so there wouldn't be too much work needed. The article is informative, has a good number of pictures, and I think will benefit the traveler DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is an important topic, and I can't think of any essential information that's missing. And I'd be excited to see an article that I've worked hard on be featured on the main page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for March 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bangkok/Pratunam

 * Support, but... The article has Star status, but let's remember to update it before it goes live... ϒpsilon (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ϒpsilon (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Featuring a Star article is a no-brainer, with the caveats that you give. It looks like the last time a Bangkok guide was featured was Khao San Road in March, 2015, as you mention above, so presuming this article wouldn't be featured until at least 2018, that seems long enough in between features. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Ypsi that we should check to make sure all information is up to date, and given that this article has a static map, it would be nice if someone could update that, too, if necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. - I agree that checking for up-to-date information should be done before it goes live, but beyond this I have no qualms about featuring the article. —The preceding comment was added by DethDestroyerOfWords (talk • contribs)


 * Outcome - DotM for February 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Kakamega Rainforest

 * Support per nomination. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet, and this article needs a lot of work:
 * The bullet point listings in the "Understand" subsections should be converted to prose, and much of the information is likely too encyclopedic to fit Wikivoyage's tone.
 * We need vastly more information for the listings in "See".
 * "Do" needs to be expanded beyond a mere bullet point list of park-administered guided walks.
 * Empty subheads in the "Sleep" section need to be either filled out or deleted.
 * A thorough copyedit and mos-ification is needed.
 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of these points have been dealt with. It seems hard to find more info about the landmarks in See, and activities in Do. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This article seems like it would be better off merged with Kakamega. Both are rather short and sparse and as of now, this is Kakamega's only attraction anyway. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Possibly, though as a city of 100,000 I'd imagine there has to be something to see. --ϒpsilon (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for February 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Italian phrasebook

 * Support - What can I say, it's a guide phrasebook. Just needs some nice photos, but it doesn't take long to add them. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Very, very, very close - it just needs some photos and it's good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I guess you guys like my edits. I'm not sure my grammar notes couldn't be improved on, but I do believe they were necessary. I'll try to look through the phrasebook with a fine-toothed comb later. For pictures, should we focus partly on educational institutions like the University of Bologna, which excluding the Islamic Universities in North Africa is the oldest in the world, or should we go for the typical highlights of Italy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - with a few photos being required. I would suggest that some of the photos might be of any signs that are uniquely Italian, or maybe from Commons:Category:Public transport tickets of Italy. AlasdairW (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Practical signs - very good idea. Street signs, restroom signs and menus (but I didn't see many on Commons) could also be useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - OK, I've just looked through the phrasebook in detail through the end of the "Pronunciation" section. I think that section needs more work and is not yet ready to run, but can be if there's agreement on how to proceed. I very much dislike how several sounds are punted by just comparing them to Spanish. Anyone who already knows Spanish well can actually do fine just speaking Spanish in Italy and gradually learning Italian vocabulary and phrases. The audience for this phrasebook should be people who do not know any other Romance languages. And in that respect, I think we should describe "eu" as "ehyoo", "ia" as "eeyah", "ie" as "eeyeh" and "io" as "eeyoh" (with Leo being a fine example and minus the Spanish example, because if you can pronounce Spanish, you scarcely need this guide, other than for "c" and a couple of other consonants). I also think the instructions on pronouncing "o" are totally no good for Americans. I addressed some of this on Talk:Italian phrasebook. If you'd like to give me free rein to change the article accordingly, I'd be happy to do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I plunged forward and took care of the pronunciation section, but now in the phrasebook, there are a bunch of weird accentuations. This is not an uncommon case: "Non parlo italiano. (non PAHR-loh ee-TAH-lyah-noh)" Really? iTAliano??? Granted, I am not a native speaker, but come on, really? ItalIAno. Gimme a break! So I will go through every single phrase and fix this weirdness wherever I see it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's another issue that I think needs to be resolved before I will support a feature: The prevalence of 2nd-person plural (voi) verb forms. My understanding is that using those to address a single person is very patronizing - my parents told me that in the 60s, that was the form people used for their maids instead of "tu", and of course they used the "Lei" form for everyone else except their family members and closest friends. Things had loosened up considerably by the 90s, when I found that fellow students and other people around my age (then in my mid 20s) just about automatically used "tu" among themselves, but when speaking with service personnel, "Lei" was used. My feeling is that all commands and requests in the phrasebook except those expressly for more than one person should be in the "Lei" (3rd person, and often conditional) form. So "potrebbe" instead of "potete" and so on. But I would really like a native speaker or at least someone with more recent and extensive experience in Italy to address this point at Talk:Italian phrasebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Lkcl it, a native speaker, gave me some quick pointers, and I've made pretty extensive revisions, mostly to substitute polite "Lei" verb forms (many of them also conditional) for less polite "voi" forms, but also to change (fix, I hope) really weird-looking syllable accentuation. I still will not be ready to support a feature until a native or otherwise advanced speaker has had a chance to look through this phrasebook with a fine-toothed comb. I had very good conversational and reading ability when I was in practice, but I was probably to the intermediate side of advanced at best, and I always did a lot of things by feel and logic, such as guessing from Latin-derived English vocabulary (e.g. conduction -> conduzione; production -> produzione; rapidity -> rapidità; studipity -> stupidità). Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek I'm sorry but till the first days of July I'll not be able to help reading all the article. The article hasn't been scheduled yet, so I hope there is time ... -- Lkcl it  (Talk) 18:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is time, and your help is much appreciated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Andyrom75 might also be able to help. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ϒpsilon I'm making few adjustment, but please standardize thw way formal/informal phrases are shown: sometimes in different lines and the others in one line, but in this case sometimes formal is first and the others informal is first. Furthemore: sometimes in Italic and sometimes plain or, sometimes with capital letter and sometimes don't. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. There is some pronunciatio that needs to be adjusted. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mille grazie ;). ϒpsilon (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Come lui ha detto. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: I'm still unsure about something on the margins (the usage of "il menù"), but I generally feel this phrasebook is in good shape now and can be featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks thorough to me, no obvious problems. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for February 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Christchurch

 * Very close. Some listings need geo coordinates; "Eat" needs a price range template and to be alphabetized, "Drink" listings need to be alphabetized and in some cases listingified. Easy fixes all. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait until late 2018. Following the Kaikoura earthquake of 14 November 2016 ,the main road from the north (SH1) is currently subject to a length diversion for the rest of 2017 or longer, and trains are not expected to run from Picton before mid-2018. I will look more closely at the article in a few days, but I don't think that there are major problems with it. AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand why this is a problem. The affected stretch of SH1 is some 200 km northeast of Christchurch center, and as the DotM blurb and article both make clear, Christchurch is the principal point of entry for the entire South Island. Therefore, for the vast majority of Wikivoyage's reading audience, the most logical way to arrive in Christchurch would be by air directly into the city, and in fact the only people who would be impeded from getting in to Christchurch would be folks living in certain areas in the far north of the South Island. Certainly the closure of SH1 might possibly affect visitors who'd like to use Christchurch as a base to explore the rest of the island (though that too is mostly avoidable given a properly planned itinerary), but by the same token, the rest of the island isn't up for DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a show stopper, but I think it would be preferable not to feature Christchurch at a time when Get In needs regular updates. I expect that most readers would visit Christchurch as part of a 2-4 week tour of New Zealand (with the exception of readers who live in New Zealand). The average length of stay of international visitors in NZ is 19 days. AlasdairW (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Aside of a couple of photos in the latter half of the article and a handful of missing coordinates, this looks like a solid article. As nearly always, we need to check if everything is still in business a month before the article goes on the Main Page. Concerning the destroyed highway, there seems to be a detour in place and it wouldn't be the first time we'd feature a place where the situation can change. Andre probably remembers Mount Rinjani which erupted when the article was on the nominations page and the mountain was closed for a few months, but had just reopened to visitors when we featured it. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I briefly visited Christchurch last year, so I am fairly happy that most of the article is up-to-date, and I have checked most of the listings online - but something may have slipped through. I have added a few images (maybe too many?), using a few of my own photos to be sure that they are recent post-quake views. AlasdairW (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for January 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ukulhas

 * Support per nomination. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I noticed the edits you were making to this article, Ypsi, and I wondered whether a DotM nomination wasn't your endgame. :) Ukulhas is at Guide level, no doubt about it, and it's been a while since we featured a destination on the Indian Subcontinent. "Eat and drink" and "Sleep" need to be alphabetized, and that's really the only issue I can find. (I presume all the POIs without geo coordinates were ones you tried and failed to find the locations of.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, after copy editing the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would really be nice to have more information about the mosques, including their locations, and directions or coordinates for the health center. And it's unfortunate that Open Street Map seems to be missing so many of the island's streets. But these are fairly small issues—support. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for January 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Metric and Imperial equivalents

 * Support, I think. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The article is short, but contains all the pertinent information on the topic. If someone feels like taking a crack at designing a better layout for the article, great, but I don't think it's essential or perhaps even necessary. I'd be perfectly comfortable running the article as is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Considering the topic, it's much more readable than I would have expected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think the article could benefit from another brief section on energy and nutrition. Especially calorie vs joule and kilojoule, which is important for people on certain diets. But apart from that it looks comprehensive. Gizza ( roam ) 05:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Stone could also be mentioned, if the Brits still use those for weight. We don't use them in the U.S. If I remember correctly each stone is 7 pounds? Or is it 14 pounds? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's fourteen pounds. And I'm not too sure we need to mention Joules and calories - is there a place where labels only mention one? And if so, what about horse powers? Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Labels in the U.S. typically use only calories. --JakeOregon (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Horsepower would be helpful to quantify, as it's used a lot in specs for cars in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree on HP; especially as they are still nostalgically used even by people who should know better in Europe. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Very useful and surprisingly readable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for January 2018. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Iguaçu Falls

 * Close . The greatest need is for "See" to be listingified, with geo coordinates for all POIs. It would also be good if we could expand the "Brazilian side" subsection of "See". As well, "Eat" and "Sleep" might be expanded with a brief overview of information about options in nearby towns for those who don't want to eat/sleep in the park itself; "Get around" could use some padding as well, and "Go next" should be converted to one-line listings with internal links. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Needs some work. In addition to what Andre just said, Understand definitely needs expansion. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support; the issues are resolved now. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Needs work. I agree with what's been said already, especially about the "Brazilian side" subsection of "See". Eat and Sleep need coordinates too. And more importantly, I'm somewhat confused about the relationship between this article and Iguazú National Park and Iguaçu National Park (both outlines). Currently there is considerable duplication between this article and the other two—is that what we want? Or should this article provide a general overview while details and listings stay in the two national park articles? Or should those two articles be merged into this one? I've been considering a trip to Iguazú Falls recently, and when looking into it I found myself uncertain about which of these articles to look at for what kind of information, so I'd like to clarify the situation somehow before featuring this on the main page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Granger - According to the information in the above article, it seems that while border formalities exist, they are pretty relaxed, and the two parks seem to function rather more as one single cross-border entity. Given that, I think it would be fine to merge and redirect both Iguazú National Park and Iguaçu National Park into Iguaçu Falls. As for which spelling to use, perhaps the Google test is best? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. I just think the situation needs to be resolved one way or the other. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Time to get started with this one. Given that there has been no opposition I'm going to merge the content from the two national park articles into the nominated article and redirect them there. Wikipedia uses the Spanish name for the falls, should we do the same? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon, I'm sorry I haven't yet gotten started on this article as I promised to do. I've been trying to be sensitive to the fact that one of the frustrations that led to your hiatus earlier this year was being left to do most of the heavy lifting here at dotm, but this one slipped by me and I kind of lost track of the time. If you would like me to, I'll get started on the merge myself. (If not, I was planning on using the Google test to decide between the Spanish and Portuguese spellings.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The merge took just 20 minutes to perform, surprisingly most of the content of those other articles was already here. Now the article needs a little cleanup including listingfying, Understand should be expanded and there might be some prices, links and such that need to be updated. No big deal, and I guess we can have that done by the end of this week. And I've said it before, and I say it again, articles should be updated weeks rather than months before they are featured so that there's (almost) no time for things to get outdated. Speaking of that, I think Sde Boker could use a new checkthrough.
 * I've never had a problem with the workload but when it looked like everyone else was on strike when it came to improving featured articles, I saw no point in doing it myself either – I mean, this is a wiki and not my personal blog. As of now we fortunately have several contributors on board helping out with this part of Wikivoyage. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Ypsilon's hard work, I think this article looks good now. I've expanded the "Go next" section and am now ready to change my vote to support. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks are indeed in order to Ypsi for his contributions. I can definitely support the article now. That's three stamps of approval, can we get a fourth to make it "official"? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's make it official, then. Ibaman (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for December 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Bozeman

 * Close . The article needs a few more photos and a map, and all but two listings need geo coordinates. That seems like a simple enough fix. Also, the Big Sky Resort and other area ski resorts should be added to the "Do" section (if not as listings, then they should be mentioned in prose), since we're promoting Bozeman as a winter sports destination. Finally, the bullet points in the "Go next" section (especially the one for Big Sky) should be fleshed out with one-liner descriptions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Close Listing update + addition of coordinates, plus the other couple of things Andre just said. As it'll be a full year before it goes on the main page it's probably better to update the listings closer to the time of feature instead of today. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've done some work on this article in the past few months, as have others, and I think most of these concerns have been addressed. Most of the listings (though not quite all) now have geocoordinates, there are more photos and a dynamic map, the "Go next" section has short one-liner descriptions, and the "Do" section mentions Big Sky and Bridger Bowl. There's certainly still room for improvement, but what do you think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The listings in each section need to be alphabetized, and I think the 2026 Olympic bid should be mentioned in there somewhere ("Understand", probably). But all in all, it seems you've done most of the heavy lifting. Thanks, Granger! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! I didn't alphabetize the "Drink" section, so that the order would still match the prose, but the other sections are now alphabetized. And I added something about the Olympics to the "Understand" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems incomplete without mention of the First Contact With Vulcans Historic Site just a bit outside the city. Sure, it won't be established for another 46 years but... Powers (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Granger's much-appreciated improvements, I'm changing my vote to Support. Ypsilon, you're currently on record with a "Close" vote; would you care to follow suit? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article still needed some coords and the lead section was very short, but I just fixed that and thus I can support the article now (I assume listings have been checked up already). --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll support too—some additional information about other outdoor activities would be good, but isn't necessary for featuring, I don't think. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The destination is significant and the article is thoroughly well-edited. I only wish Robert Pirsig and his book ZAMM could be mentioned a little more besides what I have added myself; If I ever went there, my main interest would be the Pirsig/ZAMM tour. But this article is very fine and featurable as is. Ibaman (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for December 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

European Union

 * Support? ϒpsilon (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some work still needed Per the talk page more detail on the history is needed. I know I can go into way too much detail about side points, so if I were to try and tackle it, someone (maybe User:Ground Zero) would have to mercilessly cut down fluff. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made some edits - nothing too major. I think it is good shape. Ground Zero (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should take the history to the current day still... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be featured in April/May, as 9 May is Europe Day. Also, usually decent weather in most EU countries; in contrast of December/January. /Yvwv (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * April 25th is ANZAC Day, so April belongs to Military museums and sites in Australia. May might work, but then the question would be what do we fill the December 2017 slot with? It would not be good to feature Advice for nervous flyers only two months after another air travel-related topic (Manchester Airport), and the arguments against running Roman Empire during the poor-weather months of December and January are essentially identical to the ones against running European Union in the same months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Also, the article presents practical considerations for travelling around the EU rather than individual attractions, also business travellers do get around here regardless of the weather. And then there are of course places in the EU that are particularly popular during the winter months like ski resorts in Scandinavia, the Alps and the Carpatians, sun destinations like the Canary Islands and places in the Caribbean, as well as different kinds of events like Christmas markets taking place during those colder months drawing visitors from elsewhere in the world. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Have I not yet lent my support to this candidate? Let's fix that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Good, useful article. I agree that the History section could use some expansion, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for December 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jakarta

 * Support as nominator. Wonderful article; can't think of anything more it needs before featuring. For the record, a much less well-developed version of the article was slushed in 2008, but none of the criticisms leveled at that time have anything to do with the article in its current state. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It certainly is detailed - good point. I'll be more comfortable when a bit of copy editing is done, though, and the article and probably the Jakarta district articles will have to be watched to prevent the introduction of more text in low-quality English. This is an ongoing issue in articles about Indonesia. I did a bit of copy editing, but I'm really not up to doing a big job tonight. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – looks like a good, detailed article, and I've done a pretty thorough copyedit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks good, and all of the districts seem to be at least usable. If the needed copyedits have been done, then I guess there are no more issues with the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Ground Zero (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for November 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sde Boker

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm satisfied with it, too. Unless someone wants to add a "Connect" section to discuss cell phone and Wi-Fi signals, it doesn't seem really likely to me that more than little copy editing tweaks are in the article's future. I haven't been there, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks good, but five months between this one and Hiking and backpacking in Israel is too close for comfort, I think, especially given how small a country Israel is and how disproportionately often we've had it on the Main Page these past few years (Ein Gedi, Golan Trail, Mitzpe Ramon as well as the aforementioned Hiking and backpacking). In an ideal scenario we'd hold Sde Boker off until after next summer, but I'd be okay with April 2017 as a compromise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point on not overscheduling articles about Israel is well taken. However, I'm sure you'd agree that summer wouldn't be a good time to feature an article about a Northern Hemisphere desert community! I'd much rather hold off until November 2017 than run it in the summer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Andre suggested running it in April. Is it already too hot in April in Israel? ϒpsilon (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that if we wait past April, we should wait till November. I am not expressing an opinion about whether April is too hot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We should, just as it says in the "time to feature" parameter above. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that "after the summer" is what's confusing. Let me rephrase. If it were left up to me, we'd feature it in November 2017 or after, because of the overscheduling of Israeli destinations. However, if there are any objections to that, I'd consider April 2017 a workable compromise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Read through it and it's a very complete little article. I don't see any copy-edits that need doing. I think just a quick check before it is featured is needed to make sure things are up-to-date would be a good idea. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for November 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

American football

 * Close . Talk:American football details the article's exceedingly minor issues: it needs more detail about the Pro Football Hall of Fame that can easily be paraphrased from what's in Canton (Ohio), additional listings for historic places related to football, expanded information about tailgating, stadium amenities, high school football, etc. To those I would only add that the team listings in the "Canadian Football League" section ought to be expanded with short blurbs the same as the NFL teams are. Overall, though, as I see it, this article needs less work to be featureable than some of the ostensibly Guide-level ones we've recently featured, such as Next-to-impossible destinations or Kabak, were when first nominated. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not that familiar with American football, but the article explains the history and rules of the sport and goes on to present the NFL teams and other leagues too so I guess the article is in a quite good shape already. Before supporting the article I'd like to see some supports from people who actually know the sport (and perhaps have been to a game). Just as Andre said, there are still some sections that could be expanded and after all the article is still only at usable status. Is there something else a "newbie" who plans to go see a game should know; how about those stadium amenities and are there perhaps some other fun things than tailgating parties? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As of now, in terms of dotm-related tasks, I'm mainly focused on whipping Aarhus into shape in time for the first of next month. However, I'm confident I will be able to tackle this one too, assuming no one else steps up first. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I have added to the article what I can add without actually going to the US (or London) and attending an NFL game. Which I would love to, but I don't have the money for that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:PerryPlanet and User:Dale Arnett have made many contributions to the article. Maybe they would like to have their say on the status and completeness of the article? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I left my thoughts on the talk page for the article a while ago. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure quite what you guys are looking for as regards the fan experience. You drive to the stadium, find a parking spot, show your ticket, find your seat, and watch the game. Amenities are the same as at any sporting venue -- bathrooms and concessions. Powers (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The way you describe it sounds a bit boring. Frankly it sounds as if there is hardly any value gained in attending in person as compared to watching the game on TV. In European sports you get to see the likes of this and even participate it in some sense. And in German American Football they do the likes of this, apparently copying US American Football. Is there anything like "fan culture" in the US? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most football fans do prefer watching it on TV. You get a closer view of the action and replays, as well as useful analysis of each play. There's a reason football didn't really take off in popularity until the 1960s. Contrast to baseball, which is the least TV-friendly sport and has seen its popularity eaten away by the NFL. Some NFL teams do have particularly vocal cheering sections, like Cleveland's Dawg Pound, but it's nothing on the scale of those videos you posted. NFL fan culture, such as it is, is expressed primarily through tailgating, going to sports bars to watch games, and chattering online or in person about the team. Powers (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support As someone rather unfamiliar with the sport, I only noticed the lack of information about the experience as a spectator. This has now been addressed, and I therefore give the article it's first support vote for FTT. Of course any further additions to the article are welcome. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Very close, so close that I almost feel bad not giving this article my full Support. There are still some minor issues: I'd like to see the listings in "Other football sites" filled out with a bit more information; the CFL teams should each get a brief descriptive blurb the same way the NFL teams do; the article needs a few copyedits here and there. I had already planned on taking care of the fixes this article needed if no one else stepped up, so I can't imagine it would be a problem for me to take care of these much more minor issues, especially since it's still two and a half months before American Football goes on the Main Page. And I don't want any of the foregoing to take away from the fact that Justin did most of the true heavy lifting that was required. Impressive work! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You flatter me. I've made some more additions and want to clean up the very meager listings at the end. I agree that it still has some work to go but it's pretty close now. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - and happy to see how far this article has come since I created it way back in January of 2015. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What more can I do? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know of anything. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Which fixes are still needed? It says in the box that this is to get up in a few days and there is still a need for both stronger consensus and fixes. So which fixes are needed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Some copyediting is necessary to make the text flow better. It's way too minor of a concern for me to justify continuing to withhold my support vote, so I will add my name to that column, but FTR I still intend to go over the prose a little bit before the 21st rolls around. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for November 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nashville

 * Very close . Most of the listings lack geo coordinates, but otherwise this article looks good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost — Coordinates! And removal of closed POIs and dead links a little before the article eventually goes live. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not yet . How many of the things I mentioned at Talk:Nashville have been dealt with? I think all of them should be dealt with or at least well into the process of being dealt with before we approve this for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was just looking at that talk page again. No-one replied to any of my points in Talk:Nashville. If anyone would like to help prepare the article for Dotm, I think that's the place to start. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost - I second the coords comment. I think I remember trying to muster up coords for this article ages ago and it was a daunting task. Not to mention I think there needs to be a quick checkover to make sure all these attractions still are a thing. I'll task myself with adding some more coordinates as I find time to do so. I don't think the article needs much else beyond this honestly. Maybe more pictures since things get sparse past the drink section? DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Over the past day I've added a lot of coordinates to the article—now almost every listing has coordinates. I've also dealt with the dead links and addressed some (but not all) of Ikan Kekek's comments on the talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your work! I think the article is in good shape now. Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The article could still probably do with some additional edits, but certainly not on a scale that would preclude my current support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll support too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's three Support votes. Would anyone (Ypsi, DethDestroyerOfWords) care to make it a quorum? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Listings seem to have coordinates now, and Mx. Granger apparently has removed dead links and dead attractions and businesses. So yeah, I think I can support it as well. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Gave it a look over again. Looks good and has my Support. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - but could do with a few more photographs. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for October 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Filadelfia

 * Support as nominator. Some of the listings in "See" could stand to have their blurbs expanded, and "Buy", "Eat", and "Drink" might also be fleshed out more, but these are all non-essential. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Needs Work - The content is rather sparse and there doesn't seem to be anything that informs the reader as to why they would want to go there. To remove my opposition I suggest that all the listings either be expanded upon (add more interesting information for the existing ones) OR add more listings; and add a fun little entry blurb for see, do, and eat that explains why I'd want to do any of those or an explanation on why the limited selection is worth visiting. Essentially, it seems like it could be an interesting place and I don't think the lack of places to see, do, or eat disqualify it from featuring, however because there is so little it needs to be scrutinized more "harshly". See Kabak for an example of what I think is a good article / argument for a small place with minimal listings being a worthwhile visit. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Minor procedural point - though somewhat different from the more black-and-white method that policy describes, in practice we vote "Not yet", "Needs work" or something similar for any opposition that could be described as tentative, and reserve full-fledged "oppose" votes for articles whose deficiencies are more profound and less easily reversible. That being the case: October is not the easiest month in the world for which to find appropriate feature-article candidates, especially with the schedule putting the U.S., Europe, and East Asia out of play (specifically, Nashville as October's DotM will coincide with October's OtBP from the 11th through the 31st; Manchester Airport as October's FTT will coincide with October's OtBP from 21 August through 10 November, and Kurashiki will have been the previous month's OtBP), so we're reduced to a much smaller pool of candidates and therefore have to allow for articles that are, at least at the time of nomination, relatively less perfect. Of course, we have six full months before Filadelfia goes on the Main Page, which is more than enough time to effect the quite minor fixes that the article needs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed my wording to Needs Work. I wonder if we should revisit the policy/preference to space out articles based on continent and instead do it by country since it limits us so much. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but my personal opinion is that when we avoid the path-of-least-resistance of nominating articles that need minimal work before going on the Main Page, and instead are forced to take imperfect articles from undercovered regions like South America and polish them up, that benefits us with a more geographically diverse Main Page, on top of benefiting the site via articles being improved that would otherwise have been ignored. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support; I translated the article from the German version in 2015, and I think I tried to google up as much as possible about the town at the same time. I don't think there's (was?) anything in the town that isn't already listed in the article. Concerning the schedule, I think we could feature Filadelfia during some Northern Hemisphere winter month instead (those have traditionally been even harder to fill). We perhaps could look at Nkhata Bay, Poros or Alishan for October instead? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * According to es:w:Filadelfia (Paraguay), during the austral summer/Northern Hemisphere winter, Filadelfia's weather tends to be oppressively hot and humid, with rain falling most days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird. Spanish WP refers to which suggests almost half the amount of rain (e.g. 104mm in January while the table in es WP says 175mm), and I've probably also looked at climate data and thought it was just dry and hot there. Anyway, let's run it in October as planned. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A huge thank you to Cmasi for greatly improving the article over the last few weeks. Can we get some more support votes now? --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article. Makes me want to go to Filadelfia. I second what Ypsilon said—a big thank you to Cmasi. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks pretty complete. --Zerabat (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for October 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

 * Weak support. Overall the article looks good, and I wouldn't object if it were to go on the Main Page tomorrow. However, there are a few areas of minor concern, namely the lack of any map (though does an airport article really need one?), as well as the "Get around", "Lounges", "Eat and drink", and "Connect" sections, the information in which, while complete, is sparse and seems like it would benefit from being fleshed out with more detail. (And does anything need to be done about the listing for Escape Lounges, which seems out of place where it currently is?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, if an airport is complex/confusing enough to need an article, it definitely needs a map. Powers (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe needs an update/checkthrough (as is usually the case with nominated articles) closer to the time when it gets featured to make sure everything is up to date. User:Nicholasjf21 might be interested in this nomination too. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I should maybe drop a support vote here. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:ThunderingTyphoons! perhaps would like to say something about this one? Or do we have someone else from that part of the UK or who otherwise is familiar with Manchester Airport? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I have only used Manchester Airport a couple of times, none of them recent. I have made some updates to the article, but there is scope for some more - would the airport parking be better converted to listings with last/longs? I don't understand how it takes 20 minutes to drive into Manchester, but a taxi takes 30-45 minutes (in "By car"). AlasdairW (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for October 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Milan

 * Support. I reverted a passage in awkward English already, and though a need for copyediting doesn't appear to be a widespread phenomenon on this article, it might be worth a more thorough check-through. Also, a unique issue: there are marker templates that need to be removed from this article, being a Huge City that should not have a dynamic map that's redundant to the static districts map (I removed it) and where all listings should have been devolved to the district articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Bear with us non-native English speakers :). Yeah, the markers should probably be replaced by links to districts, though it might be useful to add "go" markers for the airports and railway stations. There might be dead links too. I'll take a closer look at the main Milan article as well as the districts (possibly even run all listings through google maps) at some point before it goes on the Main Page, but the article probably shouldn't need any major edits. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: While not strictly necessary for featuring, I think it would be useful for the traveler if Milano Malpensa Airport had a better article than it currently does. Quite a few people will read that article when deciding how to arrive in town. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Still needs work - I think the "understand", "get in" and "get around" sections should be majorly rewritten. The understand section weirdly compares Milan to Rome and makes the - frankly bizarre - claim of Venice being "typical" of anything and the get in and get around sections are too complicated and hard to read for my taste and I am sure they could do with some maps or the likes. Those sections may be skipped by some of our readers, but they are rather prominent due to their placement near the top of the article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Understand section isn't entirely out of the blue. Milan (and Turin) do certainly have a more Central European feel than, say, Florence or Rome. I haven't personally been to Rome but have "studied" it quite a bit as it's very high on my bucket list. And when the capital and the second largest city in a country are roughly the same size, there are often comparisons between them. That said, comparing Venice to other Italian cities is about as silly as comparing Las Vegas to other cities in the US. Get in does look shredded and listy here and there, and should definitely be tidied up. Get around looks basically OK to me, at least it's logically arranged for major city; first general information about public transport, then information about individual forms of public transport (how often the Metro runs etc.), and after this advice for driving (as nearly always, avoid if you can) and what to expect if you get around by bike or on foot. Perhaps some sections need to be broken up and some fluff removed? --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What do people think of the sections now? As I said, I didn't see much problem with the sections before and have tried to rearrange text whenever possible rather than deleting it. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't have a problem with those sections to begin with, but for the record, the concerns I detailed above seem to have been addressed - once again, thank you, Ypsi. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The Get in and Get around sections look good to me, better than they did when Hobbitschuster made the comment above. I'm not a big fan of the "voluptuous woman"/"demure girl" proverb, but overall, seems like a good article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hobbitschuster - when you get a chance, would you like to take a look at the improvements Ypsilon made to "Understand", "Get in", and "Get around" and let us know what you think? If they pass muster for you, that would take care of both the "pending fixes" and the "pending stronger consensus to support" caveats in one fell swoop. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hobbitschuster, what do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not happy, but I am willing to defer to consensus. If someone could go ahead and remove the style tags ahead of the feature going live? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for September 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Kurashiki

 * Support as nominator. This article received a round of updates relatively recently courtesy of ChubbyWimbus, but all the same, we might want to give it a checkover closer to featuring time to ensure all the listed businesses still exist. As well, "Go next" looks a bit scraggly and might be fleshed out a bit. All the same, if we were to feature the article tomorrow as is, I'd have no problem with that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm skipping through the article, and happy to give it a support vote, but before it's actually run, here are some things I notice: There is as yet no description for Shimotsui Castle Ruins. Readers would want to know what state of ruination they're in and what they can actually see. Actually, I didn't notice anything else! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It strikes me as a model for what an article needs to go from useable to guide level. I support it as is. To make it really shine: I'd like to see more geo coordinates, and the red links in "Go next" should be addressed. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Coordinates would be good to have, especially if there are places listed that aren't marked on the static map. When adding those, we can also remove places that are out of business — now is a good time for that with about 2 months left before the article is featured. Is there anything more that needs to be said about getting around? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: More information in "Get around" would be nice. For instance, the "See" section mentions local bus service, so it would be good to have details about that in "Get around", maybe with a link to the schedules if available. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for September 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Fast food in the United States and Canada

 *  Weak support. The main problem is in the "Well-known chains" section, where the descriptive blurbs for the listed restaurants are inconsistent in length. I've been lengthening the shorter ones and will continue to do so. As well, per this talk page discussion, there are a few references to Latin America, and unqualified references to North America, that still need to be excised from the body of the text. Other than that, this article looks good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I can support the article, but it'd be good to hear some more opinions from North American contributors. Are there maybe some (locally) notable chains that are not yet listed? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If we included locally notable chains, the article would easily be overwhelmed with hundreds of listings. (It's already pushing the envelope a bit, I'd say.) The practice that has evolved in FFITUSAC of including only chains that span multiple states is a good one, and I think most places to which that rule applies are already covered in the article. Small local chainlets should be listed in the Eat section of the relevant destination or region article, as in Buffalo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I can conditionally support this article, given that my expertise on the US comes from second-hand knowledge more than from actual trips to the US and it is thus easy for me to overlook glaring omissions. Other than that, the article does flow rather well and talks about all of the stuff I could think of. Furthermore the title is pretty clear what it is about as opposed to the previous title. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I would counsel visitors to avoid almost all of these chains, but that's beside the point. I think this article is a very valuable reference for visitors who might want to try a chain or might be stuck in a place where chains are their only options. It's interesting and readable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I went through it and fixed one or two sentences. Pared down a listing that was written like an advertisement. There might be some local/regional, chains that reach into other nearby states that are missing, but really if we were to list all of those this article would be way too long. I'd say it's good to go, there really wasn't much to fix. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost - It is a long time since I have eaten in the US, so I am sorry that I can't make any updates, but I will make a few observations. I think that some details could be given on the drinks available - is it just fizzy cola etc, what would the reaction be to a request for tap water?, does everywhere offer hot coffee and tea?. I looked at the menus of a few of the chains listed and there was almost nothing for vegetarians (UK McDonalds offers a choice of two different bean burgers, but I couldn't find any on the US menu) - I think we should identify which chains have reasonable vegetarian offerings. To me a "sandwich" is usually a cold filling between two slices of bread, maybe the term should be explained, as it seems here more to be used for hot and cold filled rolls. AlasdairW (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions, I think—I've just added a bullet point about soft drinks and a paragraph about vegetarian options. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will now support it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * At long last, I've finished improving the listings and can now upgrade my vote from weak to full-fledged Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is on short notice, but could we find a banner without a corporate logo? There are lots of pictures of fast food servings which are more generic. See Talk:Kashrut for a similar case. /Yvwv (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The banners were placed on the banner nomination page over a month ago to be voted on, and four out of the five people who voted acknowledged the presence of corporate logos in this banner option yet voted for it anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for September 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Aarhus

 * Strong support ϒpsilon (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted to support the tireless work of RhinoMind to make this such a comprehensive guide. Before it's run, I feel sure the article will require a thorough review for copy editing, since English is not RhinoMind's first language (I've previously noticed mostly disagreements between subjects and verbs). I'd also ask RhinoMind whether s/he plans to make further major edits before the article is run, because I've held off on doing a complete copy edit while content has been steadily added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I really like this article! I saw RhinoMind editing it several months ago and thought it was excellent. I'm surprised it hasn't been featured yet. —The preceding comment was added by DethDestroyerOfWords (talk • contribs)
 * Almost . I hate to be a party pooper here, but there are a few things in this article that rub me the wrong way:


 * The bullet-point list of "interesting facts" in the Understand section should be converted to prose.
 * Listings in "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink" and "Sleep" need to be alphabetized.
 * We need to decide whether we're categorizing "Eat" listings by price point or by type of food - as it is now, the breakdown is a weird hybrid of both systems. And if it's by price point, then we need an Eatpricerange template that delineates what "Budget", "Mid-range", and "Splurge" signify exactly.
 * If we really need an exhaustive list of consulates, we should at least provide addresses and phone numbers for all of them.
 * "Go next" needs a good pruning.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Fixes applied:
 * I converted the bullet-point interesting facts to prose.
 * I alphabetized the See, Do, Buy, Drink and Sleep. Most of Eat was alphabetized.
 * For the Eat section, I shuffled a few things around to make them fit better into Budget/Mid/Splurge sections. Honestly, I think the hybrid system is the best for this article. My reasoning is thus: we could move listings into the default three price ranges but then we lose the "story" and you'd have three massive sections with less to differentiate why you should choose one place over the other. I feel the non-standard sections create a cohesive "narrative" and shows what makes Aarhus special and worth a visit. I don't think we should get rid of the budget/mid/splurge categories because there are travelers where price is THE determining factor for choosing a destination. If we absolutely must have one way or the other, I vote in favor of moving things to food type sections over our default three categories. I think the entire eat section could use a good pruning to make it a Star article, but for a DoTM article the way it be is sufficient.
 * I tried to find more details on the consulates and couldn't find stuff for most, so I removed those since an empty listing just saying "This (might) exist" doesn't strike me as good for a traveler.
 * Pruning Go next is problematic and I'm still mulling over how I want to fix it without undoing all of Rhino's hard work.
 * I think this article is on its way to becoming a real gem and I hope when it is featured we'll get some fresh editors for it. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - comprehensive article, but agree the Go next section should be pruned. Also should the churches text be moved out of the Infobox and the beaches mentioned in Do section have marker coordinates? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I've been pruning Go next as prescribed above, but the more I dig into this article, the more problems I'm finding. Little things, mostly; each of them individually an easy fix, but there are enough of them that I'm growing concerned. First of all, the article very badly needs attention from a native English speaker. Secondly, do there really need to be more than 80 "Eat" listings? (Especially since that doesn't even include the many "stealth listings" that will eventually need to be fully listingified - see this section lede for an example of what I mean)? Someone needs to very aggressively go through these and seek out places that might be closed, have bad reviews, etc. This is serious overkill. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On the talk page there have been several discussions regarding the length of some sections (eat specifically). My opinion is that there are too many listings and I recommend pruning to only the most notable. Others did not agree. Since I haven't personally been to the city (therefore not able to accurately judge what should stay and go) and I didn't want to step on toes of other editors who have invested a great deal of time and effort on this article (and seem to be attached to their work), I backed off from contributing to / pruning the article a few months ago. Districtification of the city was suggested and decided against as, while there is a lot of info it isn't enough to fill out multiple district sections. If I had my way, I'd prune at least half of all the listings in the larger sections. My understanding is that an article shouldn't be like a phone book, listing every item of note, but rather a curated collection of the (subjective) best or the most notable the city has to offer. In regard to closed listings, Rhinomind appears to be very active in removing those and, based on the contribution activity I've seen in the past, the Aarhus listings are probably the most up-to-date on the site. In spite of the minor difference of opinion (prune vs. keep), I still stand by my vote of support. I don't think the article is star quality, but it is definitely a strong article with lots of valuable information that is written well (but not perfect). DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * RhinoMind's contributions are valuable (after all, we wouldn't be talking about Aarhus for DotM if not for him), but he's just going to have to find a way to come to terms with the listings being pruned: the fact that Wikivoyage is not the Yellow Pages is an undisputed element of our policy. I'm bogged down with work for the next day or two, but after that, said pruning is going to be my first order of business. I imagine that reading over the reviews of these places on sites like TripAdvisor, Yelp, or Google Reviews would suffice to give a rough idea of which are most recommendable and which might be avoided; I'll do that, with a view to excising roughly half the number of places currently listed in the article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm still plugging away at this, but I'm noticing this article also badly needs to be checked over and copyedited by a native English speaker. I'll do it myself if I must, though I'd really rather move on to other tasks, such as making DotM banners for Milan and continuing my improvements to Fast food in the United States and Canada. Any help would be appreciated. (Ground Zero, perhaps?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pruning complete. I've excised about half of the "Eat" listings and about a third of the "Drink" listings — both of those sections are still on the long side, but at least within the realm of reasonableness now — and the article is about 20% shorter than it was at its maximum bloat level. Meanwhile, Ground Zero has already started copyediting (I pitched in a little bit while pruning, and may do so again) and seems to be excising a lot of extraneous and redundant text whilst doing so, which is also quite helpful. Given all this progress, I think I can provisionally support this article with the assumption that everything will be squared away by next Tuesday, when it's due to go on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Done - finally! I can now belatedly offer my support, a scant three hours before Aarhus is due to hit the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for August 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk

 * Close . The article lacks a dynamic map, and most listings need geo coordinates. Looks to be in good shape otherwise, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost Listing update & coordinates — the usual drill with guide articles that haven't been updated in a while. We haven't featured an article from this corner of the world in quite a couple of years so I'm looking forward to seeing this one there. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I've spent a couple of hours with the article, and now there should be nothing listed in the article that doesn't exist (for instance half of the restaurants were out of business or otherwise gone). I also brought over stuff from Russian WV to enhance the article. I'm still not quite finished (will at least update the prices). Nevertheless, here is the nomination's first support vote. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stepping in here, ϒpsi. I speak no Russian myself, and when I ran ru:'s Yuzhno-Sakhalin article through Google's machine translator to sort of peruse and assess the general quality of the information, the grammar came out so garbled that I was dreading trying to slog through it and figure it out. I'm going to hold off on changing my vote until you indicate that you're finished with your edits, but the situation is already looking markedly better. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks for confirming the existence of all of these places. I am still concerned about the out-of-date prices. The ruble has fallen from RUB30=US$1 to RUB60=US$1 since 2011, so I suspect that the prices shown are no longer valid. I haven't been to Russia since 2005, and have never been to Siberia, so I don't know. I suggest that either the prices be updated, or they be deleted since they are no longer relevant. Ground Zero (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Will likely have the prices done by the end of the weekend, now I'm concentrating on some other articles. Prices are available on the businesses websites if they have one, or otherwise you might get a rough idea about the price level from review sites like Tripadvisor. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On this basis, I've crossed out my "oppose" vote and I'm willing to support. Thank you for taking care of this! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work on updating. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: this article was not updated for ages, and I believe that its practical information is mostly wrong. One Russian editor visited the city this summer, and he made some updates in the Russian article, but he has not checked everything. Additionally, the city itself is quite boring and of relatively little interest to anyone. What should be featured is Sakhalin as a whole, or perhaps natural attractions on the island. Not the cities. --Alexander (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sakhalin was already featured in May 2010. As for the city being boring, that's why it was nominated as OtBP and not DotM. Please see dotm - "I don't like it" and the like are explicitly cited as not being valid reasons to oppose a nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think Otbp was for boring nominees, just nominees that are not heavily visited. If a place is really deadly boring, what is the point of featuring an article about it? That said, based on the contents of the article, it doesn't seem like there's actually nothing to see or do in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, and since it's a place people visiting Sakhalin are likely to fly to, recommendations of what to do while they're there and how to get to other parts of the island seem helpful, and I think we can therefore dispense with the argument that the article is per se unfeaturable because of the deficiencies of the city. However, I'm concerned about Alexander's points about the information being obsolete or otherwise wrong. Until it's corrected, I will have to oppose a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Kindly note that I added a comment and not an Oppose vote. When destinations of this type are featured, it tells people that Wikivoyage has run out of interesting destinations, which definitely hurts the reputation of the project. And I did not say "I don't like it". I said that there is nothing to see beyond one notable Japanese building. --Alexander (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment as per User:Atsirlin; while the "boringness" of a place may not be a reason to withhold featuring, an article not having been updated in "ages" is. Not only because of SEO concerns but also because information is likely to be outdated. We want to feature our best and brightest, and that includes articles being up to date. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The concerns about outdated and possibly factually inaccurate information seem insurmountable to me, given the lack of much information online or any Wikivoyagers on the ground in Sakhalin. Barring any objections, I think this should go on the Slush pile.


 * To address the concerns about boringness vis-à-vis categorization as OtBP: I stand corrected by Ikan's above comment, though in light of it I would posit that if an article has attained Guide status and thus is eligible to be featured, then it must ipso facto be "of interest to" at least some travellers. City guide status, Region guide status, and Park guide status all explicitly require Guide-level articles to have "information on multiple attractions and things to do" (emphasis in original).


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned that the Russian article has quite a bit of information updated in September by a Wikivoyager who visited the city this summer. I simply can't guarantee that he has checked everything, but at least the information with the date tag should be reliable. You can also contact this editor directly if any specific questions arise.
 * Regarding the boringness, it makes little sense to feature destinations where nobody will ever go intentionally, even if some POIs, mostly of interest to locals, exist. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk definitely belongs to this category. On the other hand, it can be regarded as a gateway to Sakhalin, as Ikan mentioned, and I guess it looks intriguingly exotic because of its remote location --Alexander (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Several of the listings date back to 2009 or 2011. At very least, the price information is now useless. At worst, some of these may no longer be in business. I think work to update the article would be required before it is featured. Ground Zero (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ground Zero, please read my comment above, timestamped 14:05, 28 June 2017. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the listings. My concerns have been addressed. Ground Zero (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I made a few final changes and can now change my vote to support. Ground Zero, would it be accurate to take your above comments as a de facto "Support" vote as well? If so, we would have a four-vote quorum. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey, artichokey I'll support this now. Ground Zero (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for August 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Oregon Trail

 * Comment: Quoting from my own comments at User talk:Ypsilon:


 * "I guess I should come out and describe the problem I have with Oregon Trail a bit here, which is that it's way too heavily geared toward fans of the Oregon Trail educational computer game that was popular in the 1980s and '90s. My elementary school computer lab had that game, and I loved it, so I'm able to pick up on all the in-jokes and references to it that are sprinkled throughout the article. But I also understand that that's true only for a small fraction, mostly within a very specific age group, of the people who might be interested in the article. I can imagine vast swaths of readers who are interested in the historical aspects of recreating a voyage along the real-life Oregon Trail yet utterly confused much of the time what the author is on about."


 * That having been said: the article is impeccably well-written and contains a map and many really nice pictures, so other than the above, I see no problems with featuring it. And, quoting again from my comments on that talk page discussion: "I wouldn't close the door on the possibility of being talked into supporting the feature depending on what others might argue."


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost As I said on my talk page, I don't think it's a problem with all those game references given that it's clearly stated in both the lead section and Understand that it's also a famous computer game. We've also featured Breaking Bad Tour and a lot of readers and voyagers are not familiar with the series.
 * I believe everything one needs to know is in the article (it's written and promoted to guide by a veteran editor who presumably has traveled the route), nevertheless a dynamic map with some POIs would be nice to have.--ϒpsilon (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I recently had a look over this page to see if my opinion about the issues in the above comment had changed, and it in fact did. Without a doubt, this is one of our quirkier itineraries, and a major concern of mine was that folks who knew about the actual Oregon Trail but had no familiarity with the computer game would be lost amid all the in-jokes and references. I still think there's a lot that will fly over their heads; however, 1) the "Understand" section does a pretty good job of explaining the significance of the game so that those who are unfamiliar will at least have an idea what's going on in the text, and 2) those who accordingly ignore the references to the game and focus on the remaining information will still find themselves with a perfectly useful itinerary with which to explore the genuinely historic side of the Trail. I do think the game references come off a bit overbearing at times and could stand to be toned down a tad, but even if that doesn't happen, I still think I can support this feature. I also might note that this nomination has received astoundingly little attention from DotM voters, mine being only the second vote cast in eight months of this nomination having been on this page, so let's hear yours. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's make my vote a support too. Would be nice to have some markers and possibly a dynamic map, will probably add them myself before the article goes live. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried to cut back a bit on the "our computers were rubbish back in the day" technological background to focus on content – this is about travel, no? Nonetheless, I agree that this needs POI's with co-ordinates. It's not ready yet but certainly it is fixable easily enough. K7L (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * K7L, I think your edits struck the perfect game-vs.-actual history balance. As you and Ypsi said, geo coords for the markers on a dynamic map and then we're good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How much space should be given to non-car means of recreating the trail today? Or is that a bad idea, because people who do that and don't know what they're doing will die of dysentery with a dead phone battery two days marches from the next cell phone reception? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole idea is that there is no train until the last spike is driven in 1869 and it's too far to walk. Admittedly, I'm already hesitant that this relies so heavily on Interstate freeways – yes there might be Portland cement under those four lanes of asphalt concrete, but does that make this the Oregon Trail? Even using two lane road like Lincoln Highway or Route 66 would be overkill, given that this is about rickety wagons on primitive and nearly-impassible mud trails. Perhaps it would be best to lay off the calls for ICE and TGV service in 1840... especially since across Wyoming by rail still redlinks today. K7L (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well every so often you hear of somebody doing a coast to coast trip on a bike. But I guess I get your point. That said, I would love there to eventually be historically inspired itineraries like Across the Alps with Elephants or Across the Andes like José de San Martín (apparently on the actual track someone was born, though what happened to mother and child afterwards is not known). Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While we were doing the trail, I remember seeing a team of cyclists riding on the side of the interstate in Wyoming. However, laws vary by state as to the use of non-motorized vehicles on highways and major state roads, so even if you have the supplies and fitness to handle the conditions and extreme distances involved, you could only do part of the trail that way. Gorilla Jones (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. All the video game references might still be slightly more than I'd prefer, but it's a good article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with a bit of hesitation as there are still a few loose ends open on Talk:Oregon Trail. I doubt we'll get a perfect balance of current vs. historical, of real history vs. game references, of period authenticity vs. air-conditioned wagons on Interstate motorway but what's here looks reasonably complete. It just needs a GPX/GeoJSON track to specify an exact route and some way to contact the chariot association if your ox has died. K7L (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for August 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ulaanbaatar

 *  Conditional support per comment ϒpsilon (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is a good read. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional support per Ypsi's comment, and also there are some POIs without geo coordinates. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, there are several instances of loosey-goosey use of Cyrillic script that violates Foreign words. I just corrected one but this needs to be attended to before featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Great work AndreCarrotflower! I read through it and I couldn't find anything that needed fixing. Someone who's been there recently should ensure things are up-to-date, but as the article stands, it has my support. It's a good read, but I feel like there is a lot of copy-editing that needs done to make it more readable. In the very first section, I found a mis-word (primate instead of primary). I'm going through right now and trying to pare things down + copy-edit. Additionally, I think it needs more pictures to break up some of the large blocks of text that occur towards the bottom of the article. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet, so many listing out of date. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The listings are being attended to currently, along with the rest of the article. 2) You picked a hell of a time to raise an objection as major as this, with less than two weeks before this article is due to go on the Main Page, banners already created and voted on, etc. Where has this concern about up-to-date listings been for the last seven months that this nomination has been sitting on this page? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You ask for more people to help out with this area then wonder why they do not stay. (and I made the comment after updating 8 listings.) --Traveler100 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Letting an allegedly defective nominee sit on this page accumulating Support votes for seven months and then bringing to light a major objection with two weeks left to go before it's featured is not "helping out"; in fact it's very nearly the opposite. Updating eight listings is helpful, and thank you for that. I wish you'd mentioned having done that before springing your eleventh-hour "Not yet" vote on us. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, looks better now. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Recent changes, it looks like people have been attending to them over the last week or so, therefore I don't see it as a problem and I will join next week when I have more time. I even think it's optimal to save the checking of listings to a couple of weeks before the article goes on the Main Page, just as is the case with Ulaanbaatar now. If it's done when the article is nominated and it takes, say, a year and a half before the article gets featured, listings probably need one more checkup just before the article is featured. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Dowling002 (talk) 7:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ulaanbaatar is a great city. But I was recently there and some of the entry wasn't accurate.
 * Dowling002, please fix anything that's inaccurate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb and done a lot of copyediting and reformatting. It looks like the issue of missing geo coordinates and Cyrillic text were mostly solved before I got to it. I will happily upgrade my vote to full support, and invite DethDestroyerOfWords to take a look and see about doing the same. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for July 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Groningen

 * Support. May need some minor copyedits, but otherwise good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, more or less along the lines AndreCarrotflower lays out. I copy edited through the end of "Understand". Some sections should be alphabetized. But there sure isn't a lack of information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support — looks good and is beautifully illustrated. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to OtBP - if this is not off the beaten track, then what in Europe is? This may not be the smallest backwater town in NL, but going to Groningen isn't probably on anybody's bucket list. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Groningen is for Dutch standards a 'big' city, the metropolitan area counts 360,748 inhabitants. OtBP is intended for small cities, villages or unusual destinations. In the Groningen region for example Bourtange, Schiermonnikoog or Appingedam. Iceandsnow (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that OtBP needs to be a small hamlet? It says that it's for "destinations lesser known", and for an English-speaking traveller Groningen is certainly lesser-known than many smaller, yet popular cities and towns throughout Europe. We've had Turku and Trondheim, some of the key cities in their countries, as OtBPs. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you've got a point. Groningen is in my opinion suitable for DotM, but OtBP is also an option. Lets wait and see what other users think about this discussion. Iceandsnow (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Groningen, like Turku and Trondheim (and Lodz and many others) are places that IMO could work well both as DotM or OtBP. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The terms "off the beaten path" are of course abused quite often, but if we look at the grand scheme of things, I think Groningen belongs into OtBP for similar reasons that Antigua Guatemala belongs into DotM... compare Groningen to other places in its region - whether you draw the region boundary at the edge of Benelux, the Netherlands or Europe, it is quite easy to think of quite a handful of places that are much more tourist-y. For Antigua Guatemala very much the precise opposite is true. To sum my argument up in one sentence: How many of the "do Europe" crowd visits Groningen? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was on the fence about this question, but Hobbitschuster's arguments have convinced me. Let's move it to OtBP. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, but the eat-section should be updated and expanded a bit. Closed establishments have been removed, but the best and most popular restaurants opened in more recent years have not been added. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, quality article --Traveler100 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Urgent comment - Sorry to spring this on folks at the last minute, but it looks like this article has been extensively edited by a new user over the past month or so. Much valuable content has been added, however there's also now a host of problems with unlistingified POIs, poor-quality English, and the like. I will try to lend a hand copyediting, but with just 27 hours to go until Groningen hits the main page (and unfortunately I have to head out to work in a few minutes), realistically it's going to be a multiple-editor job, and we need to get started on it tout suite. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I made a start. User:Groningen Revisited did add a lot of content, and a revision check between now and 15th June shows that it is mostly good. I'll copy read the article in its entirety now. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed; reassessing the situation, it doesn't look as bad as I had originally thought (even before your edits). Still, those unlistingified "Drink" listings have to be attended to. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for July 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

King's Road (Finland)

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is one thing I notice about the article that's lacking. It's mentioned in the "Understand" section that the road dates back to Medieval times and was the main route eastward from Sweden to Finland, and from the "Go" section it can be inferred that the draw for tourists today is the historic buildings and sites remaining from that era, but it seems to me that there ought to be a summary at the end of the "Understand" section to bridge those two things together - something like "Today, tourists retrace this historic route to bear witness to these relics of a bygone era" - setting the stage for the itinerary itself rather than heaving readers go into it blindly. Of course, that's far too minor an issue to preclude my support vote, and if the itinerary were to go up tomorrow without any changes that would be fine with me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks quite good. The main thing I notice is that it needs a thorough proofreading and almost definitely more copy editing to put some expressions into idiomatic English. That should be done before it's actually featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - that was a long copy-edit, but I think I did a decent job of putting it into idiomatic English and am happy to support its featuring now. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for July 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Riga

 * As it's probably me who will do this eventually, it'd be silly for me to write "almost" before support. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative support pending the fixes Ypsi has identified and plans to do. In addition, the cities listed in "Go next" need one-liner descriptions, and the selections probably need to be pruned a bit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to read and judge the status of this article right now, but as for pruning the "Go next" listings, why? They're very clearly organized by country, so the list is not hard to read. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently I fixed the Go next section at some point. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I can give an unknowledgeable Support vote, based on the amount of information in this article, which is also beautifully illustrated (conceivably maybe even to slight excess), but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if people who know this city better pass judgment on it. Any opinions, Alexander, PrinceGloria or anyone else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have shared my thoughts on the talk page long time ago. I don't like this article in the same way as I don't like the article about Tallinn that was featured last year. They are both very superficial and fail to describe many of the interesting points in the city, while focusing on something that you can find in every, literally every travel guide. The Understand section is... well, I don't have any civil words for it. But I surely do not object the nomination if others like it this way. --Alexander (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe wait due to the objections User:Atsirlin has raised? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I support User:Atsirlin's position; the article could really use a little overhaul. Ibaman (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Alexander. I rescind my support vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there something else about the article, in addition to the missing POIs and incorrect lead section that is disqualifying Riga from being featured? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ϒpsilon, you may want to read my old comments on the talk page. The issue is not about 20 or 30 additional POIs but about presenting Riga in the lede section and in individual district articles, which are certainly warranted for a city like this. Even 55 POIs is a bit too much for one article, and 80 POIs will be by all means excessive. On the other hand, it is only me who sees the problem, and I am definitely not going to work on this article in the near future. The easiest thing you can do now is removing factual mistakes from the Understand section and keeping the rest of the article as it is. Given the fact that a similarly superficial article about Tallinn has been featured, I do not see why the Riga article should not.
 * For me the problem with this and with many other articles is more fundamental. Popular European cities are well covered in all major travel guides. For Riga you can get InYourPocket book, which is free to download and available (also for free) in nearly every hotel in the city. This book is not very detailed, but it is still a lot better than the current version of the Riga article, because it acknowledges the diverse history of the city and gives many nice hints, also regarding pubs and restaurants. By featuring such an article, we kind of admit that Wikivoyage is not up to the level of something that everyone can get for free and very easily, so why using Wikivoyage? What's unique there? Maybe links to Wikipedia? =))
 * However, it seems to be my personal problem, and I don't want to impose it on others. --Alexander (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, but would like to hear other people's opinions too; is it just Understand that needs to be amended (most certainly possible to do before September), or is the article a "hopeless case" in some other way that I'm not able to notice? Those POIs, I believe, aren't going to be added anytime soon.
 * Also, if we were to add more POIs (See in particular), as was already mentioned on the article talk page in 2014, a district division would be necessary. This would also require more of other listings in the peripheral districts, firstly because articles need at least one eat and sleep to become usable (for Riga to keep guide status) and secondly so that the articles would be more balanced instead of just one long list of things to see.
 * Another question is, does a guide article really have to have all that in-depth information with hidden gems that other travel guides apparently do not bother listing? At least a few years ago that was what was required of Star articles. However as the Star article nomination process has been practically dead for a few years, I've noticed people seem to think of guide as the highest possible article status and therefore demand more of those articles that would really be necessary. There have even been suggestions for tightening requirements for when an article may be listed as usable, and myself I do not agree this is the right direction to go.
 * That said, if people would prefer to slush Riga, Kaunas could be a good substitute from the Baltics. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Alexander's most recent remarks: if we're talking about well-known, on-the-beaten-path cities, I think it's a little much to ask of Wikivoyage to provide something that scores of other travel guides have somehow missed. If everything worthwhile has already been covered, everything worthwhile has already been covered. There's not much that can be done about that, especially if there aren't any editors living in the local area.


 * In the second part of this comment, I had intended to say let's just fix the Understand section, add whichever of the POIs that Alexander suggested in the talk page that haven't been added yet, and not worry too much about anything else. However, I just took a look at this article and I have to agree that Riga would benefit greatly by districtification. The See, Eat, and Sleep sections are long, unwieldy lists that are only going to get longer and more unwieldy as we add the content Alexander suggests. I wouldn't be totally against featuring an undistrictified Riga, but breaking it down would certainly be a boon.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It will definitely benefit from distrification, but nobody is going to implement districts any time soon. Therefore, I don't really urge anyone to add more POIs without becoming more familiar with the city and understanding wherein these POIs are interesting. --Alexander (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Guide vs. star quality is decided internally, but that's a different story. Featured articles appear on the main page, they become more visible, and they kind of show to the world how good regular Wikivoyage articles are. In my opinion, the Riga article will not be doing well in this case, because you can get a better thing right in your hotel room and for free. That's a very general problem that goes far beyond any individual article, and I have to mention this problem because I am more and more often using English content and comparing it with other options available on the market. The more you convince yourself that such articles are "good enough", the less competitive you actually are. --Alexander (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alexander, if you're finding this to be a general problem on Dotm on English Wikivoyage, please comment on the other articles currently being nominated, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar enough with the majority of places that are currently under discussion, but I have seen the same problem last year with Łódź. As someone who recently visited Suzhou, I can also say that this guide is barely usable from the practical perspective even if it has a lot of content. On the other hand, I don't really like to make critical remarks when I am not going to help with improving the article(s), so I do not even try to monitor the Dotm page closely. --Alexander (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I still think Alexander's remarks here serve to hold Wikivoyage to an unrealistic standard. Of course we aspire to be the best travel guide out there, to consistently provide information that the Lonely Planets of the world don't, and we're getting closer to that goal every day - but we're not there yet, and we're really not even close. At this point in our site's development, if we were to limit DotMs to articles that clear the hurdle Alexander seeks to put up, we would quickly run out of them. So, given that situation, what do we do? Do we stop running DotMs until we've generated a huge amount more and higher-quality content than we have now? Do we put the whole site in beta until it's something we feel reaches its full potential? Of course not. With DotM, let's be honest with ourselves and our readers. These articles are the best we have to offer right now, not necessarily the best that we aspire to. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is "barely usable" a sufficient standard for a featured article? If that's what our featured articles are like, that's embarrassing and unfortunate, even though our articles sure are way better than when I started editing here about 10 years ago! Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Andre, on Russian Wikivoyage (back in WT times, actually) we stopped Dotm nominations when we realized that we can not produce a new article of reasonable quality every month. We resumed featured articles this year, because we have enough articles that deserve to be featured. I see no problem with it as long as quality is deemed more important than quantity. --Alexander (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So what is really wrong with the Riga article?
Many commenters in this thread do not single out anything that's wrong with this article yet are opposed to having it on the Main Page. Please have a closer look at the article if you haven't yet.

Alexander, however has come up with a couple of points; the lead section, districts and missing attractions. The lead section can probably be fixed in half an hour. Secondly there's the case whether Riga should be districtified or not. I have a mild preference for districtifying Riga, however I'd be fine also with running Riga as one single article. Prince, who first suggested it two years ago, is now entirely against it and asks whether Riga would ever need districts. Either way, dividing Riga into districts, if needed, is not going to take very long. Also, I entirely agree with André's points above concerning unrealistically high standards. There's no travel guide in the world that would or could completely serve each and every traveler and all his/her special interests.ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh please don't districtify. If we need a better lead please write it, but I guess we're really trying to polish one of our best guides. There are so many others really deserving our attention, such as Brussels. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The question of whether to districtify hinges on the amount of content in the article, not the relative size and importance of the city. If we went by size alone, Buffalo, with a population one-third that of Riga, should by no means be districtified; however, when amount of content is the criterion, if anything seven districts aren't enough for Buffalo. As for Riga, even if we were not to add any of the POIs Alexander cited, the fact remains that once you surpass, say, 30 listings per section, it's absolutely time to talk about subdividing. Riga has 57 and Riga has 47, and again, that's without the additional ones Alexander says are necessary for the guide to be describable as complete. Riga is crying out for districtification. I doubt that doing so would be as easy as Ypsi suggests - especially given that we've got a two-month window within which to gain a consensus on the number of districts and their borders; migrate the listings; write up new "Understand", "Get in", "Get around", "Stay safe", "Go next", etc. sections for each of them - but if I'm wrong, I'd be open to featuring it in September as planned. Certainly not in its current flabby state, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If we decide to districtify, there is a long discussion on how to do it and a lot of work for us to do, with the potential that at least one district will fail to reach the necessary status by Sep. I'd slush it and nominate next year, especially that we've just had Stockholm featured. Perhaps we could give some other destinations with single-article guides a chance instead, there are still many needing very little, if any, work. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hamburg and Milan, for instance, didn't take very long to districtrictfy. Also, districts have already been discussed in Talk:Riga so we don't need to start from zero. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, Riga is now districtified. So, the other thing that was needed was to implement Alexander's suggested changes and additions, but as some other users still disagree with them, it's impossible to continue.
 * While I still think there's nothing wrong with the article, still don't understand why the history of every bedroom suburb has to be covered in the article (how many previous DotMs have had this level of information? and in how many cases was it required for them to have it?) and still don't understand why it couldn't be done in two months (along with other "problems" with the article that people presumably would discover along the way), I'm not really motivated doing further work on the article.
 * Therefore: just slush Riga. Also, we already have a substitute (Zürich) that would otherwise need to sit around for almost a year if not longer. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - I'm impressed with the districting, and I have to say I'm sorry I doubted your ability to pull it off in time. In fact, the edits you've made have assuaged most of my concerns about the article, and I would advise you not to be so hasty about slushing it quite yet. You said something about not "understand[ing] why the history of every bedroom suburb has to be covered in the article", which I guess is in reference to what I said about the districts needing to each have an "Understand" section. If you wanted to include an exhaustive description of each area's history, as I did with the Buffalo district articles, the "Understand" section is where you would include it, but that kind of thing is strictly optional. At its core, all you absolutely need to include in an "Understand" section is a short summary of only a paragraph or two in length that succinctly describes the district and how it fits within the larger city. For a bedroom community, it might be something as simple as:


 * District X is a mostly residential area on the outskirts of City Y. As a suburban bedroom community, this place is well off the beaten tourist track - but if you do find yourself here for whatever reason, you might want to check out Attractions A, B, and C.


 * However, now that I'm looking closer at policy, all those points are moot anyway because as it turns out, I had misremembered the requirements for a district article to attain Usable status, and an "Understand" section isn't even necessary. (Incidentally, I noticed that you categorized the new Riga district articles as having Guide status. Technically, they are Usable because none of them has a "Go next" section. However, this doesn't affect the status of the Riga article itself, as all that's required of a Guide-level Huge City's districts is that they all be at least Usable.)


 * As for the changes Alexander suggested, the really essential ones I had in mind were the additional listings he suggested for the "See" sections. I've never been to Riga and thus can't testify for or against the validity of his opinions on Riga, but if PrinceGloria doesn't think that kind of thing is relevant to a traveler, I think it would be fine to omit that information and still run the article anyway.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And as for Zurich, if it has to wait until summer 2017 to be featured, it won't be the end of the world. The way it's been lately, a year actually has been pretty close to the average length of time between an article's initial nomination and its debut on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I also feel frustrated when I see that the Centrs disrict "famous for its Art Noveau architecture" just missed its most gorgeous Art Nouveau buildings along with the Art Nouveau museum (which was never mentioned, I think). I think it is a bad idea to introduce districts if you are not sure what they are about. --Alexander (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There are entries on both streets that contains the most buildings - we could go as far as having an entry on almost every Jugendstil building, but this could be a bit of an overkill, as some streets would have literally every number in them as POI. That said, I am not sure an approach that sounds like "you don't really know Riga" is very helpful - we do bow down to your knowledge of it, but I would much appreciate if you applied it in practice rather than criticize others in a condescending way, Alexander.
 * Since we've just had Stockholm, I am all for having another Baltic capital wait out its time for another year if this is what we need to polish the district articles (and polishing they still need). I was actually thinking of nominating one of the districts of Paris instead, and we could also use a southern European destination to maintain a healthy balance. PrinceGloria (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This building is at Elizabetes iela 10, and the main cluster of Jugendstil buildings is on Alberta iela even further to the west. None of them falls into the Centrs district as it is defined now. Conversely, I would not know any famous Jugendstil building within the current boundaries (and the next famous one is the House with Cats in the Old Town). If you don't see the problem here, then yes, you don't really know Riga.
 * I would be more than happy to refrain from any further participation in this discussion, but then, please, stop pinging me at every point. OK? --Alexander (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are very right about that, I did not catch the fact that the Centrs district did not follow the administrative borders of Centrs. Your participation is very welcome and desired since you obviously know Riga better than anybody here, I am just asking for you to consider making your comments more helpful and actionable at times. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

[reset] Why hasn't this one been slushed already? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Districtification work is ongoing, and there's no reason why it can't be featured in summer 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A new start
So Riga is currently on the schedule once again, with a view to a stint as DotM in June of this year. The article has since been completely revamped and districtified. As such, I think it would be best to wipe the slate clean, invalidating all previous Support and Oppose votes that we applied to the previous undistrictified version of the article and starting over anew.

I'll go first with a solid support vote for Riga 2.0. I question the necessity of the dynamic map which I see as redundant to the districts map, and I think "See" could be fleshed out a bit with a brief mention of a few of the most important sights, but I see both of those as decidedly minor issues.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Bueller? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good! I think the dynamic map isn't needed for this level of article, but it's not like its inclusion should exclude the article from being featured. It has my support DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Almost I think that the main omission is a summary of the many things to see. At the minute I am not sure why I would visit Riga - so let's list the top 5 sights. I also did see one dead link. AlasdairW (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We have about five days left and are still two Support votes shy of a consensus. AlasdairW, I made the changes to the "See" section that you recommended above; would you care to upgrade your vote? And how about Ikan for the clincher? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks AndreCarrotflower, I will now Support. AlasdairW (talk)


 * Support - I think it's ready. And Riga is a pretty cool place. Ground Zero (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd be happier if Alexander posted an evaluation of Riga 2.0, since I've never been to Riga and he knows it very well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully: after a full year and a half of back-and-forth bickering over this nominee, with five days to go before the first of the month, three Support votes plus one Almost, four DotM banners ready to go, and a chronic lack of manpower on Wikivoyage in general and DotM in particular, you want to actively solicit the opinion of the one user most likely to insist that we scrap the whole thing and go back to square one? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see his evaluation. We don't have to give him veto power and I don't think he would ask for that, but I'd like to see his reaction to the work that's been done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I owe Alexander an apology for presupposing what his opinion might be. Pre-emptively, though: Riga's conversion to Huge City status, with listings devolved to its district articles, IMO diminishes the immediacy of Alexander's concerns regarding missing "See" listings in the earlier, undistrictified version of the article. Q.v. current DotM Baltimore, whose nomination was uncontroversial despite the fact that many of its Usable-level districts are noticeably incomplete: remember we're nominating the parent article for DotM, not its districts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ikan, thanks for remembering me. I no longer leave any comments on this page, and the current thread should reasonably explain you why. If you are interested in my opinion about the Riga article, we can discuss it elsewhere. --Alexander (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I really hate to bring this up, but...
Just out of curiosity (and actually because I intended to prove how articles can improve their SEO prospects through edits) I ran a copyscape analysis on Riga. Unfortunately, the result was anything but to my liking. Now given the pretty vocal opposition to considering SEO when it comes to featuring that some here have expressed I would have stayed silent, but there are two issues that make me inclined to still raise the issue. (1)The sheer amount of content that has been left untouched. Sure, the Districtification has removed some of the content liable to become outdated (listings that get removed once they close), but there are so many things that have not been moved to the District articles and are still unchanged since the migration. Which brings me to (2) and for that, I will have to quote some of the stuff verbatim:

" Airport Express operates minibuses to the city center costing €5 per person. These run every 30 minutes but only take 20 minutes to get to the old town. This bus makes fixed stops at several hotels near the airport and in the old town so it may be more convenient than Bus 22." (not a word, not a number changed since 2013)

Another example:

"By bus[edit] There are international bus connections to anywhere in Europe, including frequent service to Tallinn and Tartu in Estonia, and Vilnius and Kaunas in Lithuania. 56.945024.11472 Riga's main bus station is located just outside the old town. (the previous highlighted section is the only new content in this entire paragraph) Ecolines - operates service between Riga and most major cities in Europe. Eurolines Simple Express - operates service between Riga and most major cities in the Baltics, as well as a few other European capitals. Buses to Tallinn cost €13 and buses to Vilnius cost €11. Eurolines Lux Express - More legroom than Simple Express service & free coffee. Buses to Tallinn or Vilnius cost €15-28. Buses to Saint Petersburg cost €35. Flybus - Service between Riga and the airports of Kaunas and Vilnius. More expensive than Simple Express so only useful if you want a direct connection to the airport. PolskiBus - Operates daily buses to/from Warsaw, Tallinn, and Vilnius."

Apart from the one paragraph I have italicized myself to make it more visible, this entire text is the same it has been in 2013. Not a line, not a name, not a number changed. Now I know some things stay the same for years, even decades. Riga will not cease being the capital of Riga in a few weeks, but bus connections? Prices? Timetables? That's precisely the kind of stuff we should be better at than a year old printed travel guide.

And lastly, another example:

"Many private companies offer organized tours of Riga. Options include bike tours, Segway tours, pub crawls, hop-on-hop-off bus tours, walking tours, and tours focused on a certain aspect of Riga - away from the touristy old town. Riga Free Tour operates a free city walking tour that departs everyday from St Peters Church at 12:00. Look for a yellow suitcase." - again; no change - not word order, not a single number, not a single name. Nothing.

Now for all intents and purposes the tour at 12:00 may still be there. It may grok with our tour policy. But frankly, the kind of "copied" content undermines my faith in the article being up to date. And being up to date should be our selling point. I am sorry, but seeing this, I had to bring it up. Am I totally wrong on that point? Or is Riga a special case because of reasons I don't see? And if the answer to this is simply that someone over there has been copying our content, this would indeed be a whole other battlefield, but I don't see that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit history, I think what's going on is not that someone over there is copying our content or that our content is sitting around unchanged, but rather that someone is adding the same content to both wikis. To take your last example ("Many private companies..."), if I'm not mistaken, that paragraph was added both here and at the other site by someone editing from the IP address 50.195.72.217. Here it was added on 2015 December 9 at 20:13, and at the other site it was added on 2015 December 9 at 20:17. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for June 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Labrador

 * Support as nominator. As I said above, this article "is essentially ready for the Main Page limelight as is". However, for extra bonus points, "Go next" might be expanded a bit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm fine with supporting this article, but I'll point out a few things. First, the article's treatment of regions is a bit unusual, as it divides the region into subregions that are color-coded but has no subregional articles per se. I think that serves the traveler well, but it's at least worth noting. Secondly, a lot of the city articles linked from the article lack pagebanners, so if anyone happens to have good photos of those small communities floating around, please consider uploading some to Wikimedia Commons. Third, the pagebanner on the Labrador article itself is kind of unsharp. I commented about this in Talk:Labrador in 2013 and haven't changed my mind that this is a problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ikan - Regarding the pagebanner, I noticed in the talk page discussion there were three banner candidates submitted for your approval, all of which you preferred to the problematic one you cited, yet no one ever bothered to put one of them on the page. I went ahead and did that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Shaundd proposed the latest set of 3 pagebanners just yesterday. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. Okay, I saw that the discussion had begun in 2013, but I didn't realize it went dormant for three years and was only picked back up just now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was letting it go for a couple of days to see if anyone else expressed an opinion. I didn't have a strong opinion on any of the images, so if you and Ikan agree on the Battle Harbour image, it sounds good to me. Thanks for plunging forward and updating the banner. -Shaundd (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support The article looks legit, the subarticles are all usable (maybe the POIs in them could benefit of coords, and as Ikan just said, adding banners would be an improvement). For the color coding of the subarticles, given that Labrador is a sparsely populated place (isn't it?) and any attractions (waterfalls etc.) outside built-up areas probably would go into the articles of the nearest city I don't think it's a problem. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - On second look, it seems like Labrador may not truly be at Guide status yet. Normally, everything listed in an "Other destinations" section should be in the form of a link to another Wikivoyage article, but in Labrador, Torngat Mountains National Park and Mealy Mountains National Park are rendered as bare text to avoid there being any redlinks that would disqualify the parent article from Guide status. Do you think we should hold off on running Labrador on the Main Page until those two articles are created and brought to at least Usable status, or do you think they're fine as bare text? (Per Park guide status, it likely wouldn't be a huge undertaking.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards Mealy Mountains not needing an article at this point. According to an article on the provincial tourism website, park management is still putting together a tourism plan, and I couldn't find a page dedicated to the park on the provincial tourism website. It seems there are a small number of operators in Cartwright and Rigolet who will take you to the big beach that is the most famous thing about the park, but not much else (for now). Torngat Mountains National Park, on the other hand, I think should have an article. There's a research camp that offers accommodation and excursions into the park and the Parks Canada website  for the park has a visitor program guide and information package. It's not easy to get to but, based on the pictures I've seen and from what I've read, it seems like a quality destination that some travellers would be interested in. -Shaundd (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's no real way for people to visit Mealy Mountains at this point, you're right that it doesn't deserve an article but it probably also shouldn't be listed at "Other destinations". Those sections are designed to be composed of wikilinks - if a destination doesn't have an article, it belongs in the "See" section of the correspondent bottom-level destination article, or if there isn't any such article it could be mentioned (in prose, not as a listing) in Labrador. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's a way in but no real infrastructure? Either of these parks would be very marginal for inclusion under What is an article? as there's no pizzeria. That's a problem as a usable article is expected to have some way in, something to see or do, somewhere to eat, somewhere to sleep. By design, these destinations are wilderness and much of that infrastructure (or any infrastructure?) simply does not exist. We just end up sending the voyager back to Nain or Cartwright (respectively) for provisions. There are enough "what is an article?" misgivings around the existing Cartwright article; its hotel burned to the ground in 2013 and was never rebuilt. K7L (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * K7L - "By design, these destinations are wilderness" is true of the vast majority of national parks. Correspondingly, Park guide status has little to say about things like "Eat" or "Sleep" sections. Presumably we could set up an article for Torngat with "a couple of attractions with directions, information on fees and permits and accommodation, as well as a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there" and get it up to Usable. Of course the park article template includes "Eat" and "Sleep" sections, but there's many a Wikivoyage park article that says "there are no restaurants here, anything you eat you have to bring yourself" and "there are no campgrounds here, be prepared to pitch a tent in the backcountry" and that's fine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think it's close but I'm not sure it's ready yet. As I said above, I think Torngat should have an article, and I'm not sure I like the Regions section. I think it's good information but I wonder if the guide would flow better (since we don't have subregion articles) if it was integrated into the Towns and Villages section or Understand. If I think of something I'll post it on the Talk page. I also find the guide doesn't grab my imagination. When I get a moment, I'll take a stab at rewriting the intro to see if that helps. -Shaundd (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose that begs the question... what would it take to get the Torngat Mountains National Park outline (and Mealy Mountains National Park, were some danged fool to create it) to 'usable' status? K7L (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * K7L - Park guide status says it should "ha[ve] at least a couple of attractions with directions, information on fees and permits and accommodation, as well as a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there." (emphasis in original). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "attractions with directions" will need to be interpreted within the context that it's a very remote wilderness area, but otherwise I believe usable status is very doable. I'm going to be quite busy for the next few days, but I'll try to add some info over the holidays. -Shaundd (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. I just want to say that I have confidence in all of you and see no reason to rescind my supporting vote. This'll be in fine shape when it comes time to run the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Shaundd's comment, it looks like we're already there. Thanks, K7L! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, look's good. -Shaundd (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Admittedly, I'm hesitant to advance from 'usable' to 'guide' in these sparsely-populated places with few services. I look at some individual Labrador articles and just getting them to usable is about all that can be done - as there aren't multiple choices that we can offer the voyager from the "vast smorgasbord of cordon bleu restaurants and five-star hotels" in some tiny outport like Cartwright (Labrador). There's a general store, a six-room motel that answers the telephone if they feel like it and a tour operator offering wilderness camping. There's even a gravel road. OK, usable, just barely. That's all there is in this little place? I see no way to get the individual tiny outports past 'usable' if their infrastructure is at the "Cartwright had a hotel, it burned to the ground in 2013 and hasn't reopened" level. That said, I believe we've provided reasonably complete information on what's actually available in these remote and tiny places. That's all we can do. K7L (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind that I moved your post to the end of the section to keep chronological order. In any case, if a place doesn't have more than a general store, a six-room hotel and a gravel road, plus, presumably, activities like hunting, cross-country skiing and so forth, why wouldn't an article that covered these things sufficiently be a Guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ikan completely. The crux of what it means to be a Guide article, IMO, has much more to do with "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here" (from Guide articles) than with "Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking, and information on multiple attractions and things to do" (from City guide status).


 * Compare Childs. By K7L's narrower definition, it doesn't qualify as a Guide (it only has one "Sleep" listing, and really pushes the envelope in "Eat" and "Drink" by listing the same gas station in each category because it has a sandwich counter and sells beer by the case), yet not only do we have it categorized as a Guide but we actually ran it as OtBP some years ago. For me, the answer is simple: our article on Childs is very easily the most detailed source available anywhere for travel information for that destination, and it does not lack anything a visitor would conceivably need to know before arriving there - phrases like "has enough information to be useful for an adventurous traveler... not really complete articles" (from Usable articles) certainly don't apply to our coverage of Childs.


 * I think we need to update our policy articles to reflect this.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for June 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

English language varieties

 * Support. By their very nature, articles like this one can never be completely exhaustive, but I can't think of anything in particular this article omits. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. But do Driving in the UK and King's Road have to be pushed so far into the future? This one (as well as maybe Passport too) could be saved for autumn or winter. Secondly, I've thought of having Oregon Trail sometime in Aug or Sep, and if there are going to be driving related topics in the other summer months there will almost certainly going to be opposition for featuring Oregon Trail in 2017. And thirdly, having Driving in the UK earlier, makes it possible to feature Manchester Airport as 2017's airport article about 12 months after CPH (it's the only not-yet-featured guide airport article that isn't from a city that has been featured in 2016). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding Manchester Airport and Driving in the UK: for climatic reasons, I wouldn't be comfortable running Driving in the UK any earlier than May, and if we're running MAN precisely a year after CPH, that would place it in July 2017. I don't think we should feature two UK articles that close together on the schedule. However, if we hold off MAN until October-ish, that might work.


 * As for Oregon Trail, that article has been on my own radar screen for a while now, but I'm not comfortable with it for reasons I'll get into when/if it's nominated. However, assuming my concerns are dealt with and/or overruled by consensus, I don't see any reason why it can't be featured in 2017. First off, I don't regard intercity itineraries as invariably "driving-related articles". Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side could very easily be done on a bike; a particularly avid cyclist could probably also tackle the King's Road. As for Driving in the UK, it's a travel topic, not an itinerary. Secondly, there are already two U.S. articles - Baltimore and Nashville - slated for the spring and autumn respectively, as both of those destinations are in regions that are uncomfortably hot in midsummer. However, the Oregon Trail would be fine to run in, let's say, August, because even though travellers might have to deal with brutal summer heat along its eastern reaches (through Missouri and Nebraska), the opposite is true in Wyoming and Idaho in that the cold and snow comes very early to the mountains, so we'd want to avoid anything past September.


 * I had envisioned running English language varieties in May and Driving in the UK in June. If we transposed those two, slotted the King's Road into July, ran one of Peter Southwood's dive articles in September and Manchester Airport in October, then the Oregon Trail could be featured in August without coming into conflict with Nashville (DotM Oct 2017?). Beyond that, we could probably get away with running another phrasebook as early as November (Igbo is on the schedule for February - not quite a year previously, but close enough), but for December and after we simply don't have a whole lot of Guide-level FTT articles remaining. Yes, we could hold Passport and English language varieties off till the fall or winter, but the sad fact is we wouldn't even have anything to replace them with in the spring and summer.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * May I propose as a stopgap measure to run one of our guide level country or region articles á la "our coverage on..." in the FTT slot? We do not have a lack of potential OtbP and DotM articles and moving this (as of yet) rather small number from one column to the other could relieve a bit of acute lack of topics and provide motivation to make our coverage on those better. For instance Germany could probably be featured as is as could USA (which may have already been featured) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hobbitschuster - notwithstanding what I said earlier, I don't think we need to resort to quite so drastic a solution. Please see my comment on the talk page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] Support. We could debate about this article until the cows come home, and we probably will, but I submit that it is a good, interesting and relevant article to feature, and it's been made substantially prettier and less dry with the addition of several photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - is as complete as it will ever be and arguably even too complete. I expect having this on the main page will bring added discussions on wordings and what precisely to include, but those will never settle, just as debates about language in general never settle down. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for June 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore

 * Support as nominator; nothing I can think of that needs fixing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm genuinely surprised to learn that this one hasn't been featured yet. This one seems like a no-brainer to me. PerryPlanet (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support — I said it before and say it again; this is a superb article and I'm looking forward to seeing Baltimore as DotM sooner rather than later. Again, as much of the work on the article apparently was made a few years back, listings may benefit from a checkup (removing places that are closed, fixing dead links) a month or two before the article goes on the main page. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not quite yet. There's a lot to love about the article. "Buy" seems a little thin, compared to great sections like "Eat". Higher education is extremely important in Baltimore, the home of Johns Hopkins in particular, but listings for each college are an irregular thing to do. Instead, there should be a summary (and by the way, I'd also mention Peabody, a high-level music conservatory, if we want the coverage to be comprehensive, but it's not necessary for it to be). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked again and would say exactly the same thing as before, so if anyone wants to work on this, please go ahead. I've been to Baltimore a grand total of one time, and it was just to spend Shabbos with my cousin, who lived in the outskirts of town, so I saw his farm, a suburban-style neighborhood and a synagogue, and otherwise, just the train station and whatever I saw out the window while being transported. So I doubt I'll be able to help much with content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I've never been to Baltimore, but this seems like all the travel guide one would need. I've expanded the Buy section a bit, to address Ikan Kekek's concerns about that section at least a bit. I have no objections to deleting the college list, but I don't think it should keep up from featuring this very informative article. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those edits. I still think that we need to substitute a summary for those "Learn" listings, as we don't want to hold up this way of dealing with education as an example. I mean, personally, I don't care and think it would be fine to change our policy on educational institutions, but as long as we have it, we should apply it to articles we feature. It's small potatoes, though, so I, too, will support, with the proviso that that section be effectively dealt with. I might try my hand at turning it into prose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Ikan says, it looks like the article needs some fairly extensive copyediting. I'll get to that, and to the necessary changes for Nauru, in the next month. If someone else would like to take care of fleshing out the lede in Merida (Mexico) as Zerabat suggested, that would be a big help. (By the way, where's Ypsilon been lately? He could usually be counted on to help out with tasks like this. Ypsi, if you're reading this, you're sorely missed.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - just in the nick of time, I've started on the necessary copyedits. Ikan, I also addressed the "Learn" section; what do you think? Did I cut out too much information? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your summary is very good, as are the rest of your edits. One very minor question: Why "By bike" instead of the standard (I thought) "By bicycle"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Copyedits are now complete. To answer your question, Ikan: Buffalo uses "By bike"; I had thought that was the standard, but upon checking some other articles, I'm seeing it's not. I changed it back in the Baltimore article; I'm undecided if I'll do so in the Buffalo one as I feel it reads better. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - DotM for May 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Wernigerode

 * Very close . The article lacks a dynamic map, and listings need geo coordinates. Other than that, Wernigerode is good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Close I would like to see a bit more detail in the get in (local buses are mentioned, but not even a link is provided) and get around (there is just a general remark about parking and nothing more specific) sections and I would also like to see the dead links (two or three in total) checked out and either the listings removed (if the business is not in existence any more) or the link repaired. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Groningen intended for May? I've looked at Wernigerode as one of the very few European articles suitable in the winter too, it has a beautiful Christmas market and ski resorts in the vicinity. Other than this, you already brought up the things that need to be added to the article (clarify: almost support). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - When Groningen was nominated eight months ago, summer 2017 was a sea of blank spaces on the draft schedule I have saved on my computer desktop. I slotted it in for July, which seems to be the peak of the favorable period per its "Time to feature". We never have a problem filling in the blanks, so it seemed fine to me at the time (and I was proven right about this) to assume that the slots around it would eventually be filled. Anyway, when a nominee has to wait as long as Groningen will have by the time it goes on the Main Page (over a year), I think it's only fair to put it in the best possible slot, rather than sliding it in to a less than ideal one just for the sake of filling in a blank. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree that it needs a dynamic map and geo coordinates (I will take this task on myself). I have added the map and all the geo cords I could find, and removed locations that no longer are a thing. The Get around is woefully empty. All my concerns have been addressed. All articles can use improvement, but I think this one is good enough for featuring now. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I must say I oppose featuring at this time. I could bring up the incredibly high amount (>80%) of "copied" content, but maybe my argument can stand on legs without that argument. The article is likely to be severely outdated in many key points. This would not be a problem if we had someone on the ground to do some research or at the very least fix the most egregious mistakes, but we don't and we can't. Thus I fear exposing us to derision and embarrassment if we feature something on the main page that is very likely visible out of date to everybody who has been there in the last couple of years. There is, however, another reason why I don't consider featuring wise. We have a number of travel topics and destination articles about Germany that are either no too far from being feature-ready or are feature ready already, so in order to keep geographic balance, we do actually have the "luxury" of choosing between them and only putting those to the front page that really highlight the very best (and not just "well it's a guide, so I guess....") of our coverage. I know I partially contradict myself here, but given the number of potential OtBP and DotM nominees "in the pipeline" (explicitly excluding our woes at FTT), I think it is fine to either have more features (which has been rejected due to very good reasons and which I don't think wise at this time) or to tighten the criteria of a feature. And I do not think the criteria of "putting the best non-featured content we possibly can for that month on the front page" is a criterion that is met here. And geographic balance is no feasible excuse here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hobbitschuster, please don't get me wrong. I like you, you're a prolific and valuable contributor to our site, and I know in the recent past some of my remarks have been perceived by you as being aggressive in nature (and others have been perceived as attempts to silence criticism). So please understand I'm not trying to be antagonistic here.


 * But again we have a case where you're voting oppose but not basing your rationale in policy, as dotm directs. Well and good if we "have a number of travel topics and destination articles about Germany that are either no too far from being feature-ready or are feature ready already", but those haven't been nominated. Wernigerode has. Nominees get voted up or down on their own merits, not on their comparative merits relative to other potential nominees. Similarly, if you feel that the qualifications for featured articles should be made stricter, that's also fine. You'd be far from the first person to make that argument (and if you click on the talk page discussion I linked to, you'll see that I myself have expressed openness to that idea). By all means take to Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates and try to get that changed, if that's what you want to do. But until then, policy is what it is.


 * As for the arguments you raised in your first paragraph: absent any specific examples you can give me of what you're talking about, I'm afraid this looks like a case where you already know what the answer to the Copyscape issue you hinted at is going to be, so you're trying to make an end-run around it using "outdated information" as a red herring. Hobbitschuster, you've already tried a couple of times to gather consensus for your idea about disqualifying DotM nominees for copied text. Both of those times, no consensus materialized. I know it's frustrating when things remain unclear; when people give longwinded, wishy-washy answers rather than the straight yeses or noes the question calls for. But when there's no consensus either way, policy says the status quo remains in effect. You've got to accept that, stop trying to force the issue, and just let it go.


 * Finally, even if outdated information does indeed exist, it's still not true that we would require "someone on the ground to do some research or at the very least fix the most egregious mistakes". This is an article for a well-trodden tourist town in a highly developed Western nation. Verifying that places are still open, updating hours of operation, URLs, telephone numbers, etc. can very easily be done on Google by anyone anywhere in the world. And you know that.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If "verifying that places are still open, updating hours of operation, URLs, telephone numbers, etc. can very easily be done on Google" shouldn't that have been done *before* nominating the article here? We're looking to feature the best work, not material which hasn't been verified in years. K7L (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * All Guide-level articles are eligible to be nominated. If others feel further work is needed, they're more than welcome to say so in their comments, and nine times out of ten the issues will be resolved before they're featured. That's how it's worked at DotM for quite some time now. I continue to fail to understand why some would fix what isn't broken. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What about replacing Wernigerode with Kassel? Kassel is officially rated as "usable" but that's mostly a formality (i.e. nobody has promoted it yet despite it being deserving), isn't it? And with Documenta coming up (a once in five years event) it's also a "timely feature" which we cannot run this year if we already have another German destination. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There's some work to be done before Kassel can be promoted: namely, there are a lot of naked listings in "Buy", "Eat", "Drink" and "Sleep", some copyedits should be done by a native English speaker, and "Get in" needs to be reformatted a bit to comport with mos (we don't generally use inline highway shields here). Still, the "timely event" argument is convincing, and I personally would be more than happy to consider switching it out on the schedule if the edits can be done in time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added as much information as I could find to "Get around", and updated prices, URLs, etc. in all the listings. I think this takes care of all the issues mentioned, therefore I'm changing my vote to support. Would anyone care to follow suit? DethDestroyerOfWords? Ikan? K7L? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Very good article, but is the "Buy" section a little thin? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Given this, I'm inclined to just say at this point, the article is what it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I have slightly expanded "Buy" after looking at the (Mapnik) map and consulting de:WP. Buy is unlikely to be a major reason for visiting a town with a population of 35000. I also added a couple of WP links, but there might be more in w:Category:Wernigerode. I deleted all the content in "Connect" as it was clearly out of date - internet cafes 20km away, one of which is now a different shop. AlasdairW (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance, AlasdairW. I added some basic information back to Connect. Ikan, if Alasdair's edits are to your liking, we can probably call this a four-vote consensus (given that Ypsi's "almost" vote was based on the since-resolved deficiencies I had "already brought up", we can probably assume he would be the fourth "support" vote at this point). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll support, and thanks a lot to AlasdairW and also to User:Ground Zero, who is tweaking formatting, etc. Perhaps in time, a few more things might be added to "Buy" by someone who personally knows the town. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The good news is that from now until August, Ulaanbaatar is the only article that needs significant work before being ready for the Main Page. Hopefully by then we'll have some new people contributing to DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - OtBP for May 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Driving in the UK

 * Support — Yup, here's Ypsi hogging yet another featured article slot [evil laughter].ϒpsilon (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but wait until 2017. Too many UK articles, and too many "Driving in..." travel topics, in too short a span of time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a very impressive article in terms of its coverage, and perhaps a good example for other "driving in" articles. It should be proofread for possible copy editing before it's run (I did some copy editing but didn't try to be thorough). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support because I'm delighted that a picture I took is being used. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me voice some concern here; this article still contains 28% copied content compared to the "get around" section of the United Kingdom article as found on the other site, from which it was spun off post migration. Given that User:Thundering Typhoons has done a tremendous job in strengthening, shortening, beautifying and overall improving coverage in our UK article, including the Get Around section, it is to me doubtful that those 28% cannot be improved upon. I am not quite sure this is enough for an oppose vote (though I am considering it, given my reasoning below), but it sure is enough to look at the text long and hard and edit it before this goes live. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on, now. 28% of content carrying over from Wikitravel is no disaster. You are trying to insist on total rewriting of every article? That seems to me like a big waste of time. If Wikivoyage articles on average had 28% overlap with Wikitravel articles, wouldn't that be pretty good? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Outcome - FTT for May 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Mérida (Mexico)

 * Almost — If the Drink section is expanded with some listings, I won't have any problems supporting the article for DotM. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very, very close per Ypsi's comment above. We ran Biscayne National Park as OtBP in April 2014 with a tagline that said something like "if you want to enjoy the warmth and sun of South Florida this spring but don't want to deal with hordes of obnoxious Spring Breakers, here's an alternative"; I think it would be neat to do the same thing with Mérida for Spring Break 2018 as an alternative to Cancún and Cozumel - or heck, why not 2017; one wonders whether the problems with Rome/Vatican will be sorted out by then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support – This is one of my favorite cities in Mexico. I do agree however that the drink section needs a bit of work, and I'd overlooked that. —The preceding comment was added by StellarD (talk • contribs)
 * Support – The drink section now has a few listings. —The preceding comment was added by StellarD (talk • contribs)
 * Support, though a few more "Drink" listings still wouldn't hurt. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment — the intro section does not invite me or encourage to visit Merida. It is merely a sober and little descriptive introduction. Some of this could be obtained from #Understanding. --Zerabat (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - looks complete. For a place of this kind a few more drink listings wouldn't hurt, but it shouldn't keep us from featuring. A pointer to which streets or areas to go to when looking for bars would already be very helpful. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Zerabat, what do you think of the new intro section I wrote? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it. Change my vote to Support, although I would like to see some more Drink places, if exist more than the three listed. --Zerabat (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for April 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nauru

 * Support. Nauru is nothing if not a niche destination. Given that, it's impressive how thorough our coverage of it is. I can't think of anything in particular this article needs before it's featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs stylistic / wording fixes - I recently happened upon this article and would love to see it featured (Zika permitting) but apart from the question whether all listings are up to date, just a cursory glance showed what appeared to be a handful of wording and stylistic issues, including footnote style links. When those are fixed, sure Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - The article and the listings should be up to date as of last spring. I translated stuff from the Italian version and googled up a little more about this fascinating island. Everything available on the Internet of use for travelers, including that the island recently got its very first ATM, is in the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Hobbitschuster, have a look at the article now and see whether you feel it still needs style fixes. I just copy edited a few things in the article. I think it's a good article and don't clearly see what could be added to it, short of a local adding things only a local would know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC) - I'm crossing out my post completely. ChubbyWimbus' argument convinces me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not Yet Being such a small island/country, I think we can do better. For example "you may see remnants of WWII" (which should be in the "See" section not "Do"). What and where are they? This is not a destination crawling with so many things to do that things like the Japanese post can be glazed over. Reading the article suggests it essentially has nothing to see/do, so why would we NOT mention the few things that do exist? To go along with that, the "See" section could use an intro of some sort, because the listings don't draw me in. This article relies too heavily on the pictures (which are too many) to speak for it. The picture of Anibare Bay shows beautiful coral jutting out of the water, but read the description of Anibare Bay. No mention of that. Instead it reads like a copy-and-paste description of what all tropical beaches are. Why? What about those phosphate mines mentioned? Can you or can't you visit there? We should know and have information. I wonder if there are any interesting flora/fauna. As I said, right now, the writing is dull and doesn't really sell the island as worth visiting. Since this is the only article for the country, I think it deserves a bit more attention before featuring. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Slush? Given the objections and the question whether they have been fully addressed should we really consider featuring this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Patience. Sometimes when there are a large number of problems with an article but each of them individually are relatively minor in scale, one can be led to believe that an article is in worse shape than it really is. We have several months before Nauru is due to go on the Main Page, and the prescribed fixes can be undertaken in a few hours. Slushing it would be premature at this time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know we keep away from politics, but Australia is using Nauru for some very unsavoury human rights abuses by keeping genuine refugees in permanent detention under what are apparently awful conditions (which are not allowed to be freely reported). I'd be uncomfortable supporting it as a DOTM (not that I am voting for this one either way) Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While unfortunate, for the purposes of the traveller it's a non sequitur. Just as one example, the blatantly unconstitutional undocumented interrogations committed by police at the Homan Square "black site" haven't stopped us from featuring at last count four Chicago-related articles, so I don't see why it should be any different for Nauru. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any time we feature any destination in China or the U.S., we should be aware of how ill-treated prisoners are in those countries and how many of them were unjustly or disproportionately punished. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that any destination will not be perfect with regards to human rights, and we could find issues in even the most liberal of countries and cities. In this case it is probably the main thing that happens on this tiny island, and hence my disquiet. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've discussed any liberal countries in this subthread, but I guess that could be debated. I get your point, and it's legitimate, but where would you propose to draw the line? If the North Korea article were a Guide, would you oppose featuring it on principle, despite the fact that visitors who behave as expected can travel there safely while millions of others are tyrannized and deprived? OK, and then what about less extreme situations? Turkey ranks near the bottom in press freedom, while Indonesia seems to be not quite covertly ruled just under the surface by the same gangs that murdered 1,000,000 people when Suharto took over, if we are to believe the people who made this documentary film. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We also featured Riyadh at one point. Is there a more extreme Islamic country than Saudi Arabia? And it isn't even necessarily safe to work there, because many workers have been unable to get their employer's permission to leave. If any places shouldn't be featured out of the interests of foreigners, they should probably be Gulf Arab emirates, because of the total control of employers who can get away with beating, raping and enslaving people who are supposed to be working for them. So maybe it was wrong to feature Riyadh, and perhaps we should thrash these questions out more on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points. It felt to me that DOTM was an implicit recommendation to visit, and therefore treated differently to our standard articles which are more neutral. Happy for a broader discussion on the talk page. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thread started at the bottom of the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[Unindent] On a different topic, I think some of the background in this article is good but a bit thin compared to some of the richness on Wikipedia. I just started the following thread: Talk:Nauru. Nauru is quite an unusual place, and I think we could include more of the facts in Nauru - not, please, by simply copying and pasting them, but for example, it's very significant that phosphate mining seems no longer to be viable on the island (unless that's changed since 2011 and the Wikipedia article hasn't kept up with it, which unfortunately is quite possible). Please read through that thread or just go to the Wikipedia article and see whether you think more background and facts should be added to our article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems to me that ChubbyWimbus' criticisms have been addressed. ChubbyWimbus, do you agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus - On the topic of your suggestions, I added an intro blurb for the "See" section, as much information as I could find about the Japanese WWII relics (contained in the "See" listing for Command Ridge, where the bulk of them are located), and added more information to the Anibare Bay listing. But I'm not sure what else you feel needs to be said about the phosphate mines in the island's interior. In any event, hopefully the additional information is sufficient for you to mark yourself down as the fourth Support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I'm happy to say that my statement that the pictures speak for the article is no longer true. It reads much better and makes Nauru and its sites sound a lot more intriguing! Great work! ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for April 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Passport

 *  Weak support. Could use a few more photos, the lede is a bit dry and encyclopedic, and maybe the text about the various different types of passports could be expanded a bit. But even if none of those things are addressed, this article is probably ready for the Main Page as is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost. Certainly some more photos. There's also a few small things about the headings, a few of them could be transformed to imperative form we use on Wikivoyage (I did it in Travel insurance), and some subheadings in Passport could maybe be shrunk to level 4 (as there's in many cases just a line or two of text under them). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't use the imperative form for section headings, we use the infinitive. Or am I mistaken on that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Without context, they're effectively indistinguishable in English, but I believe we have traditionally considered them to be imperatives. "See this stuff! Buy things here! Eat at these restaurants!"  Powers (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not yet. It needs some copyediting, but I am afraid there also are outdated or otherwise problematic sections. At least there is ambiguous language, such as about giving your passport to a trusted agent when registrating your presence. Some checking is needed. --LPfi (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not yet. Fully 38% of the content is copied according to Copy Scape. This indicates to me a lot of potentially outdated information. If we do deem all or most of those 38% so unsurpassably genius in its writing and tone that no edits should be made to it, we should still check whether the text is internally consistent and up to date. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, general information on a global scale concerning passports does not get remarkably outdated that quickly, I think. If the article would cover passports in just one country it might. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You may be right on that point, but now is a golden opportunity to get this article up to SEO snuff. Plus any information that is outdated or prose that could need a workover will be caught in that effort. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I must say, I oppose featuring the article in its current state. Since I raised the issue of copied content (which each and every one of us can check using Copyscape) the amount of copied content has gone from 38% to 35%. Given that the amount of time from my last mention of this issue to now is longer than the amount of time that would remain until this is featured, I am not confident in our ability to fix this before it goes live. Besides the obvious SEO issues at stake here (and remember, far from a side-issue, the question whether we can draw in readers and contributors via search engines is ultimately one of the long term survival of our site), there is the question of how trustworthy content is that has not been changed a bit in years. And remember, we are not talking about a few incidental things, we are talking about more than a third of the article. If those words are not important, why are they still there? If those words are outdated, we should not even think about featuring it. If those things are important, still relevant, still true, and the best goddam prose there is for the things these words talk about, I am wondering why anybody should be looking for our website over some rotting linkfarm on the internet or the 1925 Baedecker. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay. I added two more photos, made some copyedits, and addressed the ambiguous passage of text cited by LPfi. Aside from the Copyscape non-issue, is there anything else that precludes anyone's support? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * K7L, LPfi, Pashley - I see that all of you have made some additional copyedits to the article recently; what is your opinion on the overall state of affairs? It there anything missing or is it ready to go? What about you, Ikan? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My eyes glazed over when I started reading that article last night, and I'm tired again tonight after a long, eventful day, so I'm not even going to try. It may not be a good article for me to try reading from beginning to end. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bit of a dense read. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be misreading this, but shouldn't our articles strive to be lively and engaging rather than dense? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By all means, if you feel inspired, try your hand at making the article more fun to read. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on. This article has gotten enough attention lately from copyeditors that someone must have an opinion as to its condition. We have ten days till it goes on the Main Page, and it doesn't take that long to type out a Support or a Not Yet vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support It is a reasonable attempt at a subject that is hard to get an article that covers every possibility. AlasdairW (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It has a lot of very good information about a topic that is valid for most travelers. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Six days to go and we're still short one Support vote; who'd like to do the honors? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for April 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Da Nang

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. "Go next" and perhaps "Buy" could stand to be expanded a bit, but that's just icing on the cake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some comments: I felt "Understand" needed pretty major edits: I changed the order of the paragraphs to one that seemed to me to have more narrative logic, eliminated at least one redundancy, and copy edited some awkward expressions (what did "most possibly" mean?). I'm seeing a lot I like in the article, but how up to date are the prices? I just substituted 2015 population figures for figures from 2008, so I'm unsure. Also, what does "$-$" mean in the "Buy" section? That's supposed to indicate price? In short, this article is quite content-laden and looks like a deserving one to feature, but it will need more edits before we actually run it. I'm willing to give it Provisional support, but I wouldn't be satisfied with featuring it in its current condition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: I can't judge how up to date it really is, but I checked a number of the hostels and hotels, and the pricing seemed about right. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: I gave it a once over and fixed a few difficult to read sentences. There were very few of them. I can't vouch for the up-to-dateness of the article but everything seems like what we like for featured articles. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ikan, it looks like the specific examples you cited above of edits that need to be made have all been addressed. Do you think the article is ready to feature at this point? If not, what else needs to be done? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have the time to look through the article with a fine-toothed comb right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for March 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Kabak

 * Very close . Assuming the community agrees with the argument I posited in the blurb, there remains the issue of a lack of a dynamic map, and geo coordinates to be added to the listings that are present in the article (in "Eat" and "Sleep"). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Needs 15-20 minutes of work. In addition to Eat and Sleep listings, some other points of interest (a canyon and some waterfalls were mentioned etc.) could be pointed out with markers. Places that aren't in business any longer should be removed and finally, as of now there is just one photo in the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this article is perfectly acceptable for the reasons mentioned, and with just a bit more polishing up, perhaps, it's ready to go for me. For a town this small, and with plenty of clear directions in the listings, the lack of a dynamic map is not an issue for me. In fact, it's almost befitting for a place like this :) —The preceding comment was added by JuliasTravels (talk • contribs)


 * Support. I disagree that this article doesn't benefit from a dynamic map. I feel it gives a better idea of where things are placed. With this in mind, I took the plunge and added the map and all the locations I could find. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help with this, DethDestroyerOfWords, and I agree with you about the map. Kabak is certainly closer than before to earning my support, but there are still some copyedits to be made, and I hold out hope that we may yet be able to find geo coordinates for those listings that don't yet have them. (And I think we should definitely plot the canyon on the map that's mentioned in the "See" section, as well as perhaps the two grocery stores mentioned in "Buy", if we can find them.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought about finding and adding the canyon waterfall. There was one travel itinerary site I found that gave coords, but I like to verify with at least one other source before adding them. Unfortunately, there's too much vegetation coverage to use satellite imagery to narrow down where it be. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify; I didn't mean to suggest there's no benefit to a map. Just that in case no-one finds the time to create it, I would still feel the article can be featured. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem JuliasTravels. Perhaps I can recruit you and AndreCarrotflower for some brainstorming. I assume the only thing that is holding this article back is a bit of copy-editing and that the See/Do section doesn't have the waterfalls/attractions with Geo coordinates. 1) Where specifically does copy-editing need done? 2) Do we need coords for this to get the article featured? I assume that, while we like these articles to be guide level, almost star, being guide status is enough. There is only one sleep and one eat without coords. 3) If yes, would it be better to have a map showing the route to get there, allowing us to fudge the exact location of the waterfalls? I offer this solution because I was able to find path that branches off the Lycian Way and travels along the river to the falls. It branches off of and loops back around to the Lycian Way path, just like the written description says it does. I am confident it is the right path and it cements my trust that the directions given can be followed and the waterfall located by the traveler from the description alone. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you've searched for coordinates and they are not available, and we only miss one or two but do have written directions for those places, I think that's perfectly acceptable for a place like this. If we're not 100% sure about the exact location of the waterfall, we simply shouldn't comment on it. Just stick to the written description; visitors can ask locally and in time, someone will go there and add the exact coordinates. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've now finished making the necessary copyedits and am therefore ready to give my full support to the article. Ypsi, you opined above with some concerns that seem to have been dealt with in the intervening time; would you like to be our fourth Support vote (or, alternatively, share any remaining concerns you may have with the article?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This article looks OK to me, with one caveat. From "Understand": "Lonely Planet authors got free accommodation/food in a certain establishment in exchange for prominent placement in their guide". If that's demonstrably true, a citation needs to be given on the talk page. If it's not true, we need to delete the remark immediately, because if it's false, it's libelous. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is true it occurred before the page was migrated, as this "factoid" is among the 55% of the page that has not been changed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to delete that part. I don't feel removing it detracts from the overall message of: "Kabak is in a state of flux and getting more commercial, support small/ethical businesses". In addition to this I'm going to go over the article with a finer toothed comb and see if there are any other issues that need addressed. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's precious little time left. Ikan, were your concerns addressed to your satisfaction, and if so would you be comfortable being our fourth support vote? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I posted above that it was OK except for one remark that has since been deleted, so I indeed Support now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for March 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side

 * Support as nominator. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Absolutely marvelous itinerary. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support — the article looks great! When I saw you working on the article I sort of expected to see it on the Main Page someday. One thing, though; I think the Go section could use intermediate headings.
 * Another thing, is this a personal itinerary? Don't get me wrong, personally I don't agree with the ban on personal itineraries and would lift it right away, but someone might complain... ϒpsilon (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed about subheadings. Regarding the issue of whether this is a personal itinerary (which did creep up in my mind from time to time as I wrote it), it seems to be in a gray area - IMO the question of which East Side churches are most architecturally notable and most historic, therefore best suited for this itinerary, is only partially subjective. More to the point, though there haven't been any changes to the actual policy page, from subsequent conversations we've had on this site (particularly in vfd) it seems like we've gradually backed off from the hardline stance we initially took against personal itineraries. My reading of the current situation (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) is that we still discourage the creation of articles in the format "(x) days in (y) destination" or similar, while leaving alone most other itineraries that might be construed as personal, provided they're reasonably well developed. And in any case, the prescribed alternative - folding all of this information into Buffalo/East Side - would easily overwhelm what is already the longest destination article on the entire site. I'll leave it up to consensus, but I am 99.999% confident that if anyone had an issue with this article under the personal itinerary clause, it would have come up already (at Starnom if nowhere else). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be really good to have an agreement to a formal change in the "personal itineraries" policy, and I don't think it would be so easy to accomplish. As I recall, User:Texugo has been particularly skeptical about driving itineraries from one city to another, so I'd really like his input on this nomination. As for me, I think this article is a thing of awe and exemplary, so obviously, this is my vote of support for featuring it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has a specific theme, which allows it to be created collaboratively. That means it doesn't fall under the "personal itinerary" prohibition. Powers (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but wouldn't it very clearly apply to all the "X City to Y City" itinerary articles that some Wikivoyagers have a problem with? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It does have the element I typically oppose, which is no clear reason for a suggested order or starting/end point, meaning person 1 writes an itinerary saying "this itinerary goes from A to B to C to D to E to F to G", and then person 2 changes it (or even makes a different page) saying "this itinerary goes from A to B to E to F to C to G to D" and then person 3 says "this itinerary goes from "C to D to E to F to G to A to C to B" and so on, with several equivalently reasonable routes possible. Obviously this article is developed past the likelihood of anyone stepping in and changing it willy nilly, but the point still stands in that, for anyone not strictly following the arbitrary order frozen into the prose, it is more difficult to use than if the article were built as a travel topic. This is not actually the most egregious of examples, since the arrangement of the sites happens to be loosely circular and therefore somewhat limiting the number of equivalent alternative routes (though the start and end points are still arbitrary). That said, I'd still express a preference for not making up random routes when there is no obvious linear sense to the attractions. There is too much personal preference involved, and the article becomes less easy to use for anyone who wants to do things in a different, equally reasonable order. Texugo (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right about the loosely circular arrangement, but the start and end points were very deliberately chosen and are absolutely not arbitrary. The starting point of the itinerary is also the starting point chronologically of East Side religious history, and the endpoint is symbolic of the end of the chapter of East Side history that gave us these churches, and the beginning of the next one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as that is clear from the article and unlikely to inspire or serve as precedent for other itineraries with no clear reason for the route order, I suppose don't have a huge problem with this particular case. Texugo (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support It is very detailed, verging on too long (30 pages as a pdf), but good. I think that it should have a summary in the introduction - something like "This is a 20 mile half day tour by car looking at the outside of churches (built between 18xx and 19xx) in Buffalo, New York (state)." If any of the churches can be visited inside then this should also be said, and summarised at the start so that the trip can be planned to fit the opening hours. It might be good to suggest ways of cutting the route short if pressed for time. AlasdairW (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the interior of the churches, you made the same comment at Starnom, and I don't know how much there is to say about that without straying into Captain Obvious territory. The churches that remain active (either as home to their original congregation, to a successor congregation, or as an oratory) can be visited at service times which are listed in the main East Side article; those that aren't are off limits to the public. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I think that this is something that varies a bit by location. In many European cities most churches are open during the week. This may be primarily for prayer, but usually allows some sightseeing. So for the benefit of overseas readers it is worth being clear that the churches are closed. AlasdairW (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * AlasdairW makes a good point. I think that you should simply copy the sentence starting with "The churches that remain active" and add it to the article, if you haven't already done so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I tried my hand at integrating suitable language. AlasdairW and AndreCarrotflower, are you OK with this? Please edit as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ikan: the text is fine, though I wonder if it might be better placed in a different section. I'm going to bed now but will have another look at it tomorrow. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Sleep well. I'm working on Next-to-impossible destinations now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ikan thanks - the text is fine (but could be moved). I changed "you'll visit the most magnificent of these buildings" to "you'll see the most magnificent of these buildings", as to me "visit" suggests going inside (but I know that "visit" changes meaning as it crosses the Atlantic), and added "half-day" to the same sentence.
 * I reverted the "half-day" portion of the above edit under the assumption that it implies visiting the interior of the churches. Even if a visitor scrupulously planned things out - starting on a Sunday morning at about 7:00 or so - it simply wouldn't be feasible, given how infrequently these places are open to the public, to time things out such that he or she could get into the interior of more than one or two of the buildings. That is precisely the reason that I didn't provide much in the way of information about opening hours.


 * The "Prepare" section says "You should allow for a minimum of three hours to complete the whole tour, or more if you really want to take a good long look at these majestic buildings." Shortly after I finished writing it, I did a test run of the itinerary myself and it took me about two hours total; I added an extra hour to that under the assumption that visitors who are less familiar with these buildings than I am would want to linger for a bit longer than I did. "...or more if you really want to get a good look" would be more for hardcore architecture photography enthusiasts and the like. In general, though, half a day is an unduly generous amount of time to allot for most purposes.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe I wrote "half-day" too soon after getting in from work, where a half-day is nominally 3.7 hours. I had read the minimum of three hours and wanted to give a rough idea of duration near the start of the article. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for March 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hobart

 * Almost. The obvious need here is for geo coordinates in the listings. Aside from that, I can't think of anything missing here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost. Hobart is actually the very article I had in mind nominating next. The article needs coordinates and an "up to date" checkup before going on the Main Page. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like the geo coordinate issue has been addressed, so support. Ypsi, do you feel ready to support the article yet? How about anyone else? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess so. If there would've been anything else I would had wanted to add to the article, I would have done so a few months ago when adding the coords. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - I'll give it a support vote. The content and presentation look good. However, I did some copy editing in the lede and "Understand", and I definitely think it's advisable for someone to go through the entire article with a fine-toothed comb before it's actually featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with a question: It appears that there are no listings for West Hobart--is that district just very dead? I'd imagine that someone may take a look at that map (as I did) and notice the big grey spot. Otherwise great work. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It look reasonably good. I briefly visited Hobart about 15 years ago, and the article brings back memories. I saw that there were a few dead links, fixed most of them. I am surprised that there is no "By bus" section in get in. AlasdairW (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for February 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Entebbe

 * Support as nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll give a preliminary support vote based on only a moderately careful reading (more than just skipping through but short of having read every word). However, it seems to me, there is some work still to be done: (1) Is there a good reason why the State House listing is in "Understand", rather than "See"? (2) Should the point made about marabou behavior in a thumbnail caption be added to "Stay safe", or is the risk too minor to merit that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but I can guess why the State House is in Understand rather than See. On the talk page, Alice (yes!), who contributed much to the article wrote "Peering through the bars of State House is a "See" but the interesting stuff is serendipitous to come across."; maybe there's so little you get to see that it cannot be regarded as an attraction. On the other hand, this article (and town) doesn't have very many attractions, so perhaps (a glimpse of) the State House could still merit a See listing.
 * I don't have any strong opinion either way about the marabou caption either. What does Andre think? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, and perhaps the information about the marabou should be moved to "Stay safe" if only because that section is awfully thin. No big deal if it's not, though. Wow, it's been since July that this question addressed to me was waiting for an answer? Sorry about that! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support But my only caveat at the moment is that the listing for the Street Market is empty. What can I expect there? Artisan craftwork? Local street food? Bootleg DVDs? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It would be nice to see a few more photographs. I see that there isn't much of a selection at Commons, but a brief look at Flickr turned up quite a few CC images. –StellarD (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for February 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Igbo phrasebook

 * Support. Someone (me?) should add some more pics but otherwise I think the article is good as it is now. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to take the main author's assertion that this is complete for a phrasebook and accurate at face value. My questions would be: (a) Has the English-language portion of the text been edited sufficiently? I know I did some editing, but I'm not sure I got through the whole phrasebook. (b) Is the "Learning more" section (an "External links" section in all but name) OK or a violation of Wikivoyage guidelines (probably a violation, I think, but we could consider making an exception if the links are particularly outstanding and useful)? (c) Are we OK with the Wikipedia-style pronunciation tables? I am; I think they're clear and look great and better than any other style I can think of, but other people should express an opinion. (d) Most importantly, given that there is "high variation and low mutual intelligibility between many Igbo dialects", is there really a high likelihood that this phrasebook will enable readers to be understood, still less to understand Igbo speakers? I would particularly solicit the input of User:Ukabia, to whose formidable work we owe this phrasebook. To sum up, though, if all these questions are answered satisfactorily, I will be happy to support a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I e-mailed Ukabia last night to come and have a look at this discussion and the article itself. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "E-mail this user function" maybe is broken, Ukabia's mail address outdated or whatever so I left a message on their talk page. Here are some replies to Ikan's questions as nobody else seems to have noticed this discussion.
 * I haven't edited the English-language part of the text in any way, if anyone sees any errors, feel free to copyedit...
 * The Learn more section is not part of the standard phrasebook template, but apparently it used to be part of it until 2007. I think it in some cases can be a good idea to point readers to resources for learning more, not just when it comes to foreign languages but also for other travel topics where it's likely that readers want to learn details about the subject beyond the scope of a travel guide, like wine tourism and practicing different sports.
 * The tables are certainly OK, one can find tables (though for grammar, not pronounciation) in our only Star phrasebook too.
 * The last question is probably best answered by Ukabia. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished that we would have ever considered deleting the "Learn more" section. The current minimalist framework of simple, common, straightforwardly travel-related words and sentences is pretty much all the information Wikivoyage can be expected to provide itself, but it would certainly be worthwhile from a travellers' perspective to dig deeper into study of the local language if so inclined, and I see no point in not taking the opportunity to lead our readers to places where they can do that. Concerns about crufty external links are well-founded but easily allayed with careful curation and attention to quality control vis-à-vis the external links we choose to include. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Andre, I see your point about "Learn more", but let's please be aware that your remarks about curation of external links are exactly what we turned our backs on when we decided to ban external links sections and non-primary external links from destination articles. So allowing them in phrasebooks, while certainly potentially helpful to travelers, is indeed an exception to our external links policies. In any case, I think the most crucial question that has to be addressed is how useful this phrasebook is in helping travelers to understand and be understood by speakers of all Igbo dialects. I hope User:Ukabia pops up, or failing that, that another Igbo speaker can address this. Any further copy editing of the English text can be done in the interim between approving this article for a feature and actually featuring it, so it's not so important for that to slow down a feature, but the usefulness question is fundamental. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If nothing else helps, there are the Wikipedia reference desk and the Igbo Wikipedia where one can try to get in touch with Igbo speakers. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has replied to the question in the WP reference desk (they've already archived it...). The WP article talks about Standard Igbo, so I would assume this is the version used in the phrasebook. There are no indications on how different the dialects are from the standard version on the language, on the other hand we don't have any numbers on e.g. how different German spoken in rural Austria is from standard German in the German phrasebook. Anyhow, if you're still uncomfortable featuring this article, say so now, and we'll have time picking another one of our many guide phrasebooks for February. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a clear sense from your readings on whether speakers of all dialects understand standard Igbo well enough for it to be helpful for visitors to speak? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't give a clear answer. Per, (standard?) Igbo is "Used for government notices" and I don't think they would use standard Igbo for this if just few people would understand it. I just asked the same question on another site too, let's see what they'll say. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you gotten any response yet? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, my comment is "awaiting moderation". It's getting ridiculous. For the record, this is what I wrote: "The article says that there are great differences between the dialects, to the extent that some are not mutually intelligible. How well is standard Igbo understood among Igbo speakers in general?" ϒpsilon (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) Honestly, to me it's a slippery slope when we begin questioning the veracity of information in articles like this "just because". It's not as if a phrasebook is the same as a destination article, where correcting wrong information is as easy as verifying websites, phone numbers, opening hours, and whether a place is still in business or not. Phrasebooks, as well as certain other travel topics (Kimono buying guide is another one we could have had a field day with if we'd decided for some reason not to take the original author at his word), consist of more specialized information, and if we're going to hold them to this high a standard then we have no business running any FTTs that no currently active member of our community has firsthand knowledge of. And I don't think any of us would argue we should go that far, nor could we continue to sustain a monthly FTT feature if we did that.

Furthermore, if I'm understanding this correctly, the only question that remains to be answered is "whether speakers of all dialects understand standard Igbo well enough for it to be helpful for visitors to speak". Given that the Nigerian government uses standard Igbo to communicate with the entire Igbo-speaking population on government notices and the like, I don't even know why we would doubt that the answer to that question is yes. And, in a larger sense, I severely question the notion that a point as picayune as that deserves to be nitpicked. Wikivoyage is no more in the position to guarantee the accuracy and up-to-dateness of the information it offers than any other travel guide, and while we should strive for information that's as accurate as possible, we ought to stop holding ourselves to an impossible standard.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Convincing argument, Andre. And with that, I support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I support it as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I removed the defined sizes for fonts because that will sometimes be too big or small depending on the medium (from mobile screens to print): browsers can resize and fill in as necessary. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for February 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ipoh

 * Support as the nominator. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Torty3 deserves most of the credit. It would be great to include more specific addresses and/or coordinates for the Pasar Malam on different days of the week, but I would feel fine featuring this article as is tomorrow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support from me surely :D I'd like JuliasTravels' opinion on the article too, since she's been there within the last couple of years as well. I am aware of possible bias on my side, and need to know whether I've struck the right balance. I do think it's possibly one of the most complete guides of Ipoh currently available, after spending a good 2-3 months on it; there are obviously better food blogs around but not much about history, and it's the kind of standard I wanted George Town (Malaysia)'s Eat section to reach before featuring.
 * Ipoh 11 years ago was quite a different place anyway, a bit of a dead city, even as things are trending upwards now (while the country might be going down the drain on the other hand). It's still in a sweet spot, busy enough for a buzz, anymore and the food queues may become even more unbearable. -- torty3 (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - possibly the most comprehensive guide available, indeed. Excellent work and a great resource for travellers, as Ipoh is the kind of city where a good guide will make all the difference in a traveller's experience. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Pashley (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for January 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Stanley (Falkland Islands)

 * Support as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Coordinates for the "Go next" destinations would be very helpful, but otherwise, with the caveat that I have never been to the Falklands and have been wrong in judging articles about islands and such before, I don't see any obvious changes that are necessary. If anyone reading has actually been to the Falklands, please speak up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I have done some work on this, including "Go next" as mentioned above. I haven't been to Stanley, but I did watch a recent TV documentary series based here (BBC Island Parish). I think that we have most (but not all) of the things to see - see this guide from a local hotel for comparison. I expect that there are a few more businesses that could be listed, but not many (the 2001 Bradt guide lists 10 places to sleep - we have 4 + 1). We maybe should avoid featuring Stanley during Q2 2017, as this will be 35 years since the 1982 conflict. AlasdairW (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits. Hotels that have been there 15 years ago may not be in business today. Much of what was in the article was written by Ryan in 2005. Like always with nominated articles where most of the content is more than 2-3 years old, I clicked through the links and googled the businesses that didn't have a working website and it turned out that many of the latter had closed permanently. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a tiny town, so the fact that recent edits have added as much as they have is impressive.  It's been more than a decade since I was there so I can't comment on how up-to-date the current article is, but one of the reasons I started contributing to Wikivoyage was that it was impossible to find good information on the Falklands, so even if our guide has a few things out of date it is still worth highlighting as one of the best available guides to a destination that isn't easy to cover. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for January 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Next-to-impossible destinations

 * Support as the nominator. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not Yet This reads like a start-up article. The information is very basic, seems incomplete and not so well-defined as to what we consider to be "next to impossible" to visit. What makes some of these places "nearly impossible" to visit? The article seems to blur the lines between "off the beaten path" and "next-to-impossible" which are not really the same. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Any other comments? Please note that this is probably the one article that we cannot make very expansive. If it's easy to write about a destination, it means (by definition) that the destination is not that remote/inaccessible/rarely visited. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Very close. ChubbyWimbus makes a good point about the line between "off-the-beaten-path" and "next-to-impossible" being blurred here - just looking over the first few entries, I would be hard-pressed to describe Equatorial Guinea, South Sudan, Northern Siberia, or North Korea as the latter rather than the former, and the article explicitly states regarding the North Pole that it "can actually be quite easy to visit" - but in general, and with all due respect, his comments follow his usual M.O. of overblowing nitpicks over minor imperfections to the point of needlessly obstructing worthy nominees. That's really the only thing standing in the way of my support here. Of course we should perhaps lengthen some of the blurbs as well, but that's not essential. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The northern 2/3 of Siberia is comparable to the north of Canada (and even the article's Understand section says so), but for the other countries you mentioned I would largely agree (well, entering and traveling around NK as you please behind the back of the state's tourist agency is something virtually nobody has done...). I also think the poles need to be mentioned, because it will probably come as a surprise to many that you can actually go there as a "simple tourist". ϒpsilon (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you misspell "support" above? Surely you didn't agree with my critique and then chastise me for "overblowing nitpicks over minor imperfections" and "obstructing otherwise good nominations"? Please point to all of the great nominations that I've "obstructed" per my "M.O.".
 * I critique nominations. That's why this page exists. Anyone may respond or disagree. I cannot and have never "obstructed an otherwise good nomination" as far as I know. Those that are not featured always have criticism from other users or in many cases, people agree with my critiques. If that bothers you, fix the articles rather than coming here and trying to devalue my opinions and my critiques in the eyes of other users with baseless accusations that my M.O. is to "obstruct worthy nominations".
 * I also try to make sure that our standards are the same for all articles. It often seems like people are very willing to critique Western articles but not those from other parts of the world. There is often "support" for articles with what I deem as being quite flawed. I suppose that may make me look like a wet blanket, but excitement over a nomination or desperation to feature it aren't valid support reasons. If you feel that the flaws are "overblown nitpicks over minor imperfections" then why not just resolve the issue by fixing it?
 * I do not ascribe to the practice of writing "support" followed by a list of things that need to be improved before featuring. That's false support. That "support" should be an "oppose" vote. It's a rather common occurrence that defeats the purpose of the vote. I assume people "feel bad" about opposing, but that's just silly. We should all trust that the nominator and those who have voted "support" should be mature enough to handle someone who doesn't see things the same, and if no one is mature enough to handle article critiques then it's their own fault if the nomination ends up slushed, not the voter. The votes and critiques are not supposed to be personal and they can actually lead to great improvements in articles which often doesn't happen when someone votes "support" and then lists a bunch of critiques that are essentially dismissable because voting "support" is supposed to be unconditional.
 * Again: Please point to all of the great nominations that I've "obstructed" per my "M.O." Otherwise, It'd be nice if you would refrain from making wild accusations in an attempt to discredit me or other users. I'd ask you to respect differences in opinions, but since you've made it clear that "all the respect I'm due" is none whatsoever, I won't waste my time. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I agreed with one specific part of your critique, CW ("The article seems to blur the lines between 'off the beaten path' and 'next-to-impossible' which are not really the same"), while disagreeing with the bulk of it. Secondly: an informal custom has emerged at DotM of withholding Support votes pending the fixing of truly glaring issues (maps that are absent or show very few POIs, egregious spelling/grammatical/syntactical errors, etc.), but seeing as that technically contravenes our policy - which says that any article that is Guide status or better, has not been featured previously, and is appropriate re: Time to feature, is ipso facto fit for the Main Page - in my reading we try to reserve that for extreme cases. That is why I made, and continue to stand behind, my remarks re: "overblown nitpicks", as demonstrated on this page on the nominations for Tunis, Salalah, and Nauru as well as in quite a few nomination threads in the archive. It's hard enough already to come up with three articles per month that are appropriate for the season and fit the three types of featured articles - holding nominees to an unrealistic standard (regardless of whether that standard is equally unrealistic for Western and non-Western destinations, and regardless if you're able to win the occasional other editor over to your side) does us no good. A fine-toothed comb may be appropriate for Starnom, but here it has as often as not been a tool for pointless obstruction. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "that this is probably the one article that we cannot make very expansive." I disagree. The subject matter may be difficult to write about, due to the nature of the topic and the worldwide aspect of it, but that just means it might take more time to get meaningful contributions on each front. It's like nominating Burundi and saying that since we don't expect anyone to go there, we might as well just feature it. If the article is lacking content and coverage, it's lacking content and coverage. There is no article that should be entitled to featuring if it's not ready.
 * On this one, though, it will be easier to add content and curate content if the topic is more clearly defined, as I stated in my "obstructionist" critique above. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside of above, which apparently is some special case where the normal level of coverage for a DotM city of a million inhabitants isn't sufficient and an essay needs to be written about each bedroom suburb, articles of US/Canadian/European/East Asian/Aussie destinations in my experience are rarely criticized. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I also see Baltimore, Nashville, Hobart, Rail travel in India and Buffalo's Historic Churches with critiques and suggestions for improvements from the Western world plus Asia currently and Santiago and Nauru outside that realm with critiques from users aside from myself. Of course it is not necessary for every article to have opposition. I don't mean to suggest that voting "support" means no thought was given. When you say "in [your] experience [they] are rarely criticized" because you feel that overall we are not being critical enough or offering enough suggestions for improvements on articles? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For western destinations "criticism" tends to be something along the lines of "two listings lack POIs and one still needs a street address" or "this or that section could be expanded with a sentence or two". ϒpsilon (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's very unfortunate and counterproductive to slam ChubbyWimbus. Criticism and a critical eye and mind are very important. I greatly appreciate the contributions he's made to our discussions here.


 * I spend a lot of time nowadays at Commons:Featured picture candidates and Commons:Quality images candidates, and I notice that criticisms and lack of support for some pictures help people to see or pay attention to things they weren't seeing or paying attention to, help maintain a level of quality, and help individuals to improve their work, for the good of the site and photography in general. I would suggest to you that the specific criticisms ChubbyWimbus makes have a similar function and importance. And if the result is that it's hard to find enough articles to feature, so be it. The world won't end if we have only 2 featured pictures for a month or two sometimes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Criticism up to a certain extent is well and good - I certainly do plenty of it on this page - but then again we can find something wrong with any of our articles, from stub to Star, if we try hard enough. In my opinion, the fact that CW consistently spots things others miss has more to do with him getting carried away with his critical eye than with other editors supporting articles without thinking them through. And, again in my opinion, similarly to the world not ending if we only have two featured articles a month sometimes, it also won't end if every article that goes on the Main Page isn't perfect in every way. The fact that policy says that DotMs should have Guide or better status, rather than only Star articles being features, is a pretty clear indication that the standards are lower than at Starnom and that eventually enough becomes enough with the nitpicking. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope you would agree with the proposition that specific criticisms lead, or can lead to improvements in articles, and therefore, that we shouldn't discourage them. So I would suggest to you that if your concern is that there is a policy of never featuring any article that any single user opposes, a middle position between telling someone who gives specific criticisms to shut up and not featuring a full complement of 3 articles per month would be to consider a policy whereby an article can be featured if there are, say, five supporting votes even if one user opposes. Or other possible formulas could be floated. But discouraging someone from offering criticisms that can lead to improvements in articles is really not beneficial to this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What bothers me isn't so much the criticism per se as the fact that there seems to be such a high bar with CW when it comes to avoiding an "Oppose" (or equivalent) vote. It's certainly not unheard of on this page to Support a nominee while still highlighting things that could use improvement. The message there is that if it were to happen that the article stays exactly the same from now until the time it's due on the Main Page, we'd be comfortable with that, but if anyone happens to have the time and inclination, here are some ways it can go from merely passing muster to standing out. That's a way to inspire improvements in articles without being obstructionist, yet CW explicitly dismisses that approach as "false support". On the other hand, a consensus has evolved on this page that a "Not yet" or "Almost" vote means there are some heavier-duty problems with the article, such that we would not be comfortable putting on the Main Page today, as is. That diverges somewhat from policy (which says that all never-before-featured Guide articles are fair game, period), but it's a good compromise, I think. Throwing out "Oppose", "Not yet", "Almost", etc. votes for reasons as picayune as CW's sometimes are, goes past bending policy to simply ignoring it. That's a bridge too far, IMO. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm simply not comfortable with making someone who participates in good faith "the problem". That's why I'm suggesting that if it's a problem to you that a single opposing vote means an article can't be featured and we have a user who has higher standards than others, a way be found to avoid discouraging his participation or making him into the enemy, while still facilitating the featuring of 3 articles per month. However, I don't think that way has to be found immediately. Have a Happy 4th, and we can come back to this a bit later, if that's what'll work best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * First of al happy Forth of July to all those who celebrate it. Second, maybe we might wish to move this discussion elsewhere as it clearly isn't about a single nominee (any more). In my opinion "guide status" in and by itself does not mean much, because it can basically be bestowed upon an article by the fiat of an individual editor. Given that DotM OtbP and to some extent FTT are nominated quite some time before they actually go live, I think we can and should polish them as much as possible before they go live. Especially when it comes to easy things like dead weblinks, prose or style. Pointing out such deficiencies where they exist is imho a worthy and helpful task. On the other hand just because policy says "Every guide article can be nominated" does not mean that the way policy is "lived" today means opposition to featuring a guide article is forbidden. I think there is - and should be - a higher threshold for featuring than merely being "guide". Otherwise we could get rid of the whole nominating process and just write an algorithm that features guide articles at random. Everything we feature is the most visible thing on our site for a month (given our google ranking many people not coming from WP will hit the main page first in their visits to our site, however briefly) and it is in my opinion absolutely essential for those high visibility pages to be of the best quality we can manage. Kind of like the stuff in the fron window of a shop. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (indent) None of the articles cited (Salalah, Tunis, or Nauru) have been blocked by me (and citing the entire archive isn't an example). They've merely received critique.
 * On Tunis, you oppose it. Why aren't you an "obstructionist"? Why don't you lower your bar?
 * On Salalah, you didn't oppose, but you state "Good information, if a bit sparse." I didn't oppose but posted offered critique and ways to improve it. The primary author was initially involved in the DotM conversation, so there was reason to believe improvements could be made. To you, that's all just "obstructionist" and "unnecessary". Okay...
 * On Nauru, a location with little to see/do actually needs to be closer to star status to be guide status. If it only has a few attractions, then omitting even one can potentially be an issue unlike a place like Kyoto which has a ton of missing temples/shrines/etc that are worthwhile but the article still doesn't suffer, because so much is listed. I don't think the Nauru article is that good. You do. I'm allowed to express a different view. If you feel so strongly that my concerns are all petty, you could respond. If not and it gets slushed, why would that be my fault?
 * On this nomination, you claim to "support one point" of mine while "disagreeing with the bulk of it", which I guess means you've arbitrarily decided that the "bulk" of my argument was the "basic and incomplete" part, which partially relates to the lack of a clear definition.
 * I've seen much less progress in making changes from saying "Support" and then giving criticism than from opposing or commenting, because support is support. My comment about false support was explicitly stated to be about those that pledge support and then claim it's conditional. And that's not what you're mad about anyway, because I made that comment during this discussion: after your post.
 * Your motivation here may be just to get a line-up, and it's good to have people who sift through pages to find possible nominations. And "guide status" is a reason to support, true. Looking at tags is certainly the lowest standard within the guidelines possible (but is also faulty). That's not what I'm looking for. I've never asked for perfection, but I do hope for quality. I do have standards beyond simply being a lengthy article with proper grammar. If that's setting the bar too high then start a discussion about lowering the standards, but I seem to remember a discussion relatively recently about suppressing nominations because there are "too many". Critiquing the content of the articles (listings meaningless fluff, writing dull, content missing, etc) has always been acceptable critique and it didn't start with me. My nomination received the "dull" critique. It stung at first, but I asked some questions, got feedback, rethought the article and rewrote the parts that weren't interesting. It was then featured. Only good came out it. I suppose I could have cried, abandoned the article and let it get slushed, but how could I blame the voters for that? I'd rather have featured articles be interesting and engaging than dull and boring but technically meeting the guidelines. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone who regularly fixes featurenominated articles (in other words saves them from being slushed), I must say I prefer to see "support", "almost support", "close" votes followed by improvement suggestions, if the article's problems can be fixed within a reasonable timeframe. "Oppose" or "not yet" to me means the article is such a disaster it shouldn't have been nominated in the first place and the article needs to be entirely redone (in other words, better concentrate on some other article instead). Also, I don't think it's necessary to try to find at least one error in every single nominated article; also, as Andre mentioned, there may be small things that can be improved but that aren't decisive for whether the article makes it or not. Finally, it would be wonderful if more people would come and help out with nominated articles they (or somebody else) have found errors in.


 * Granted, we shouldn't take just any article and put it on the Main Page, but I don't agree an article needs to be much better than "only" a guide to be eligible for feature. Rather there are perhaps some articles that are currently at guide status that should be demoted to usable. This problem is a result of the requirements for guide status not being particularly clearly defined (as compared to requirements for usable cities, for example). We should have clear guidelines for what is required of (and enough for!) an article to hold guide status. Otherwise it would be impossible (particularly if one oppose vote would be enough to throw the article overboard) to get an article featured if someone else who doesn't like that article could raise the bar high enough to make sure there's no risk that the article would ever end up being featured. If I wanted I could come up with ten problems or "problems" with every single currently nominated article that would supposedly be a hindrance for it being featured — it doesn't really take that much imagination.


 * Concerning "too many" articles, this is a situation that often arises, but usually it’s a result of the policies that articles have to be (1) featured during a suitable time of year, (2) that there may not be two articles from the same country featured at the same time and (3) that there may not be two featured articles from the same country in the same category in two subsequent months. Due to this we often end up with an ever-growing stash of "summer articles" with plenty of empty winter month slots where not a single one of these can be put. BTW the fact that articles are sitting around for, say, a year, also means that if you have updated the article at the time you nominated it, the same procedure has to be repeated a month or so before the article goes live to ensure it's up to date.


 * So here's the million dollar question to everyone: please list a couple of articles we've recently featured, that in your opinion shouldn't have been featured? Surely there has to be a few? If you come to think of such articles, why haven't you brought up the problems on the nominations page before the article went live? Or is the situation so bad that all of our articles are of such an astronomically low quality that it's not even worth giving feedback on them here (perhaps that would explain why there have been so few voyagers participating in discussions here for the last months)? And what kinds of problems are we talking about; content, formatting, grammar, so-called dull language..? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ypsi. I think the crux of the issue here is not any personal animus I may have toward any user (there is none), nor any desire on my part to silence criticism, but rather the fact that we're not all on the same page regarding where the threshold lies between Support and Oppose. Obviously there needs to be a certain amount of leeway given that a particular problem might get under one editor's skin more than another's, but if we have a user whose criteria for a Support-worthy article are profoundly more stringent than everyone else's, that poses a problem vis-à-vis the consensus-based model by which we run our site. If a nominee can be held up by a given editor based on concerns that no other users find important, that's the majority being overruled by one individual, which is the polar opposite of the definition of consensus. Ikan suggests a model whereby one Oppose vote can be negated by five Support votes (i.e. the requisite four plus one more), which makes sense logically, but look at what it's been like at DotM lately - it's like pulling teeth to get four people to vote a nominee up or down, let alone six. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Side point, but "Not yet" from me doesn't mean an article is a disaster, just that x, y and z need to be done before I would support a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm all for such a suggestion (4+1). If may people don't spot any problems in an article and can support it, and one person who does think there's a problem, that problem is probably of such a character that the average "consumer" will not spot it either and could not tell the difference between an edition of the article with the problem and another one where that problem is fixed.
 * Good news that nobody has found any major problems with any of our recently featured articles. That means we can continue using previously featured articles as examples of what candidates should look like. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (indent) I don't think it's right to have rules about negating opposition. If the opposing points include reasons and those reasons are valid then it doesn't seem right or progressive to try and overrule it. We're supposed to address concerns, not drown them out with singing. It takes more energy and time to oppose a nomination than to support one. Also, many times there are support votes at the beginning and a critique comes later. That may require all of those who previously supported to reread and rethink, but they often never return to the conversation. The other possibility is if 4 people already offered support, there would be no reason whatsoever to even bother looking at the article, because your vote would be invalidated before you even posted. If the validity of the opposition is questionable or debatable, we should be able to have that discussion. When I don't support an article, I often will include multiple issues that stand out for improvement in my critique, but some issues are bigger than others. If some issues are addressed, it would not be unreasonable to then ask if the others are big enough on their own to warrant slushing. What often happens though is that NO issues are addressed, and that is a problem.
 * I think it also highlights an issue specific to nominations by those who scout articles vs those who write them. The Nauru article, for example is a translated article. It's hard to address concerns beyond what's written if you're a translator. The critique I offered in regards to Salaleh didn't seem difficult to address when it looked like the primary author was active and looking to improve it. All of my questions came from what was written, so it seemed safe to assume the author probably knew the answers and could just think it over, add details and BAM: instant but significant improvement of quality, intrigue and readability. But with the author no longer involved in the discussion, addressing those questions becomes very difficult work for other users who are not likely to be familiar with the city let alone its history and culture. Even simple questions and concerns are difficult to address regarding places we don't know. My comments on the article were not stated as opposition, although with the author there, it would sadden me a bit to see it featured when I still believe the author has the knowledge improve it...
 * It's fair to say that I haven't offered article support like I once did. I've gotten lazy on that front. If an article looks good and it already has support, I've just left them, and that's not fair, especially if the primary author is there. Genuine critique is good for improving articles, but genuine support feels good after working hard and putting it up there for judgement. That's something I should be more active about.
 * On terrible features, look no further than Dar es Salaam. Go to that "See" section. That should have (and still should) make it only "usable". It's a mere bulleted list that I myself wrote. I cringe every time I see it. Even on the past DotM page, the picture isn't listed. Probably a sign we should just delete it and write "No feature" for that month. I feel bad for anyone who knows and loves that city to have it featured in such a poor and embarrassing state... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dar es Salaam is indeed an example of an article that should have only usable status; also the eat section is a big mess, for instance. Again an example of why articles shouldn't be promoted to guide too easily (pun intended). Back in late 2012, from what I've heard, the community was busy with tons of other things as we were in the process of immigrating to WMF, and there wasn't much time to work on articles so this is likely why DeS was featured in its current state, but as of today an article looking like that could not make it to the main page. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Having come late to this discussion, I would like to mention for the record that, as the primary author of one of the articles discussed above (Salalah), I left the discussion after initial stages because I simply did not have the patience to address the tedious nitpicking cited above by others. –StellarD (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * So where are we on this? Personally I do not think this should be featured as is and there haven't been many edits since discussion largely died down. Currently the article seems unsure where it is going and contains a lot of obvious stuff. There is potential, but featuring seems premature. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For me, the previous FTT that's most closely analogous to the format this article follows is Nuclear tourism — at its heart a list of attractions or destinations that have a certain thing in common, with the prose held together by a discussion of that commonality. Of course the concept of inaccessibility is a lot less complicated than the concept of atomic energy, so the "Understand" section for NTID needn't be as long, but — as it should be — that's more than balanced by copious information in "Get in", "Prepare", "Stay safe", "Stay healthy", etc. Other than perhaps an expanded lede and a dynamic map, I don't see an obvious need for any further development of this article before it can be featured. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should revert all edits made after July 21 2015 to make the article great again? ϒpsilon (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While I did promote the article to guide (and seem to have since forgotten about it), guide status is not per se an argument for featuring, otherwise we could just write some piece of code to randomly feature our guide articles on the main page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, policy currently says: "The nominated article should have an article status of guide or star.". I most certainly think that an article which "...would be helpful for the average traveler, such as offering alternatives for where to stay and eat, what to see and do, how to get in and out, etc. and provide 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." is good enough for the main page.
 * Actually, I would go so far to say that someone who wants to upgrade an article to guide status should consider if they could support the article for a main page feature in its current state. If not, then they should refrain from upgrading the article.
 * For the article at hand, I really can't how it could or would need to be further expanded. See and Do perhaps could be turned into running text. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know this is not an allowed reason to oppose a feature and I am not entirely sure of that myself, but this article just seems a bit to laundry list by its very nature to me. Yes, it is not supposed to replace the years of training you'd probably need to visit most of those places, but somehow I feel even a complete article would be missing something. I don't know. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems odd to me that we would feature an article without a clear goal or definition of what belongs in it. The Nuclear tourism article gives us some interesting information about the sites listed and why they may be of interest to the traveler. This list is a mixed bag. Until February 2016 all of Africa apparently qualified and now there are only 2 places continent-wide listed. Some of it is a mere geography lesson ("Rockall — an islet less than halfway from Scotland to Iceland, claimed by four countries"). Some places, like Gogland, give the impression that they are actually impossible to visit. Shouldn't this article tell you ways to access all of the sites since "difficult but doable" is the crux of the article? That bothers me, too. Some of the listing offer real information, but a lot of them don't tell you how to visit. I know my concerns have been described as "overblown" but I don't see any noticeable changes. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have briefly read over the article and I do see a direction: suggested places to see for people who want to do something very special, some may want that to "show off" what they have achieved, some may just look for the thrill of it. While I personally love the idea of exploring, my suggestion is to be cautious with this topic. It seems that many of the places have good reasons to be restrictive (certainly, others don't), therefore I think travelling here may have a much stronger ethical aspect than usually. Consequently, my suggestion is to add a section about that, potentially in understand, respect or a new one (respect is the least suitable in my view because that usually covers how to behave "on site" which would be too late here). Due to my reasoning, I would refrain from featuring it unless it has such section; with it it can be well worth it, both promoting the not so well known as well as WikiVoyage (because we have something special here, probably there are less guides for these destinations around in bookstores). And as soon as it is "good enough", featuring can bring a quality rise. Buan~dewiki (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is a fun article. I read and copy edited my way through the "South America" subsection. I think it's important for the article to be comprehensively copy edited with a fine-toothed comb, as quite a bit of the prose benefited from simplification, reordering and additional punctuation, but it's the very definition of "Off the beaten path", and I think it's completely appropriate for a travel guide to have an article for places that cannot or almost cannot be traveled to, now that there are fewer and fewer of those. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've by now gone through the entire article with a fine-toothed comb. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, Ikan. All it needs now is a dynamic map, which I'll get to later today or tomorrow. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for January 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Santiago de Chile

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article looks like it will probably benefit from a normal amount of additional copy editing (I did some), but before I support it, I think it's important for the self-contradictory "Stay safe/Other" section to be dealt with. Which of these two statements is true?


 * In any situation, you can trust the Chilean Police (Carabineros).


 * Also remember that the Chilean police is a militarized police. Therefore the police special forces can be violent or unreasonable, be careful.


 * It looks to me like someone who had never run afoul or had friends who ran afoul of the police inserted the former claim, and then another person, perhaps someone who had been attacked at demonstrations (which are also mentioned in this section), added the latter text without editing the rest. I'd tend to suggest deleting the first sentence, but I have no personal knowledge about the behavior of the carabineros since the return of democracy in Chile. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've notified the anonymous contributor who's been editing Santiago de Chile a few days ago, he/she maybe could help. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support. In addition to what's been gone over above, the "See" and (especially) "Do" sections are a bit short - granted this is a Huge City with listings devolved to the district articles, but surely there's a bit more in the way of general information to give, and surely a few of the most important sights/activities can be briefly name-dropped. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for December 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

North Central New Mexico

 * Support — the article looks good with nice photos and even a hand-drawn map. Some of the destinations like Taos have outstanding articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Well put together article, and the images are beautiful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - That's really a great article. I agree with OtBP. Danapit (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice piece of work! Ibaman (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks very good, and I'd like to praise everyone who worked on the article and made it so informative and pretty! There's one thing I'm wondering about, though: The "Scenic drives" section of "See" presents what may seem to some readers like a daunting wall of text, even though it's divided up into different bullets and indentations. What could we do to make it more easily digestible? I'm thinking that it might help a bit if each drive got its own 3rd-level subheading, rather than a bullet, with the introductory text moved just below the subheading. I'm also thinking that structuring the various legs of the drives more similarly to the way they'd look in a good itinerary article like Route 66 would be helpful - in other words, the first leg of the "High Road to Taos" itinerary would have a 4th-order subheading of "Santa Fe to Chimayó". What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think 4th-level subheadings might be too narrow a level of specificity for such short itineraries as these. And anyway, I'm not sure what you would title some of those 4th-level subheadings; for instance, your "Santa Fe to Chimayó" suggestion wouldn't be entirely accurate, because that paragraph also explains how to start the itinerary from Española instead of Santa Fe. However, 3rd-level subheadings sound great. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redundant though it may be, here's another support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - especially as it is a well done destination article for a non-urban area (with which we often have problems.) Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

When to feature
The time is given as "Any, though Sep-Oct are preferred" in the nomination. Especially given the large number of support votes, I think we should try to run it as soon as possible, which would mean during some month next winter. The article mentions that Christmas in NM is a special experience and that you can ski there. Are there some arguments for not running it in the winter? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * None from me. Even if I don't think December is the absolutely best time of the year to visit, there's still much to enjoy. It's even kind of fitting given the theme, because winter is when this region is at its most quiet and "off the beaten path." PerryPlanet (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "there are a lot of Support votes" is a particularly strong argument for ignoring a preferred Time to Feature. I guess this question hinges on PerryPlanet's remark above, "I don't think December is the absolutely best time of the year to visit". What exactly do you mean by that? Is it simply the cold weather that makes it that way, or are there more practical issues (i.e. visitor attractions closed for the season) to consider? If the latter, I'd prefer to leave it to 2017.
 * Though I should say that the schedule would also allow us to feature it in November 2016 rather than December, if that makes things better. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer Andre's question, it's mainly just the cold weather. Some places do shut down for the season, but it's not so prevalent an issue that I would advise people to avoid the area that time of the year. November would be a fine time as well, given that you still have some of that warm fall weather, although by that point all the festivals will have already happened. Between those two I think I would prefer December for all the wonderful Christmas celebrations. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for December 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rail travel in India

 * Almost support per comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I hadn't looked at the article in a while. I think that like a long scholarly article, this needs an Abstract, which we should put in an "Understand" section. That section should summarize in the briefest way or even merely mention things like the range of accommodations, the two options for ticketing, the different types of trains (such as are shown under "Fares"), the basics of food and sleep and some of the more important details in "Cope". I think this additional section is essential for making this article user-friendly, and needs to be added before this article should be approved for a feature. I'm not sure whether I feel up to starting the section now, but I'll surely help with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How many of the issues have been addressed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, a glance at the article reveals that the Understand section Ikan wished to see is there. Not sure how much copyediting the article needs. Ticket prices, if we decide to keep them (can't find any other Rail travel article with such detailed fare information!), should be updated. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You misread my remarks above. There was already an "Understand" section in the article when I made my previous comment. I stated that the article needed an Abstract with brief specifics, which should be included in "Understand". I'm not sure the section is specific enough; at the very least, a few illustrative examples could be given. Does everyone understand what I mean by an Abstract? The point of an Abstract, such as is used for medical articles, lab reports or dissertations, is to condense into a few paragraphs (or in the case of a dissertation, perhaps up to a page and a half or so) the substance of an entire article that follows. I don't think "Understand" currently does that, but it does touch on the areas I mentioned in a general way. So then my next point would be whether we need another section of "Understand" that briefly gives background such as the very broad outlines of the history of the network (I'd also say the size of it, but that's covered in the lede). Right now, the first sentence of "Understand" feels kind of like it's already in the middle to me. I may work on this a little, but I have important things to do offline today and might not get to it for a while. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But in May there was no Understand section in the article. I added it about a month ago, guided by your comment above. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My false memory, then. The article is certainly closer to a feature now. I guess my feeling is that what I'd like the "Understand" section to do, other than give a little historical background, is give a summary of the bare minimum necessary for someone to purchase tickets and use the system, so we should probably include links to official purchasing and informational sites and very brief but somewhat more specific explanations. Then, anyone who wants to read about things in more detail has the rest of the article there for their reference and information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can add all the information people require, but if the article gets too encyclopedic, I might myself withdraw my support until someone else has restored the article (removed the fluff). ϒpsilon (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want it to get encyclopedic or fluffy. My feeling is that this article is quite long, so for people with more limited time, it would be a service to mention just the basics in an Abstract, which we call the "Understand" section. This should be brief and in no way exhaustive, but sufficient for a reader who doesn't have the time to do more than a quick scan to be able to purchase tickets and use and understand the system at a basic level. Does that make sense? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently I haven't voted on this candidate yet. I support it and think it's certainly ready to be featured. I do see a lot of bullet-point lists that might be converted to prose - specifically in the "Internet booking", "Cope", and "Stay safe" sections - but that's small potatoes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is still some need of copy editing and either updating or removing the price table (if it is removed, I think some rough indication of the relation of the prices of different service classes to one another might be in order). Also, redlinks should be looked at and either delinked, created as articles, redirected or otherwise dealt with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no policy against redlinks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No there isn't, but please have a look at the "luxury trains" section. Both the language and the redlinks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay, the article needs copyedits. That's an easy fix. As for redlinks, I saw one for Maharajas' Express, which sounds from the way the article describes it like it could be a viable itinerary in the mold of, say, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, or even Trans-Siberian Railroad. If you really think it needs to be delinked, go for it, but I don't think it's an absolute imperative or anything that would preclude my current support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It could deserve an article, but so could all the mentioned luxury trains. It's a bit hard to judge, honestly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Holding feature for some time due to recent news
There has been a major train accident in India recently and it seems to be a hot button issue right now. Maybe we should postpone the feature due to that reason? Not forever, but until this is settled. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning toward "yes, let's postpone", but remember it will be a month till this goes on the Main Page. Let's still hold off on this a bit and feel the situation out closer to the effective time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * However tragic this accident a couple days back is, India is a large country with millions and millions of train journeys being made every day without any problems. So I for one wouldn't postpone Rail travel in India, especially given that a whole lot of people seem to be dissatisfied with Next-to-impossible destinations (and I've decided to work further on that article exactly as much as other Wikivoyagers will, ie. not at all). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I should have gone into more detail above. One of the things the news report said was that prices had been hiked "recently" in order to do something about safety (apparently some had seen this as a pressing issue before the accident already) and it was only alluded to, but there seem to be all sorts of political accusations flying around, which may or may not result in drastical changes. So the price table in the article (if it is still there) is outdated for sure and in the shakeup that might be caused (or rather triggered) by this accident some things might be changed making our article outdated. I can't see the future and maybe I am exaggerating, but we should keep an eye on things. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for December 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Macau

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It looks good. I have not been to Macau, only watched the ferry leaving Hong Kong. A couple of minor points: By Taxi talks about 2008 fares and no listings in the the article or any districts have lat/longs. It might be best not featured in January or February, as weather can be cool (in Hong Kong older buildings can feel cold with no heating - I assume that it is the same in Macau) - Spring or Autumn would be better. AlasdairW (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The next open DotM slot is in November 2016, which (given w:Geography of Macau) seems like a fine time to feature it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems November is optimal. And, yes I noticed that listings in the districts lack coordinates but this is the case with our current DotM, Kyoto, too. I can help out with adding the coords if needed. What do Pashley and Andrew think?ϒpsilon (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to support --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly inclined to support. Macau has been one of my favorite tourist destinations for a long time & both the main & district articles look good overall.
 * However I see this in Get in: "A larger permanent ferry terminal is being constructed ..., scheduled for completion in 2011." At a minimum, that needs updating & I worry about whether the rest of the articles are up to date. Not having been there is several years, I cannot really check but someone should before we feature it. Pashley (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am copy editing & noticed an issue which I have raised at Talk:Macau. Pashley (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The main article has many links tagged as dead. I have fixed some, but do not have time to get them all & I suspect there will be some in district articles as well. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The talk page discussion on what currency symbol to use seems to be close to consensus, but it looks as though no-one has updated the article to reflect that. Pashley (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is still a problem with currency symbols; see Talk:Macau Pashley (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Help needed. This is scheduled to go live quite soon but, except that I removed the references to star ratings, the problems mentioned above remain. I do not currently have time to fix them. Anyone? Pashley (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Me & my friend Google will probably take a look at the article tomorrow. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There was only one dead link. Taxi fares and ferry terminal information is updated as are the currency symbols. The Macau article itself should be OK now. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for November 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Lady Elliot Island

 * Support as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a small island with a single resort which seems to almost have a monopoly on eat, sleep and get in for most travellers. AlasdairW (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a problem? It wouldn't be our first OtBP like that - Childs isn't a resort, but it still has only one hotel, one restaurant (describing the convenience store/gas station as such is a stretch), and (effectively) one method of ingress and egress. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that there is a single company proving flights, accommodation and meals, and it is a remote island. Childs may have only one eat, sleep etc, but there is no sign that they are all the same business, and one could easily go (possibly walk) to a neighbouring community to get something different. To me this seems to have something in common with Disneyland. I am not saying it can't be featured, but we must consider the issue, and the potential for negative feedback. AlasdairW (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's much of a problem, and of course we cannot do much about there being just one place for eating and sleeping :) . We just tell the voyager how things are and then its up to them if they'd like to visit or not. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Very close . The article needs a proper lede, i.e. more than one sentence long. When that's fixed it will have my support. Also, this is a more minor concern, but it would be nice to see it addressed as well: perhaps this article's brevity is by necessity given that this is such an - ahem - off-the-beaten-path place, but are we sure we can't flesh out some of the descriptions on the listings? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's possible, WP and the official web site seem to have some more info about the place. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd be fine with featuring this island. The only thing I notice that really begs the question is this: "Private craft must pay the appropriate fees, and cannot use the resort facilities." What are the appropriate fees? I think we should find out what those fees are and input them before running this article. I also think it's somewhat important to note the duration of flights to the island and its distance in km from the mainland. Another thing that would be ideal would be to indicate how hazardous or circuitous it is to sail to the island, given its position in the Barrier Reef. And would it be highly destructive to the environment to arrive on a motorized craft, such that only sailboats should be used? The length of the lede doesn't trouble me because the "Understand" section is informative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I still think this should be addressed. Meanwhile, I edited the blurb above. It had a grammatical mistake: "At this island the impressive marine fauna and the corals of the Great Barrier Reef is just a dive away." That "is" should be "are". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The flights have been addressed, as people reading the article might notice — also with new flight starting points, and rates for the 2016-17 season.
 * Information about getting in by boat was sparse, but I would expect "appropriate fees" to be the marine tax fee mentioned right below. Also, per Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority motorized vessels are not prohibited.
 * The resort's website tells that the only way in to the island is by their plane, and the map with the moorings that I added does not mention the resort company in any way, and as the moorings are 200 m outside the island it's probably outside the resort's "jurisdiction" and they cannot charge anything for it. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I will support this article, with the expectation that all these points on boat travel to the island, which you clearly addressed here, will be equally clearly addressed in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like the lede's been expanded. Accordingly, I can now support this article. We have three Support votes now; would anyone care to add a fourth? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, we need one more support vote for this article before the 11th. Ryan? Hobbitschuster? Andrewssi2? Anyone else? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Happy to see an Australian article nominated. support. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for November 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Cold weather

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, as it looks good and is an important topic, but I feel sure it will need more copy editing. I've done some copy editing through the end of the "Electronic devices" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It looks good. Maybe I am alone in this, but "nightcap" suggests a glass of whisky, not a hat to wear in bed. Is there any official advice worth linking to? AlasdairW (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like I haven't yet voted on this nominee. Support, with nothing I can think of that needs to be added. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for November 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Tunis

 * Very, very close. A "Do" section that's in need of expansion is the only thing barring this article from my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your compliments! :) Though, I was actually thinking of having Tunis some year in the early spring or late autumn, when we (compared to the summer) traditionally have had somewhat hard time finding suitable candidates. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a highly developed article, and one thing I like is the "orientation" subsection, probably borrowed from fr.wikivoyage. It's a good idea and something that should be in more en.wikivoyage articles. I did some copy editing, but there's a lot of material to go through. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm finally taking the time to look through the article more. There are a few "See" listings without description. As Andre says, "Do" needs to be expanded and listified. "Learn" should also be listified, with addresses and contact info specified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - here's the first support vote for Tunis. I've now fixed most of what has been brought up in this discussion. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I haven't been to Tunis, but I like the style and information in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh I didn't even notice this, so I appologize for the late comment, but the "See" section descriptions and details are still kind of lacking. Lots of short one-liners. Lots of "pretty" buildings and "interesting architecture". It doesn't exactly draw me in. Also, are they all just places to look at or can you enter/tour any of them? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Question - does it not bother you that Tunesia is still in official state of emergency and that most countries advise against travel for the country as a whole? If we feature, it should at least have a warning box. The most extensive See-listing is for the Bardo museum, which was bombed just last year...Considering that the high terrorism threat in Tunisia and the bombings in Tunis city are and were clearly focused on tourism, it seems weird to simply ignore the issue. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, no, it doesn't particularly bother me. In my experience, official government travel warnings tend to err on the side of excessive caution and should be viewed by us through that prism. Anyway, we've run a bunch of different Pakistani DotMs and OtBPs without any apparent controversy of this type; surely Pakistan is not so much less unsafe than Tunisia? And what about our next upcoming FTT in view of the large swaths of Israel that lie within reach of Hamas rocket attacks? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And for that matter, France has been hit hard with terrorist attacks in the past year - the Bataclan in Paris, the Bastille Day celebration in Nice, and most recently the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in Normandy - so why is no one fretting about the DotM that's due to go up in two days, the 1st arrondissement of Paris? My point in bringing up all these examples is, there's inherent danger in travelling anywhere - and, indeed, in doing pretty much anything - and, in all likelihood, there's also a certain degree of subjectivity on the part of government ministries in deciding which places are "dangerous enough" to merit travel warnings. Our readers are full-grown adults who are capable of judging for themselves whether the risks inherent in their choice of travel destinations outweigh the benefits. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It bothers me. UK advises against all non-essential travel anywhere in the country & NZ also rates the whole country "high risk". US, Canada & others have somewhat milder warnings, but no-one is saying it is safe. Pashley (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Even if our readers are capable of judging such things for themselves (and I doubt they all are; in my experience some travellers are spectacularly naive), we still have an obligation to provide good input for those decisions. I think that means a warning box & links to the gov't advisories. Pashley (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess we can add a warning box, but does it need to be on the top of the page or would it be enough to have it in Stay safe? Also, as André just pointed out, it would certainly not be the first time we would feature a (somewhat) dangerous destination. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pashley, and I think a warning should be somewhere on top, or under understand or so, like we always do for places with this level of threat. Note that there is such a warning box on the Tunesia article. Of course travelling comes with risks, especially now. I don't think we should judge the severity of the risks for ourselves, but when official negative travel advice is given for countries by many major states (which is the case for Tunesia, but not for France), it seems silly to simply ignore it. For me, it's not only about the question if travellers can make well-informed decisions. As a reader, I would also find it naive and weird for a travel guide to feature a place that has been in the news repeatedly as being under severe terrorist threat, without clearly warning about it and pointing to relevant sources of information. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add one. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Question. We remember the2015 killing of tourists inside the Bardo Museum. Its being open/visitable can be a real caveat for deciding to visit, to archeo-Roman enthusiasts such as myself. Our article doesn't mention it, the museum's link is dead. Any recent news on this museum? Ibaman (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bardo Museum is mentioned as point #13 under See, the terrorist attack in Stay safe. I updated the home page, which Google easily found. ϒpsilon (talk)


 * If this is still going to be featured before most countries change their official advice, then I think that this needs to be mentioned in the blurb e.g. "Although several governments advise against travel to Tunisia...". Although such advice may be over cautious it does have major implications. Many travel insurance policies won't cover you and mainstream tour operators don't go to such places. In the case of Tunisia the advice would have been considerably different a couple of years ago, so it is more important to draw attention to it if the page is featured. (For reference the UK advice for Pakistan and Israel is against travel to particular areas, and for France there is just a mention of "high threat from terrorism".) From the UK advice}, in Tunisia "state of emergency" has been declared for 2 months from 21 July 2016, extending previous declarations going back to Nov 2015. [[User:AlasdairW|AlasdairW] (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems silly to assume that anyone will be immediately packing their bags on the basis of our featured articles. (I also think we take too much care in precisely scheduling destinations to be featured a good time for travel.) By all means, mention security concerns in the article, but I don't think the blurb needs it. Powers (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for October 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Caldas da Rainha

 * Support --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked at this article in a while. It seems to be in very good shape. I'll support running it, with the one caveat that we need to decide what to do with the list of freguesias, which seems kind of encyclopedic and not too user-friendly for most imaginable readers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support - great article, but I agree with Ikan that the Orientation section is way too long, especially for a city of only 27,000 residents. Perhaps we could deal with the freguesias as if Caldas were a Huge City, clustering neighboring ones together that are similar to each other. As to Ypsi's remark about timing, beyond what's already on the schedule grid I had envisioned Salalah in August, Anacostia in September, and Lady Elliot Island in October, but the latter of those three can easily be bumped ahead to November to accommodate Caldas. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm a bit biased, though, seeing as I have been the principal contributor. I have addressed the issue of the overlong Orientation section by removing the list of settlements from each civil parish (freguesia), but I do prefer to leave each parish itself listed. I'll see if I can find pricing info. in order to break out the Eat section, but Sleep falls within the 7±2 guideline for lists. I'll also dig for photos. Thanks, All, for the suggestions! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for October 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Travel insurance

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. I have not come across policies offering to cover pre-existing conditions if bought straight after booking the trip (mentioned twice in the article). If such policies exist we should say where they are available (is it US only?). I am also not sure of the value in having the example tables of coverage - I am sure that the reader will have to wade through tables like this when choosing an actual policy. If we are going to have this table, we should explain it and give examples of events that that would be covered under the Deluxe, but not the Basic policy. AlasdairW (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ikan hasn't commented on this one yet. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I don't know anything much about travel insurance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for October 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Paris/1st arrondissement

 * Support. I haven't been to Paris since 2002, so I couldn't have an opinion about how current this article is, but I think that unless I know something's wrong, it's de riguer to support Star articles, presuming the brush-up happens before the article is featured. I'll look for a better photo of the Sainte Chapelle now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak support, if it is a Star article all listings should presumably be complete which includes having a description (currently not the case with many hotels) so this is something that should be fixed, alternatively should such listings be removed. And as always, closed sights, restaurants, hotels etc. need to be removed. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Prince and others, all listings look good now. Small remark: maybe one or two of the many photos in See could be moved down to illustrate Eat or Connect? ϒpsilon (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was rather thinking of putting some really beautiful but incidental pictures there. Bear with me. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. It looks good, and I think was improved when the static map was removed as its different numbering would confuse. AlasdairW (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I've come to the reluctant conclusion that this is a better article to feature in September than either Riga or Zurich. Also, re: AlasdairW's point about the map - I agree with you in principle, but a side effect of that is that this article may need to be de-Starred, as the question of whether static maps are an absolute requirement for Star articles or a dynamic one may suffice remains unresolved. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the static map as I could not find a way for the MapFrame template not to display it below the dynamic map, rather than instead of the dynamic map whenever it is unavailable (java issues and such), as I intended and was accustomed to. Please feel free to reinstate if you know how to do it the right way. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PrinceGloria - I don't know how to work with static maps, and for the record, I actually disagree with the idea that Star articles must have static maps rather than dynamic. At any rate, if Paris/1st arrondissement has to be demoted to Guide, that would have no effect on its worthiness to serve as DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - I don't know why I wrote "twice" (apparently it was me), but Paris sees at least four "Fashion Weeks" a year now. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? Wikipedia says it's biannual, and I've not been able to find anything on Google that says otherwise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , - I am in the trade, this is why I can't believe I wrote that, I must have been distracted. There are four fashion weeks in Paris a year - late Jan, Feb/Mar, Jun/Jul, late Sep. Since SS's men's and couture are starting to drift apart, it's basically five now. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for September 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Washington, D.C./Anacostia

 * Support as nominator. This is a Star article, which should tell you all you need to know about its quality. No significant edits have been made to this article since 2013, so it may be good to ensure that listings are up-to-date. Other than that, I think Anacostia is good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. A previously-unfeatured Star article. Who could oppose it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, but a month or two before it goes eventually live someone should check that everything in the article is still in business. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, for a comprehensive and interesting look at an often-overlooked corner of D.C. I'll repeat the caveat above that we should make sure everything is up-to-date before featuring. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed an issue with the article: "The Department of Homeland Security plans to relocate here in 2010 (and to destroy most of the architectural heritage in the process), so drive by to see the grounds while you still can." What happened? Did Homeland Security relocate to St. Elizabeth's Hospital? Did they destroy a bunch of stuff? Or were the plans postponed or shelved? What's the current status of the hospital and its buildings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ikan - It appears the plans were pushed back due to some disputes about budgetary overruns and preservation issues, but that the DHS is now prepared to move forward with a smaller-scale plan that preserves most of the building's historic architectural integrity. Construction work was supposed to start in late 2015 or early 2016 (I've not been able to find any more recent sources to confirm whether that actually occurred) and wrap up in 2021. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess, then, that the best thing we can do is give that update, and if anyone who's living in the neighborhood or otherwise familiar with the actual situation could post a further update, wonderful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Updated with reference to that article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Another thing is that there isn't anything listed in Buy (I mentioned this on the article's talk page a little while back). If there aren't any shops that are relevant to travelers, then let's say so. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for September 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hiking and backpacking in Israel

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's delete the empty sections for now, but I'm willing to support the article as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I like the article, but I am in no hurry to go hiking carry 7.5 litres of water per day! A few minor points: There are some empty sections that could be deleted, and before it goes on the main page it would benefit from some more links to other travel topics including a See Also section linking to other Hiking articles and other Israel topics. The article has a lot of internal links, possibly a few could go. AlasdairW (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good overall, but I can't support the article in good conscience until the empty sections are filled or deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ypsi. I can now gladly support this nominee. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for September 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Edinburgh/New Town
Support as nominator. It should be reasonably up-to-date as a lot of changes have been made in the last six months. AlasdairW (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, a quick glance reveals no big issues (a pic or two towards the middle would be good and some coords are also missing). Concerning scheduling, I think there is still a summer slot left in 2016 so that this one doesn't sit here for almost two years. However we may want to have a month or two between this one, London Hampstead and Driving in the UK (which I nominated for FTT a few hours ago) to avoid having two UK articles overlapping. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor quibble: if we're going to break up "Buy" and "Drink" geographically, it should be done with second-level section headings, not with random paragraphs interrupting the bullet-point list. Of course, that's far too minor an issue to preclude my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Reserving the right to object : You're right that 2005 is a long time ago, but I think we should put all repeat features on the back burner, to be considered only if we don't have another worthy article that's never been featured and is ready to go. Does anyone disagree, and if so, why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Edinburgh/New Town has never been featured, the main Edinburgh article has. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Objection withdrawn! haha :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for August 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Salalah

 * Support by nominator. Perhaps StellarD will have ideas about how to make the blurb more colorful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I'll work on the blurb. I'd also like to change the page banner to something a little more enticing. Regarding timing, this is a flexible destination and could fill several calendar slots. The high season is July and August during the khareef, with the most important annual festival held in August. The shoulder months are also good times, as then the room rates are not so sky-high. For divers and birders, the best months are in the winter. – StellarD (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Weather-wise Salalah probably could be featured during any month of the year. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * StellarD, do you agree with this? If so, please edit the "time" tab in the nomination to mention the best months and the fact that any month is fine to visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * w:Salalah is what I based my judgement on. The temperature is quite stable around the year, and there's no month with torrential rain. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've omitted June because it can be quite humid, and expanded the winter months. The blurb would be best tailored to whichever month is chosen, as the character of the place changes quite dramatically. – StellarD (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, StellarD. Could the blurb encompass both the khareef and winter in one sentence? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * StellarD - to answer the question you posed in your edit summary ("how flexible is the 145-character limit?"): de facto, the standard is three lines or less of text on the DotM banner. The new blurb should be fine - it could even probably be lengthened by a few words, if there's something else you wanted to include but didn't feel you had space for. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You might use the blurb for Praia as a guide; it's just about the absolute maximum length that fits on three lines. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Good information, if a bit sparse. Minor issues:


 * The "Climate" subsection should contain some prose rather than just the climate infobox.
 * "Go next" needs to be elaborated on a bit - sure Taqah is 35km away on Hwy 49 and you can drive to Mirbat in an hour, but why do I want to go to these places?


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it's a good article, but I think the descriptions are lacking the kind of information that makes the reader want to visit. Maybe it needs a "History" section or just expand the Understand section. It says it was historically famous for the frankincense trade; give us some history. It was independent until the Qaboos came to power; did its independent status contribute to any unique cultural practices, etc? What happened when the Qaboos took over? Why/How did things change? The Jibbali tribes "maintain" government distrust; What distrust was there to begin with?
 * I think the "See" descriptions are similar. Surely some of the sites are worth more than a one-line description. Where is the hook? Where is the juicy information that pulls me in?
 * Job's Tomb and Ayn Razat should be in the "See" section. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Salalah is scheduled to run in August. StellarD, would you like to tackle some of the suggestions ChubbyWimbus has given? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll work on expanding and rewriting a few sections. I disagree though with moving Job's Tomb and Ayn Razat to the 'see' section, as neither is in Salalah itself but rather a half-hour drive from the city. –StellarD (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks, StellarD. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * StellarD, May I ask why you say that you "simply did not have the patience to address the tedious nitpicking" by responding to my comment directly but you seemed fine addressing it through a third party? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ChubbyWimbus: A quick perusal of the article would answer some of the questions you raised above. Clicking on the map would tell you that Job's Tomb and Ayn Razat are not actually located in Salalah. The background history of Dhofar and the Jiballi tribes has been covered where it should be: in the article about Dhofar, a single mouse click away. The individual sites in 'see' are not large or complex, unlike for example Angkor Wat or the Taj Mahal. I do agree that the lede and 'understand' sections should be rewritten, primarily because they are currently poorly written and not a good example of some of the better writing on this site.


 * It is very easy to be an armchair critic without taking the time to understand the subject one is critiquing, and it can leave others with the impression that the critic is more interested in arguing than in providing constructive feedback. I consider it a waste of time to participate in endless circular arguments and prefer to disengage myself. In any case as Salalah had not been added to the schedule I considered the topic likely closed, and removed this page from my watchlist. I rejoined the discussion after being tagged by Ikan Kekek, and added my comment to the discussion below to explain to other participants, as a courtesy, why I had removed myself from the conversation. I do concede that I probably should have had more patience and participated a bit longer. –StellarD (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for August 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake safety

 * Support as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support It looks a reasonable article. The last paragraph of Tsunamis may be too strongly "don't climb a tree" as this New Zealand page does suggest doing so if you can't escape. It needs a "See also" before it goes on the main page. I am also wondering about having a "See" section which could a) list museums that have good explanations, simulations etc b) list past earthquake sites where visitors are welcome, and there maybe damage repair etc to be seen (see Earthquake tourism in Christchurch. AlasdairW (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, I guess, though the article seems pretty short. Could it perhaps be expanded a bit? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm thinking over whether to support this article or not. It needed a lot of copy editing, and I also didn't like that it told people to go home after an earthquake, seeming to discourage any impulse to stay and do volunteer relief work, which some tourists did in places like Nepal and Thailand after earthquakes. What do you all think? I realize this is about earthquake safety, not volunteering, but I don't think we should actively discourage people from helping out if they want to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I feel like it's featurable now, but I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable not being the 4th vote for it and having someone like User:ChubbyWimbus, who has a keen critical eye, or User:LtPowers or both, look at the article and see what he/they think(s) of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At a first glance, it seems a bit short. Without knowing more about earthquake safety, though, my comments would have to be limited to issues of style. Powers (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look at it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Getting this to four support votes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The blurb
Is it just me or did you violate the "no would after if" rule? Could an English native speaker please have a look? I am not sure either, but if and when this is featured, we don't want an error in the blurb... Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I just tweaked it. It doesn't promote our guide so much anymore, but it is more grammatically correct. Anyone should please feel free to tweak it further. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for August 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Halifax

 * Weak support as of now. A few easy fixes will upgrade my vote to full support, namely:


 * about half the listings need coordinates,
 * "Go next" needs a few minor tweaks to conform with the Wikivoyage standard,
 * the "Climate" section needs to be filled out with more than just the temperature/precipitation infobox, and
 * the "Cope" section is empty (it contained information about a drug addiction treatment center that I reverted as irrelevant to travellers).

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost — when the things Andre mentioned are fixed, also I will be happy to support Halifax for DotM. BTW apparently the Cope section can be left out if there's nothing important to add there.
 * Ps. I have several ideas for summer DotMs. But as we have just a few summer months, dropping all 10+ of those articles here at once would almost be vandalism, I guess :). ϒpsilon (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mention them on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record the issues mentioned above are now fixed, except for the coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. The coordinates should be a quick and easy fix that I'll get to soon. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like all the issues have been addressed and I can upgrade my vote to full support. Ypsi, would you like to follow suit? Ikan or anyone else? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I didn't read through this article really carefully just now, but it looks good. I alphabetized some sections. All listings should be alphabetized (ignoring "the") before the article is actually featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess so. It was me who added the coordinates. Support. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support, gentlemen. We're one shy of the requisite four votes; would anyone care to step in and make it official? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Historically important destination, beautiful article. Ibaman (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for July 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Palmyra (New York)

 * Support. That's a lot of really good work! I haven't read through the entire article with a fine-toothed comb, but I feel very satisfied that I've read through enough of it to be able to testify to its high quality. A few more photos, if available (perhaps one of the canal?) would be welcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Free photos are hard to come by, in part because searching produces false positives with Palmyra. There are some options out there, and I've got a couple of my own I might be able to use; I just haven't added them yet. I appreciate the reminder, though!  Powers (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of photos; feel free to look for some more to add! Powers (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent work, Powers, though I echo Ikan's request for more photos. Let's put this on the Main Page in July 2016, to coincide with the Hill Cumorah pageant (and to avoid running too close to Buffalo's DotM run, which I envision for June 2015). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Small nitpick: in an article with nine other places in the Eat section that aren't national chains, do we really need a listing for Subway? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Need, no, but the list isn't strongly curated, so it seemed odd to omit it just because it's a chain. In small towns like this, without local specialty cuisines, sometimes consistency and predictability is desirable for a traveler over greasy spoons and diners with unknown standards.  I'd thought about just mentioning it without giving it a full listing, but I thought its location inside a gas station was best explained in a full listing. Powers (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - The article looks good, I can't really find anything big to complain about though I do notice there are quite many redlinks in the article. Yeah, and of course some more photos would be great. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are redlinks a problem for some reason? And there are now six photos in the article; if you find any more you'd like to add feel free, but policy does request we don't go overboard.  Powers (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe we have enough photos at this point. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, with the two that Powers added since this discussion started. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

[unindent] This is another article with 3 votes of support. Any interest from anyone else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support-I can't imagine there is anything important left out of this article. My only suggestion is to add a summary paragraph under "Do" since all the other sections have one.Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Request - As spring approaches, I am likely to have the opportunity to head out to Palmyra to take photos before the article is featured in July. Does anyone have an idea for a photo subject that would enhance the article? Powers (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the article is well-covered in terms of photographs. The only thing that strikes me as obviously lacking is any images of the Hill Cumorah pageant itself, but given that the article will already be on the Main Page by the time this year's starts, we would be limited to what can be found on Commons or the copyleft-compatible sections of Flickr. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Blurb
I appreciate [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates&diff=next&oldid=2979921 this go] at revising the blurb, but it falls a bit flat with me. "On the banks of the Erie Canal" is pretty pedestrian -- it'd be nice to explain the appeal of the Erie Canal. It's a bit awkward to use "charming" unironically when the article itself addresses the overuse of the term. And "famous" seems like filler. I agree it's good to mention the Hill Cumorah Pageant, though, so it's definitely an improvement in that respect. Anyone have any other thoughts? Powers (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: "it'd be nice to explain the appeal of the Erie Canal" - It's a bit of a tall order to do that within the space constraints of a three-line-maximum DotM blurb.


 * Re: use of the word "charming" - In my opinion, DotM blurbs are the one place on the site where it's okay to use (within reason) flowery promotional language. After all, with featured articles we are trying to sell our readers - not on the destination as a great place to visit, necessarily, but on the article as an example of some of our best content. Overused though it may be, viewed in that light "charming" is an appropriate type of word to use, and is maybe the most accurate way to succinctly describe the town given, again, the space constraints DotM blurbs present us with.


 * Re: "famous" - I'll cop to that as a filler word, but I think the copy reads better with an adjective qualifying "Hill Cumorah Festival". I'm not going to advocate for this as hard as the other two points, though.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for July 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Copenhagen Airport

 * Support as the nominator. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost - The article looks nice and has (almost) all the things we would want in an airport article, but there are still some quirks and a few things that I would want a bit more detail about. E.g. the expansion plans: When were they announced and how serious are they? If they are put to action what will the effect on voyagers be? Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Very close. Hobbitschuster is right that more could be said about the expansion plans, but that alone wouldn't be enough to preclude my support. A bigger issue is the need for copyediting (phrases like "In terminal 3, the terminus of Copenhagen Metro line M2 is located" make it pretty obvious that the article could do with some attention from a native English speaker). That being said, the information itself seems very complete and it shouldn't be too difficult to get CPH up to a featureable state. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - a number of things could be improved, e.g. we could use more photos, but in general I do not feel that expansion information in particular is needed unless the expansion is either a) underway, affecting the travellers or b) finished, and thus some info becomes outdated. Otherwise, it's still up in the air and unnecessary chaff distracting from the actual info. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find any text about expansion plans, has someone removed it? If so, at least one problem would've been fixed. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems so, I guess I can change my vote to Support now. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I have only been to Copenhagen by train so I don't know the airport, but the article looks good. Ideally it would have some information for transferring passengers - can one change between planes to/from non-Shengen destinations without needing a Danish visa etc. AlasdairW (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for citizens of 12 "bad" countries, everyone can transfer at Schengen airports without a visa (including people who would need a visa to leave airside). --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Closer than before but some wording and style fixes should still happen before this going live for me to offer my full-fledged support Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In progress. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. It took longer than I thought it would, but the copyedits are finally done. CPH is good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Gilding the lilly here (or whatever the expression is), but I can now vote support. Good work. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for July 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Stockholm

 * Not yet per comment but I'm putting this here now as there are still vacant DotM slots for next summer. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - as our big city articles go, this one's really good. I am not saying this because I was mentioned above, as I did precious little compared to other users (and yes, I could have done more in the recent weeks when it was called for...) My comment would be that since Eurovision returns to Stockholm for May 2016, we could feature the city in May or even April (when people will be planning their visits to the city for the shows in the first half of May), and from my experience May is perhaps the best month to visit. I intend to head to Stockholm for the ESC myself and I will be looking into the article immediately prior to fix all the issues that might arise from last-minute changes for sure. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ϒpsilon, there are also walking tours listed. To date, the consensus is that walking tours, regardless of whether they are free or not, generally should not be listed when in theory, it's possible to do the same tour yourself without a guide. The same standard doesn't apply to bike tours because cycling is considered an activity and walking isn't, or something (I don't think that's really the reason, but I've never really understood this policy distinction). So yeah, I agree that the article still could use some more work, but I expect to support the article's nomination soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PrinceGloria - also, especially in light of the comment you made and then retracted for unrelated reasons, Indianapolis is already scheduled for May 2016. We already ran Vienna last summer to coincide with Eurovision, and there are other events besides that for which we can time DotM features. In fact, save for the UK and Ireland, very few people in most English-speaking countries (i.e. the readership of English Wikivoyage) follow Eurovision, so it's not even a particularly good "timely event" to choose. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The readership of English Wikivoyage is far beyond countries where English is an official language - it is the "default" Wikivoyage, especially in light of the relatively underdeveloped state (or nonexistence) of many language versions. I for one do not even visit WV in my own language. Plus Australia is now participating as well due to, drum roll, the massive following of the contest on the continent. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, muscling other "timely event" candidates out of the way on the schedule to accommodate a second consecutive Eurovision host city is excessive to the point of ridiculous. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Prince removed the walking tours, and I've now cut down the insane number of bulleted points and made the text more comfortable to read. Apparently many businesses have locations in three or even four districts so probably it's OK to leave their listings with all the addresses here in this article, otherwise descriptions would need to be duplicated. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; I'm ready to give the article a vote of support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have done a lot of the work on the article, I abstain from voting. Requesting feedback on latest cleanup. /Yvwv (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yvwv - though the article might need some (not much) copyediting by a native English speaker, your recent edits look fine in terms of substance. I hope you don't feel that it's a requirement that you abstain from voting because you're the article's principal contributor, because that's not the case - on the contrary, you're perhaps better equipped than anyone else to say whether there's any inaccurate or missing information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like I haven't yet voted on this nominee. I mentioned the possible need for copyediting above, and I wonder if the Yellow Pages-style list of embassies is really necessary (might they perhaps be moved to the district articles?) Despite those quite minor concerns, I'm happy to provide the fourth support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it helpful to have embassies in the district articles? Usually you are looking for a specific one, not wondering which ones are nearby. --LPfi (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Should the blurb be more characteristic? A suggestion: The capital of Sweden, built within a beautiful archipelago, is the home of the Nobel Prize, the Vasa (a 17th century warship) and the ABBA Museum. /Yvwv (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for June 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

London/Hampstead

 * Support. This article duly went through the starnom process and was confirmed as a star, so unless there's some problem that wasn't noticed or has cropped up since, there shouldn't be any issue with the article, and as I said, it is a lovely part of London. The London article was featured in July/August, 2012, so that's the only issue I can see, but by next June, almost 2 years will have passed since then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, though I'm not convinced this article belongs in OtBP rather than DotM. Even if Hampstead isn't the most famous neighborhood in London, it's still fairly well-known.


 * As for the fact that London was featured as DotM in summer 2012, please see my comments here.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not dead-set on it being OtBP rather than DotM, but as I recall, it's in Zone 3, and while Kenwood House is hardly unknown, it is not on the heaviest tourist routes, which are concentrated in Zone 1 plus the Kew Gardens and some other places I may be forgetting because I've been to London only once so far. I'll go along with whatever the consensus ends up being, and I would love to hear from Londoners on how they view the neighborhood in terms of beaten path vs. off the beaten path. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Burmesedays did great work on this one back in the day. I would definitely call it OtBP. I've been there (mostly to see Keats' House), but only because I've lived in London—I wouldn't have made it on a week-long trip, and I tend to get around! --Peter Talk 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, and of course listings have to be updated a little before it's featured. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. It does need updating, but has a lot of good stuff. Something also needs to be done about the map - as lat/longs are added to listings they will get numbers, which won't match the current static map. I would suggest removing most of the listings from the static map, and adding a dynamic map to support listings. AlasdairW (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for June 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Money

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Might be good to have a couple of sentences stating the obvious - different countries use different currencies and rates vary etc - at the start for first time travellers. It probably should have a caution "Check with your bank for definitive advice", as I wonder whether there are some statements that don't apply to cards issued by all banks in all countries. AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This one would benefit from a 4th support vote. Ikan? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'll be able to give you an opinion. My mind has trouble with this kind of article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not yet - has been edited a lot in recent times, might need to wait a bit, I would not like a FTT to be edited a lot during its time on the main page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's been nominated is probably why it's being actively edited, and the article won't be featured before the end of June. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, in my own experience, the surge in page visits that articles usually get when they're linked on the Main Page often translates into an uptick in edits during that same period, anyway. Beyond protecting or semi-protecting articles during their time on the Main Page - an idea that we've considered and ultimately rejected in the past, edits to current DotMs, OtBPs and FTTs are inevitable, they generally do no harm, and any vandalism is generally noticed and reverted pretty quickly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I might have misspoken. What I was getting at is that we thus far have only featured articles that were mostly "settled", not requiring major revision. The money article has been basically rewritten more than once in the last couple of months, which is far from it being "settled"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We need one more support vote for this nominee. Would someone care to do the honors? Andrewssi2, perhaps, off the top of my head? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for June 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Seattle

 * Support. Looks like the copyedits I remember this article needing have already been taken care of, so there's nothing bad I can say about this article: exhaustively detailed, plenty of pictures, written in an informative and engaging way. Let's slide this article in where Indianapolis was supposed to go, in the May 2016 slot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I made a few more light copy edits. This looks like a great and very complete article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Brilliant article. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Great city article; well-organized and fairly comprehensive. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for May 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Dilijan

 * Support by nominator. This is a picturesque place and the article is nicely listified. Some prices may need to be updated, but I don't see anything that would otherwise prevent us from featuring this article tomorrow, which we won't do in any case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Close The issues are not great, but I think these need dealt with: the Geological Museum should at least have a little description, the "Do" section needs to expand on each of the topics. The current bulleted list is as helpful as empty space, and it needs some "Go Next" listings. Also, is it misrepresented as a "resort town"? That is the first thing the article says about it, but none of the pictures, sites, or activities suggest that it's actually a resort town. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with CW, they are easily fixed but they do have to be fixed before the article goes on the main page. However, as Armenian phrasebook likely will go on the main page sometimes in the fall, and the OtBP section is otherwise practically fully booked for the rest of 2015, it will take some time before Dilijan will get featured. Per Climate-data, I would say the time to feature is from May to October. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did my best, as someone who has no personal knowledge of the town, to address your concerns. I have no idea whether it is being misrepresented as a resort town. I think I'll post something about climate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I created a climate chart and also wrote about the climate. See what you think of the article now. Reviews of the Geological Museum and Art Gallery of Dilijan on Tripadvisor were generally positive, but there were only 4 of them. I have no idea how much I'd like the museum if I visited; some of the art on display that I found pictures of wouldn't interest me. So I thought it was probably best to quote (with quotation marks and citation) and paraphrase from what the museum says about itself, and let travellers choose whether to go based on that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Close . ChubbyWimbus' point regarding the "Do" section is well taken, and is also arguably applicable to "Buy" and "Drink" too. Also, we need coordinates in the "Eat" section. And finally, I understand there's a school of thought that holds it to be acceptable to configure dynamic maps such that some outlying POIs are left off the margins, but I think 8 out of 11 POIs invisible in the default settings is stretching it way too far. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, unless someone who actually knows the town would like to fill in more information, we'll probably have to slush the nomination. I do have a question about the map, though. I have to reduce the zoom level to 11 to show all but one of the "Nearby" attractions (#10), but then the town is just an orange plus sign. From the viewpoint of seeing the numbers of listings, it's not so bad, because the plus sign is hiding only #2 and #3, so would you recommend that zoom level, even though the result is a regional map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably OK to make the "Eat" section "Eat and drink", given the remark in the "Drink" section. I'm going to do that now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I zoomed the map in and recentered it well to the west of town, but that might need to be revisited if the Eat & drink and Sleep sections are subjected to thorough Geo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] Thanks to User:Kiaora, the article is much improved. What do you all think of it now, in terms of adequacy of content? Also, should the map now be zoomed in a bit to make the town's points of interest more visible, given the higher number now covered in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks much better now. Thousand thanks to Kiaora and yourself for valuable additions. I'd prefer not to zoom in the map, as there are quite a couple of POIs outside the town that may go unnoticed if the map is zoomed in. The reader can zoom it in him/herself to get a closer look. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Closer than before, though I still can't quite support this nominee . At a minimum, "Sleep" and "Eat" need price range templates, and Dilijan National Park needs to be moved from "Do" to "See", with coordinates for all the attractions within the park that are listed under second-level bullet points. Also it'd be nice if "Buy" was expanded a bit, but that's less essential. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought parks were usually put in "Do" as places for activities. Is that incorrect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By convention, city parks are listed in See. This may be a unique case where a national park has a listing within a city article. You could make an argument for Do, but See is probably more consistent. Powers (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We're a little more than a month from Dilijan's stint on the Main Page, and we've yet to move the listing of Dilijan National Park from "Do" to "See". It's a quick fix. I'll do it myself if I absolutely have to, but I'm coming back to my Wikivoyage work after a long quiet spell of taking care of offwiki tasks, and I've got a lot on my docket. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I've now moved the listing to See and changed the listing type to "see". Is there something else to fix with that listing as you wrote a comment instead of just copying and pasting the listing yourself (it took less than 5 seconds)? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ypsi - I apologize for not being clearer about this. The park itself should go in "See", along with any sights and attractions in the park, but there are a number of hiking trails in the park that should stay in "Do" (perhaps we should create a "Hiking" subsection within "Do", as there are quite a few trails). For some reason, I had thought I went over all of this in an earlier comment, but now I see that I did not. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking over the article further, I see there are also a few See listings that lack geo coordinates. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone (Ypsi?) got to the hiking trails before I did. I corrected a few other minor issues and now feel comfortable giving this nominee my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the great work you did on this article, Ypsi and AndreCarrotflower! The article looks much better! I think we still have only 3 votes, though, with one demurral. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ChubbyWimbus, do you think this article is featurable now, or are there other necessary edits that have not yet been done? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I can Support the nomination. The pictures need to be cut down to probably just a few. It's a wall of pictures right now down the right. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your vote and comments. An alternative is to space out the photos more, so they're not all in a column one after the other. Which thumbnails would you want to remove? I would say the least interesting ones are The Geological Museum and Art Gallery of Dilijan, Dilijan museum of Folk Art, the strange-looking (overprocessed?) Khachkar at Haghartsin, and Traditional bakery beneath Tufenkian restaurant, but I don't think it's necessary to remove them all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for May 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Partridge Point

 * Support as the nominator. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a much better dive article than the previous nominee. Ideally I'd like to see the listings in this section expanded beyond one-liners (and I'm surprised that wasn't brought up when it was nominated as a Star) - but with Peter going inactive for the next little while nothing's probably going to get done about that, and anyway it's not enough to preclude my support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't have much of a way of judging a dive guide, but hey, it's a Star, and it looks very informative and is certainly nicely illustrated. I don't know what would be helpful in terms of expanding that section; I suppose it will be clear to any experienced diver (of which I am not one). I didn't realize Peter Southwood had gone inactive; that's a pity, but I hope it's because he's too busy enjoying life and comes back rested before too long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The west side of False Bay is usually at its best during the winter months, but over the last couple of years has been good over a somewhat longer season, due to variations in the wind patterns. March to November would have described the season in 2015. I am not entirely inactive, but very busy on other projects. I still try to get in a couple of survey dives each week, so the maps are getting worked on when the sites are divable and scheduled, and I will try to go over the article soon to see if anything is dated. Probably won't get to update the map until May or so. If anyone has suggestions for tweaking the article in the meanwhile,let me know, and I will see what I can do. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy travels diving, Peter! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll toss in a fourth support vote. Not that I know much about diving but like Ikan said, it's a Star. :) PerryPlanet (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for May 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Cartagena (Colombia)

 * Very close. The article has many of the same minor and easily fixable problems as Amritsar, minus the copyediting: about half of its listings lack coordinates, it needs a dynamic map, and the lede should be developed beyond a single sentence. Also, given some of the far-in-the-past dates that crop up here and there in the article - for example, $15,800 for a taxi from the airport to El Laguito "as of November 2009" - it might be good to update information where appropriate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not yet — Many sections are pretty short in this article, for example there really has to be more to see in Cartagena. Perhaps there's something from de and pt worth bringing over? Restaurants lack price categories... ϒpsilon (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've started a thread about this article's issues here at Talk:Cartagena (Colombia). Will probably start working on the article myself in a week or two. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, I think. I've fixed most of those easy fixable problems. Now there are just the really challenging ones left, namely a couple of old dates, perhaps even three listings lacking descriptions and maybe even some wrongly formatted currency notations. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * June? - since the article is listed as "pending stronger consensus to support", how about listing it in June instead and clearing the spot for Stockholm, which will come into spotlight precisely in May? What is the best time to visit Columbia by the way, is there a major event in the city coming in the next 12 months which could tie in nicely? PrinceGloria (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Close - I think I like the article, except for the redlink in the by plane section... I am not sure we should present something like that as featured... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a place from where there's a non-stop flight. I wouldn't support deleting it. The solution is for someone to start an article about Barrancabermeja (frankly, a place I've never heard of, but Barrancabermeja makes it sound worth an article - though not exactly a highlight of a visit to Colombia - particularly since business travelers in the oil industry may have occasion to go there). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks like the problems I mentioned in my struck-through earlier comment have been addressed. Cartagena looks ready to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, at least for now. A fine destination & the article looks good, but the risk of Zika virus is too high to be recommending it in the near future.
 * From a Guardian article: "Colombia is second to Brazil in the number of Zika cases reported with more than 25,600 people infected, including 3,100 pregnant women." Pashley (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pashley, please see this discussion in the Pub. Despite the news coverage surrounding the virus, the facts remains that 1) Zika virus is a major health issue only for a small minority of travellers, namely pregnant women, and 2) there's no evidence that it can be transmitted person-to-person, so there's no chance of us being complicit in folks spreading the virus in their own countries after contracting the disease as travellers in Zika-infected areas. That being the case, I'd much rather Wikivoyage treat its readers like adults who are capable of making informed decisions, rather than knuckling under to histrionic media hype. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I started the pub discussion & have followed it since. The virus can be transmitted person-to-person, and there have been cases of travellers infecting others in their home countries; see Zika_virus. Male travellers risk bringing the infection home to their sexual partners, so it is not just pregnant women at risk.
 * There is certainly some media hype involved, but agencies like CDC are issuing serious warnings. Pashley (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The same Wikipedia article you cited describes the evidence of sexually-transmitted Zika as tenuous. The "serious warning" that the CDC has issued is only aimed at pregnant women, and I think it's telling that they explicitly said "testing of men for the purpose of assessing risk for sexual transmission is not recommended". More than that, though, I think it infantilizes and insults our readers to assume they can't deal appropriately with information we may present them with about potentially hazardous destinations. What few people haven't heard about Zika in the news yet, will quickly learn about it if our article inspires them to consider a trip to Cartagena, from which point they can decide for themselves whether the rewards outweigh the risks. Fact is, there are risk factors, some disease-related, that go with travelling pretty much anywhere in the world. At Swakopmund's nomination I didn't see any caveats about HIV/AIDS, despite the fact that Namibia has one of the highest prevalence rates of any country in the world (over 1 in 6 of adults), and HIV has far more devastating effects than Zika which affect pregnant women, nonpregnant women, and men alike. It seems we're fine with simply placing a warningbox on the Namibia page (we don't have one on the Swakopmund article, but perhaps we should) and leaving it at that. And, insofar as there are well-known ways to minimize the chance of contracting or spreading HIV, there are also well-known ways to do so for Zika - wearing long-sleeved, bright-colored clothes; using mosquito nets; abstaining from sexual contact for a while after returning home if you're a man; thinking long and hard about whether to go at all if you're a pregnant woman. It's a lot simpler than the media hysteria is making it out to be, at least for those who don't live in infected areas. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that it's so close until the article is featured, I don't think we should put Cartagena on hold for who knows how many months/years. Also, Zika is spread by the same mosquito as dengue and yellow fewer, and as there is no vaccine against the former (yes, there exists a dengue vaccine which is about to become available but I believe in practice it won't be available in Colombia for several months) you will need avoid mosquito bites anyway. That said, as of now I'd avoid nominating new candidates from Central or northern South America. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Cartagena_(Colombia) currently does not mention Zika. If the nomination goes ahead, we should at least add a sentence about it and a link to Zika virus. Pashley (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Pashley (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * support - everything's there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for April 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Mount Rinjani

 * Support? --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The listings in "See" absolutely can't lack lengthy descriptions. "Buy", "Eat", and possibly "Get in and "Get around" should all be lengthened. "Drink" should be eliminated or merged into "Eat", as this somewhat awkwardly named section is supposed to specifically deal with bars and nightlife, of which there presumably are none here. The information in Do#Guides and trekking providers should be carefully vetted to make sure they comply with tour policy.


 * If we do feature this article, I envision April 2016 (the only remaining OtBP slot until the following autumn, so let's stick to nominating DotMs and FTTs for the next few months!), with Hilo in February and Antigua Guatemala in March.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The remarks in "Drink" seem useful to travelers, which is ultimately the point, isn't it? I'm not sure I see the point in folding that section into "Eat"; wouldn't it still have to be a subsection, in that case? I think I mostly agree with you on the rest, though I hadn't really noticed these things before you mentioned them (my main activity on this article is reverting a steady stream of touting). For example, in the "Buy" section, I'd like to know what kinds of hand-woven cloth are available for purchase. Just batik, or perhaps some other styles? I'm not sure the information is completely essential, but it sure would be useful to cloth connoisseurs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid some sections cannot be very much expanded; as this is a national park/mountain one cannot expect there to be very many services to list. Those seem to be available in the town/village(?) of Senaru. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I take your point, but here is the "Buy" section: "In and around Sembalun Lawang and in Bayan you will have the opportunity to purchase unique and high-quality hand-woven cloth." OK, I suppose these are villages outside the park, but what kind of cloth is it? Also, since these villages lack their own articles, in what article should they be covered? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * North Lombok? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoa! There's no "Buy" section in that article! Anyway, yeah, especially since none of the townships listed in that article have articles and both Sembalun Lawang and Bayan are mentioned, I agree with you, Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved the content to North Lombok. Should we delete the Buy subheading in Mount Rinjani? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to support this nomination. I still have some constructive criticisms: First, I think that there should really be articles for both Senaru (which has one) and Sembalun Lawang, which does not have one. The listings for lodgings in these villages should be moved to either article. (The other alternative is to merge Senaru with Mount Rinjani and also cover Sembalun Lawang more fully in the article, but I think that's not as good as 3 articles with cross-references as necessary and appropriate but no duplication of listings.) Second, I've figured out by implication that the mountain stream water you can get on the mountain is safe to drink, but if that's true, I think it should be stated explicitly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried to notify Felix who apparently knows a thing or two about the area but he doesn't seem active here any longer. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Felix hasn't edited since last December 27, and I hope he's just too busy and in excellent health. I'm wondering if User:Othello95 or User:JarrahTree are familiar with the Mount Rinjani area. Are you, guys? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, only just re-incarnated as JarrahTree from satusuro, and never got to Rinjani - my limited range of pan-Indonesian travel leaves me reverting to very old copies of Bill Moon's Indonesia Handbook for glimpses of the archipelago of the 1970s and 1980s, at places I never got to - JarrahTree (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A great deal of progress has been made on the issues I identified in my earlier "Not yet" vote, but I'm afraid I still can't support this article as long as the "Buy" section is completely empty (which, incidentally, also means this article is technically not at Guide level). If there really is nothing to buy within the boundaries of the park, we should explain as much or, at the very least, delete the subheading. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, Ikan also suggested we should delete the Buy section, after all it's a park. Still waiting if User:Gsarwa would have some knowledge about the mountain. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem - as an inhabitant a long time ago near Merapi in Central Java and reseaarcher of Indonesian volcanoes, I would not support any visiting at all of active volcanoes in Indonesia, even if they are not erupting.

Rinjani's current eruptions are forcing Ngura Rai airport in Bali closure, so they must be severe. Sorry to be a damp squib on this. Also, most things like 'buy' are so unbelievably irrelevent for volcanoes as to be best left out. Sorry, I am sure there are more inert/inactive volcanoes that are as interesting in Indonesia. JarrahTree (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Too bad the volcano couldn't stay calm until we've featured it as OtBP :(. Luckily there's still almost half a year until Mt Rinjani would've been on the Main Page so we have time to pick some other article for April (or just put Washington/Anacostia there?). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's not be too hasty regarding this. Last year, several months before Mitzpe Ramon was scheduled to be run as OtBP, there was a flare-up in the Israeli/Palestinian violence and we had rumblings about whether to reschedule its tenure on the Main Page. That turned out not to be necessary. Echoing Ypsilon, we have a full six months before Mount Rinjani is to be featured, and the situation on the ground with the current eruption could change in the interim.


 * Second of all, to address your specific comment "I would not support any visiting at all of active volcanoes in Indonesia, even if they are not erupting": this is a judgment call that each individual traveller has to make for himself, and given the wide range of trekking operators, established ascent routes, and the fact that this is a national park, plenty of visitors have judged a visit to Mount Rinjani to be worth the risk (at least when it's not erupting). I think there would need to be a consensus from more than one user before we could justify slushing the nominee on that basis, but in my personal opinion it's not the place of any of us to dictate to any visitor, through slushing this nominee for that reason even though it's a perfectly well-written article, what the appropriate threshold of risk ought to be.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's wait and see how it goes with the current eruption, and postpone if and as needed. There's many places in the world that come with considerable dangers to visitors, but are nonetheless known and celebrated destinations. Warnings are in order, but there's nothing wrong with showcasing them too, once in a while. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Nevertheless, let's keep an eye on the situation and hope that the mountain is reopened and otherwise safe in April. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If the turn around time is as said, keep the article. I simply was stating a personal preference in relation to short term prognosis of conditions.

OK, the reasoning from Andre is good, and I agree wholeheartedly with his reservations about the one users comment not enough to slush the thing.

The reasons why I would never go anywhere near the mouth of an active volcano in central java, is my research has identified the number of people who go up and never come back from Merapi in central java - the risk of getting caught in gas clouds that are unannounced is more than I can personally accept. That said, I would never gauge a risk in Indonesia against their capacity to have businesses that are risky, Indonesians have very low risk perception if it is the difference between being able to get a few tourist dollars, having been in vehicles that have gone off the road due to a number of issues, I have experienced that first hand. So if the word slushing (oh those nue ardentes in Java...) is volcanoligically the one to use, then please keep the article but be aware (a) Indonesians have a very dangerous level of hazard/risk perception which might not fit with more astute visitors (b) younger fitter travellers might have the same level risk taking attitude (statistically proven) (c)  the article itself as andre points out is well done and good set of info  (d)  it would be well worth having the article if rinjani's current activity is as open and shut as recent reports suggest...  And just to qualify the concern against other things, a friend went up Merapi in Central Java recently, and came back ecstatic about the experience, so I do know that statistically the inactive periods on these good ole guys is a safe time, and well worth the effort if youre into that sort of thing. JarrahTree (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update - It looks like Mount Rinjani National Park is closed till March 31, 2016, for reasons that the website doesn't get into (it says "email us for more information"). Rinjani is due up on the Main Page on April 11th, so we're cutting it pretty close. As of now I don't think the situation calls for slushing the article (this may be an effect of unusual El Niño weather patterns rather than an increase in volcanic activity; who knows, they may reopen it early), but needless to say the situation should be watched closely. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Grrr, before Christmas when I last checked their home page a part of the park was still open. :(
 * BTW, we may also have a problem with three US destinations in the OtBP section and one FTT towards the second half of the year (I've been too lazy to start up a discussion about it on the talk page). ϒpsilon (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On my computer at home I have a draft version of the schedule grid up through October 2016, which includes both Palmyra and Anacostia. As for North Central New Mexico, it's just going to have to wait till 2017. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Further update - The national park website has been updated again, this time with a bit more in the way of specific information about the park closure. Apparently they're having a whopper of a rainy season on Lombok. I think the prospects of us being able to feature Rinjani as scheduled in April are significantly brighter, given that the dry season will have already begun, but let's still keep an eye on the situation. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Update 2014-04-07 - The national park website still hasn't been updated from before April 1st, the planned date for the reopening of the park. However, this Facebook photo album from the page of a licensed trekking operator, dated April 1st and 2nd, shows climbers in the park, so it's to be assumed they're open for business as planned. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The park is open. The message at the home page says that the park has been closed for the last few months, but the message ends with "Park open on April 1, 2016". The same (or a similar) message was there a week ago when I checked out their home page and after reading that I removed the cautionbox from the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ypsi - I did see that. But, given the imperfectly translated English on the site, I wasn't sure whether that was written after April 1st to indicate "the park is open", or before April 1st to indicate "the park will be open"/"is planned to open". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the English on the site is, ahem, interesting... ϒpsilon (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for April 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear tourism

 * Support as the nominator. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a lot more extensive than it was the last time I read through it. I did a bit of copy editing, and it probably could use more, but it's pretty impressive and definitely an interesting and unusual travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Thanks for the nomination, ϒpsilon, and all those who contributed lately to upgrade Nuclear tourism to guide status. Perfect timing for the anniversary. Until then we can do some more polishing and I have a couple more listings to add. Danapit (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * After the talk page discussion about it went dormant, I was wondering whether we were still planning on nominating this article for FTT. I'd also like to take this opportunity to commend Yvwv and Hobbitschuster for all the hard work they've done lately in the realm of new travel topic articles, including this one. If this momentum keeps up, we might be well on our way to a solution to the perennial paucity of new FTT candidates.


 * As to the article itself, it looks almost flawless, but I'd like to see more in the way of description for the Crimean Atomic Energy Station, as well as one-liner blurbs under the Related topics, if possible. However, those issues are far too minor to get in the way of my support vote.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why, thanks for the compliment. And as for the topic at hand.... Well an anniversary (either of a certain nuclear incident or of one of the major advances of the technology) is as good a date to feature as any. However, some may perceive it as cynicism to "celebrate" the anniversary of - say - the Chernobyl disaster thusly. While I don't share these concerns, we need to be aware of that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be a commemoration, just like the 70th anniversary of D-Day, not a celebration. I don't see a likelihood of anyone objecting, as long as the blurb is sensitive, as I'm sure it will be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for April 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Kyoto

 * Almost — ϒpsilon (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks very close. I read through only some of the article with a fine-toothed comb, but I basically agree with you. I don't understand the last introductory sentence in the "Internet and manga cafés" subsection, so that should be dealt with in addition to the "move to district" of the 3 Internet and manga café listings. I'm wondering if the ugly "moved from Kyoto" templates at the bottom of the district articles can be deleted. We don't usually use them when districtifying cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the point that this sentence is trying to make is that you can't leave luggage at an Internet Cafe during the day. So you should add ¥300-600 to the price for a luggage locker, and maybe also ¥220 for a bus to the cost of an overnight stay in a cafe. For example a reclining seat (cheaper seats are available) in Media Cafe costs ¥2,350, but a dorm bed in the Earthship hostel costs ¥2,500, or a YHA hostel costs ¥3,400 (see Kyoto/Higashiyama). So staying the night in an internet cafe can be the same price as a hostel bed. AlasdairW (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support It is a fairly good article and the districts are in reasonable shape - although it would be good if more places to eat and drink had lat/longs. AlasdairW (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — somebody fixed the hotels, I've arranged the restaurants in price categories. I'm changing my vote to support. It would still be nice to have coordinates for the POIs that don't have them in the districts. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone did fix the "Sleep" section, but I'm still bothered by this ugly template — — which is at the bottom of every district article and produces the following small text in a bordered text box that spans the entire width of the page: "This article contains content that was once found at Kyoto. View that page's revision history for the list of authors." I haven't seen it in any other district article. Why is it needed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say that should go. Is there any reason not to delete the template as well? Pashley (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't think of one. Until just now, I didn't realize there was a special template for this. I don't know of any case of it being used, other than the districtification of Kyoto. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Template:Mergecredit is used in about 40 places, about half of them talk pages. I think that it intended to be used when articles are merged, but obviously isn't most of the time. In the case of Kyoto, it could either be deleted or moved to the talk pages. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the template is not needed because edits that move content from one Wikivoyage page to another are clearly evident in page histories. But maybe we should discuss that in Vfd. In the meantime, these templates would do less damage on talk pages. Are we agreed on moving them from the articles to their talk pages, at least as a temporary measure? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Parenthetically, I started a thread about this template on Vfd. Please express your opinions about the continued existence of the template in that thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll support featuring this article, too, but I hope that, irrespective of the fate of the "Mergecredit" template on Vfd, we can remove it from all the district articles (and move it to their talk pages, if absolutely necessary) before the Kyoto article runs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the fourth support vote. Very good article; not much I can think of that it needs before featuring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for March 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Swakopmund

 * Support as nominator. The "Do" section needs a bit of cleanup, but that's an easy fix. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Very good article. I did some copy editing and doubtless, more is needed. Everything that's liable to have changed (e.g., hotel rates, openings and closings of restaurants) should be checked before the article is run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support. This was one of the African articles I compiled and translated (partially with help of Google translate though never word-by-word from translate as that is not allowed) from several other language versions last spring. Therefore the text in the article may read a bit funny. At that time I thought the 2015-16 winter season would be full so I didn't bother to give the article the final polish that is needed for a Main Page feature. I also added some prices, but there are still details here and there that could be added to listings if they are available on the Internet (when it comes to Africa this is frequently not the case). ϒpsilon (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Word-for-word Google translate usually wouldn't produce fully good results, but you're saying it's not allowed per policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Directly copying text from another source (in this case generated by a Google service) would be copyright violation. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems like a stretch to me. The concept of copyright has to do with creative works, which might cover what a user enters into Google Translate, but certainly not the text that's mechanically spit out at the end. It's also notable that there's nothing on the Google Translate webpage that indicates any copyright claims on Google's part. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops, somehow I missed what Ypsi said, "partially with help of Google translate though never word-by-word", which makes my comment above rather moot. Speaking as a frequent user of Google Translate, it's never a good idea not to proofread what comes out on the other end. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I don't do copypasta because then the result would be even worse. I rather try to make sense of what Translate generates without introducing any misinformation in the article which isn't always too easy especially with a language such as Russian (much of this article comes from ru:Свакопмунд) which is grammatically very different. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 *  Close  - It would be great to get an African destination on the main page but there are a lot of little things about this guide that make me hesitant to feature it as it currently reads. Some things I noticed:
 * The second and third paragraphs of the lede seem out of place. I'm not sure where is the best spot for them -- Understand maybe, an infobox, are they even necessary?
 * There are quite a few street addresses missing although all the listings have coordinates. I think it would be good to include them.
 * The Do section needs some clean up. There are a couple of listings at the top that I'm assuming can be added to the subsections, a couple of listings have no description, and a number of listings describe activities but there's no information on how to do them/which businesses do it (e.g., scenic flights, skydiving, quad biking).
 * There's also a Buy and Eat listing without description and contact info.
 * Currency references throughout the guide are inconsistent -- sometimes it's NAD and sometimes it's N$. -Shaundd (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I remember some places not having proper street addresses at all (either no address or then just the street mentioned), but they still showed up on Google Maps and/or the Mapnik layer. This was also the case with places in Praia, for instance. Locals are probably used to navigating according to landmarks instead of addresses, just like in much of Asia. All currency references should now be N$, I've fixed them with "Search and replace". ϒpsilon (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Earlier I had also fixed the lede, and apparently I forgot to make note of that here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I support now. -Shaundd (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Beautiful Guide-status article. It could use a nicer banner, though. Ibaman (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for March 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruta del Tránsito

 * Fortaleza, Antigua Guatemala, Cartagena and now Ruta de transito: if 2013 was the Summer of the United States and 2015 was the Summer of Europe, will 2015-16 be the Winter of Latin America? An intriguing thought...


 * Anyway, about the article itself: "Understand" is exhaustively detailed; "Prepare" and "Get in" not quite as much so, but satisfactorily complete. "Go", on the other hand, seems too short: judging by the lengths of the text blurbs it seems like each leg of the journey ought to be described in more detail than it is currently. The cities referenced as waymarks, in particular, are not described in any real detail; well and good to provide an internal wikilink, but it's also nice to give a short bit of info and mention prominent points of interest in each. Also, "Go next" should be converted from prose to bullet-point listings.


 * I'm not quite ready to throw my support behind this feature yet, but it's close, and it doesn't seem like much work would need to be done to fix the issues with the article.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So in short there needs to be more detail on the cities/places along the way (calling a place like San Juan del Norte a "city" seems to be a stretch to me...) Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost IMO too the Go section should preferably be longer. Also a couple of more photos at the start and end and some less Capital Letters would be good. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited the first subsection of the go section to include a bit of info on San Juan del Norte; please see whether this is heading in the right direction. As for capital letters.... Well ze Germans like Zem in all of zeir Words which are Substantives ;-). Furthermore I changed some of the markers (from see to go and from do to see) Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hobbitschuster, the new information on San Juan del Norte was exactly what I had in mind. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weiss ich doch :). And I, in turn, sometimes use capital letters too sparsely. I may as well support the article for the Main Page, though I'll still harvest Commons for a pic or two to add at the top and the bottom of the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just an aside, unless you use the Swiss spelling you should write "Weiß" with an "ß"... And as to pictures... I've found commons somewhat lacking on quality images for Nicaragua... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That you are quite right about ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Was too lazy to investigate what on the keyboard to press to get the "ß" and also forgot about the Special characters tool above the editing window... ϒpsilon (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Kein Probelm; Ich bin halt manchmal ein unbelehrbarer Klugscheißer ;-) Anyway, back to the issue at hand. What do you consider to be still missing before we can in good conscience feature this article on our main page? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspected that there would still be a thing or two to add to the relatively long first two legs leg, but as I see it on Google Earth I understand it's just rainforest with very small villages (there seems to be a biological reserve north of the river which I will add as a side trip). So probably it's OK to feature the article as it is. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are rumors that "somewhere there" there might be precolumbian remains or even pyramids (though I doubt pyramids, I wouldn't be surprised if major things still harken discovery in the jungle) and yes the Indio-Maiz is the second largest by surface area (after Bosawas) in Nicaragua and one of the least visited. It is fairly accessible by boat where it is close to the river, but other than that it can get quite remote pretty fast. I once went to the outskirts of said reserve, accessing it from El Castillo - guide highly recommended Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hobbitschuster - I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to look over the changes you made until now. They were exactly what I had in mind. There are no other problems with the article that I can see, so I'm happy to support it.


 * We now have three support votes for Ruta del Tránsito (including Hobbitschuster's implied support as nominator) - anyone care to add a fourth?


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, in case it had not been clear before, I support my own nomination. As for other users who could weigh in, maybe User:Vmenkov and User:Justvagabonding might weigh in, either pointing out what still needs fixing or voting one way or the other? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice piece of work, exciting exotic destination. Ibaman (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to support this article as well - itineraries such as this are what make Wikivoyage great. Nice work --Justvagabonding (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The blurb
As this article is now at (or close to) the level needed for it be featured on our main page, we might wish to hammer out a better blurb. I think it should convey - And all this of course in the size of a text message. My attempt at a blurb was done with little effort in a couple of seconds and can obviously be improved upon... Thoughts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) a sense of adventure
 * 2) The 19th century history of the route
 * 3) the stunning nature along the way
 * 4) possibly the remoteness of big chunks of it


 * I'll take a crack at it sometime over the next few days. It shouldn't be too difficult, especially with the pointers you shared above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So.... It's in no way urgent, but are there any good ideas for a blurb already? Otherwise I might have to give it a try, but I fear I am bad at short concise writing (a disease common to those who share my native tongue) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hobbitschuster, I just wrote a new blurb - what do you think? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus?
I am a bit confused. Is there consensus to feature this itinerary at some point (pending a better blurb)? If so, we may get into the discussion as to scheduling. If not, it should probably be slushed... But the discussion seems to just have... Stopped, I guess... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Normally four "supports" is needed, but in practice if nobody actively opposes featuring the article, it's regarded as suitable for the Main page. RdT has my support vote and as you nominated the article, yours. Surprisingly, Ikan hasn't commented on this one.
 * Articles are mostly put into the schedule on a first-come-first-served basis, of course taking into account the month for when it is going to be scheduled. The table above should show just the articles for the next six months and are updated the 21st each month when the FTT goes live (ie. the day after tomorrow the March 2016 articles will appear). Also, they are not entirely frozen, once put in the table but can be moved around if needed.
 * As you recommended Ruta de Transito for April or onwards, it won't appear in the table yet, but it is there. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to support this, because it's a very well-written and interesting article. But the unfortunate thing is that there are things that you are not sure of, like precisely how to get from Altagracia to Moyogalpa, when you have to take your rented horse or motorcycle one way, or whether you really could take a rented horse on the ferry from Moyogalpa to San Jorge. If only someone had tried these things and could comment. In a way, despite all the information that is in the article, it's more nearly "Usable for an adventurous person" than fully a Guide, as people are left a bit to their own devices on some stretches of this itinerary. This makes me torn on whether to actually support featuring it right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that of all regular WV editors, I am the only one (to my knowledge) who has actually visited any of the stops on this itinerary. And I have never been on a horse in my live. So I do know that renting horses is a thing that you can do in Nicaragua. I also know that people of any gender and (almost) any social background regularly ride horses as a means of transport. And I also know that horses are common on Ometepe. As it is an island, the way they have gotten there has been drawn from inference. Taking the bus from Moyogalpa to Altagracia (or the other way round) is the definition of simple. Just sit down on your seat (hourly departures) and have enough small change in Corodbas ready. As for how to get there on horseback, I quite frankly have no first hand experience. And as I know about Nicaragua, it is really hard to do Internet research. However, I think the "horse and steamer" part is a nice gimmick but not the main part of this itinerary. The original route really was focused on getting to some point on the Nicaraguan Pacific as fast as possible and as such did not care about the landscape. The itinerary I created is based mostly on what can be done today with regularly scheduled transport. If you buy a horse on Ometepe, you would probably have to spend at least a hundred (or a couple hundred, I really don't know) Dollars, but the question of whether you can return a rented horse at some other point (I guess not) would not arise. As for motorcycles (again, me having no driver's license of any kind I don't know) it is quite likely that there is a way to return it in another place then you rented it... I hope this comment is helpful, though Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just reread the article, and I'm liking it better, but would it be possible to add specific information on things like where in each town to get the boat or bus? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, this is pretty self-evident, except maybe in the cases where it is already mentioned. Buses for example leave from the market or close to it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. In that case, add a single clear sentence to that effect in an appropriate place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It didn't look like anyone else had added this information, so I just did so and now support running this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Progress report January 2016

 * There's only two months left until Ruta de transito goes on the Main Page, and - with the exception of one leg of the itinerary that was elaborated on by Hobbitschuster in August - the concerns that were raised about the "Go" section remain unaddressed.


 * This article frustrates me because it's really excellent in many respects, but the problems it has are severe enough to need fixing before I can support it. The "Understand" section really does a wonderful job of laying out the historical importance of the route vis-à-vis the California gold rush and so forth, and there's plenty of practical information regarding how to go about physically making the trip, but what's missing is the question of why a traveller would want to retrace this route in the present day. In other words, most people who want to simply take a boat down a river can do so in their own hometown, so what's the appeal of this particular river? With the exception of the very first leg of the itinerary - which I would love for the whole itinerary to resemble - most subsections of "Go" do nothing more than name the next town on the itinerary and tell how to get there. There are occasional passing references to the natural beauty of the jungle and whatnot, but that alone doesn't make me want to board a plane for Nicaragua. Tell me what there is to do in these places; paint a picture with your words of what there is to see along the way. It doesn't even have to be related to the history of the route - Ypsilon was on the right track when he added the part about the Indio Maíz Biological Reserve in El Castillo, which I doubt many Gold Rush prospectors cared about. If the towns along the route are so small and sleepy that there's nothing in particular for tourists to do there, say so and at least give a description of the place that's not generic. Is there a particularly nice church in the town square? A friendly cantina where you can stop for a drink? There's got to be something there; it's a town, after all.


 * Also, on another subject entirely, should the title of this article be Ruta de Transito, with the last word capitalized? We don't usually do that with travel topics, but itineraries with proper names (e.g. Natchez Trace Parkway) seem to be an exception. Thoughts, anyone?


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * About the name: in what form is it known? The Spanish Wikipedia article about the river calls it "Ruta del Tránsito". Are we or Wikipedia wrong, or is the name just not established? I suppose googling will not answer the question, as coverage on historic phenomenons on Internet is rather spotty. (Having the accent will help many with rudimentary Spanish skills pronounce the name right, so it should be used at least in the intro.) --LPfi (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Hobbitschuster, who has some personal familiarity with the route, might know some information about the name that we don't. But, failing that, I think you have a pretty compelling argument in favor of the article's name being changed to Ruta del Transito or ...Tránsito. (I'm not sure which of those our policy on diacritics would call for - if memory serves, it's fairly idiosyncratic and/or inconsistently applied - but I personally would be fine with either.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I just made a mistake way back when. Both could be correct, but "del" is more likely to be correct. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So according to a Nicaraguan person I just asked earlier today, it is de after all. But apparently neither is wrong as such... Anyway, I don't think that's the biggest issue of this article, but I would still like some resolution on this before the page goes on the main page. Anyway, there have been some recent updates (one of them by me, the others by Vmenkov, who seems to have very good knowledge of Ometepe) and I would like someone with a fresh set of eyeballs to have a look as to the flow of the prose and whether major things are still missing or there are contradictions within the article... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the edits, Hobbitschuster. I'll take a closer look at them later and let you know my thoughts, but if they look anything like the edits you made to the San Juan del Norte - El Castillo leg of the itinerary, I don't think there will be any problem. As to the issue of the name: given the information you've shared here, I think the best course of action is to follow the convention on Spanish Wikipedia as filtered through our own policy on diacritics - that is, Ruta del Transito; with the "L" but without the accent mark. Absent any objections, I'll make that change in a day or so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at the article, too. But why not use the diacritic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ikan - it took me a while to search out the old Pub discussion about diacritics that I was remembering, but I finally found it. The salient comments are from ChubbyWimbus, timestamped 10:24 and 11:27, 20 January 2014. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, this is what User:ChubbyWimbus wrote: "The rules regarding diacritics are that we try to avoid them. Namely, if there is a defined and relatively commonly used English name for a city/town/region/country/etc then it should be given preference over any foreign forms." Since - correct me if I'm wrong - there is no defined, relatively common English name for Ruta de Tránsito, I think we should use the diacritic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I was referring more to his comments about how despite the difference in Spanish pronunciation he still favors "Bogota" over "Bogotá", the latter of which is the most commonly used variant in both Spanish and English: "I've yet to meet a Spanish-speaker who is so dim that they could not figure out that Bogota is Bogotá. Even if there are Spanish-speakers who can't comprehend, it doesn't matter, because the English-language Wikivoyage is not meant for Spanish-speakers; it's meant for English-speakers." That being the case, I took a pro-diacritic stance in that discussion and I still do feel that way; I only wanted to do right by our policy. Ruta del Tránsito it is, then. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, I prefer the diacritic in Bogotá, too, because it helps people pronounce the name correctly. Bogota without the diacritic is a town in New Jersey, pronounced "buh-GO-tuh". -:) Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(indent) This location doesn't seem to be a commonly referenced location period, so the diacritic seems fine. One indicator is that a Google search actually lists our article. On Bogota, people who don't care about pronunciation will not be helped by the diacritic anyway and people that do care are often already aware of how Spanish is pronounced. Adding the diacritic would not make "buh-goh-tuh" change for such people. Even the country name, which has no diacritics is "Kah-luhm-bee-ah" to many people. The "helpful" argument seems moot to me, since it's always more "correct" to write a location in its native language. Moscow is a well-established English name that is not said "correctly" (if we are saying that correct pronunciation must be its native Russian pronunciation). Even among English-speakers there are those who say "moss cow" and those who say "moss koh", both of which are equally wrong when compared to Russian, but communication about the city is not hindered because it's not written in the same way or spoken the same as the natives. It's okay for English not to be the same. Even when it is the same, we have Mee-lahn and Mih-lahn, Kass-ah-blahn-kah and Kah-sah-blahn-kah. All articles should have the correct local pronunciation at the top as well as the name written in its native language(s), but if people don't get it, they don't get it. For our part, when it comes to helping the traveler, it's enough. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I take your points, but when there's no difference in lettering, only whether to use a diacritic or not, I'm pro-diacritic. I pronounced the name "BOH-goh-tah" until I became aware of the diacritic. But anyway... :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * At any rate, I moved the page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for March 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Antigua Guatemala

 * Support as nominator. Looking over this article one final time, it strikes me that maybe a few more listings ought to be added to "Drink", but that's a minor issue to be sure. Some further copyediting might also be necessary: the article's original author wrote in Commonwealth English, which per Spelling is not appropriate for a Latin American destination, and I may have missed an instance or two of that.


 * Also: it's been suggested that Antigua would be better suited for the DotM column rather than OtBP. Antigua was intended for OtBP both of the previous times when it was nominated, but in the end I have no personal preference either way. Let's hear your opinions on that too.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is it really wise to nominate this definition of the beaten bath in Central America (after all it is on the top three list of all "Central America in two weeks" types) as otbp? Doesn't that further the narrative that "off the beaten path" is meaningless marketing-speech? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hobbitschuster, please read my above remarks where I addressed that exact issue, which you brought up as well on Talk:Antigua Guatemala. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, either as DotM or OtBP. Would of course be nice to have a couple of more Drink listings, though. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I congratulate AndreCarrotflower for his great work on this article and happily support featuring the article, without prejudice to the question of whether it should be OtBP or DotM. Does anyone have figures on the numbers of visitors per year, by comparison with some other places we've featured? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I might mention that with London/Hampstead, Palmyra (New York), Dilijan, Gaspé Peninsula, and now Washington, D.C./Anacostia on tap as OtBPs for the warm months of 2016, for scheduling purposes it would be much more convenient to have Antigua as DotM (for which we have no candidates at all after Kyoto in March). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to DotM? - Hobbitschuster seems to be the only one with a strong opinion on which column Antigua belongs in. Ypsi and Ikan are both undecided, and I'm undecided on an objective basis but leaning toward switching it to DotM for logistical purposes because a) it would create an open slot in the OtBP column, of which there are currently none until October 2016 (!), and b) putting it in the slot for February 2016, where I had intended Cartagena to go, would buy me at least two more months to fix that article's flaws.


 * Would anyone - especially anyone who's not yet commented on this nomination - object to me moving this candidate to the DotM column?


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One tangential comment: I think Dilijan, though improved, probably still isn't yet ready to be featured, but we can discuss that more in its nomination thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support moving to DotM, on a Guatemalan scale this is an important place. Also, I agree it could be a good idea to have an alternative for the February slot if Cartagena isn't ready before the winter. --ϒpsilon (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone else? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per consensus, this nomination has been moved from the OtBP column to DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Beutiful guide-status article. Ibaman (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for February 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hilo

 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (see below). You beat me to the punch, Ypsi; I was planning on nominating this article after I got done with Buffalo/East Side and Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side. If I remember correctly, I had come across a few minor issues with the article when I looked it over before, but it seems fine now so you must have fixed them. Anyhow, this would be a nice feature for winter 2015-16. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also Ikan suggested nominating it :) ϒpsilon (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a worthy article to nominate, but before I support the nomination: Have all the listings been checked and updated? Do we have current room rates in the hotel listings, for example? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not yet . The more I look at this article, the more little things I find wrong with it. First off, though all the listings have geo coordinates, there's no mapframe. Secondly, though I do realize the vast majority of visitors to Hawaii arrive by plane, a single two-sentence listing of the local airport does not in any way suffice for a "Get in" section. "Get around" very much needs to be expanded too. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And "Climate" needs to be either expanded or folded into the parent "Understand" section. No use in splitting something off to a different section if it's only one sentence long. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to Understand and surrounding sections, also adding a map. The uppermost part of the article looks weird, but I'm not able to get it look any better. Removing the lead picture would make the article look boring.
 * Concerning transport, well, I don't know much about Hilo, the Big Island or Hawaii. But at least when looking at Big Island (and around) it doesn't seem like there are any other alternatives for getting in and around than those already mentioned.
 * When adding coordinates, I of course removed listings where the business neither showed up in maps.google.com nor when googling it. Also, if I noticed something to be incorrect (address etc.) I fixed it. I've not checked the room rates for hotels, nor other prices. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should check and update rates as appropriate before we run the article. AndreCarrotflower, what else do you think should be in "Get in"? I guess information about roads. I suppose a few people will go to Hilo from Kona, but not too many. We can and probably should add that information, but if you are elsewhere on the island, I don't think it'll be hard for you to find out how to drive to Hilo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ikan - Sorry for my belated response here. Yes, we should include information on how to get in by road (even if that info consists basically of "all Big Island roads lead to Hilo"), as well as a By boat section that includes information on marinas that offer transient slip rental as well as details on inter-island ferry service, if such a thing exists.


 * Also, it looks like the only topic "Get around" covers with any thoroughness is public transportation. We might also include information on bicycling, car rental, the layout of the street grid (if there are any peculiarities travellers would need to know), one-way streets (if applicable), rush hours (if applicable), and so forth.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Rush hour in Hilo was very mild, from what I could tell. I'll have a look at the article when time allows, but someone with more experience than I will need to discuss one-way streets. I don't remember many of them, though. It seemed fairly easy to drive around that fairly small town, from what I can remember, but then I was a passenger, not a driver. My girlfriend may have some input. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My girlfriend says that people drove very slow and mellow and would let people change lanes easily. There were no wide highways, few streetlights in Volcano (but that's some way from Hilo), and not much traffic. She doesn't remember it being stressful or difficult to drive there. Neither of us remember many one-way streets. My girlfriend also says that if you made a mistake there, it was easy to get back to where you wanted to be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the two reasonable routes from Kona Airport to Hilo. My girlfriend and I didn't go all the way from Hilo and the Hamakua Coast to the Kona side when we were there, so my remarks are not authoritative, but the observations on what it's like to drive there are to the best of my recollection, and we did go on the Saddle Road to the Mauna Kea Observatory and travel some distance north of Hilo on the Hawaii Belt Road (HI-19), and the timings I give are quite a bit longer than the unreasonably short estimates on Google Maps. In particular, their claim that you could take the Saddle Road across the interior of the island all the way from Kona Airport to Hilo in 1 1/2 hours without traffic seems ridiculous to me, and 2 hours may be optimistic. We're talking about some high ground with some rough curves. Ypsi, I saw you changed and added some hotel room rates. How far have you gotten in updating the listings? Are they ready to go, or is more work needed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All hotel rates are updated from the hotels' web pages. I also added some stuff about getting in and around by googling and looking at the dynamic map. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! What about "Buy", "Eat" and "Drink" listings? Whenever we know they're current, it will be time to approve the article for a feature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, when nominating Hilo in May I went through all listings adding coordinates and addresses if they were missing and removed some places that apparently didn't exist any longer. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I know AndreCarrotflower wanted a listing for a bicycle rental place, and I think there was one bicycle shop on Kamehameha Avenue when I was there in 2012, so perhaps we can find the information before the article runs, but I'm ready to support featuring this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Nice job, Ikan, and sorry for my belated response. I had envisioned the finished "Get around" section being a bit longer, but anyhow Hilo is a small city and nothing seems to be missing, so I can support this nominee now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I like it, lots of content and adding the directions from Kailua-Kona was a nice touch. A few small things I noticed that I think could make it even better (but don't impact my support) are:
 * The lede is quite short and a bit bland. It would be nice if there was something more enticing to draw the reader in;
 * A brief intro to the See section like Do has; and
 * (this is personal preference) move the first three listings in the Go next section to See, and add geo coordinates to them. They don't seem that far away from Hilo and the See section isn't large. I found it a bit confusing to have Akaka Falls referenced in the Rainbow Falls listing but there's no further reference to them until the end of the article. -Shaundd (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what really could be added to the lede, myself. But about the blurb: How is Hilo "Hawaii's second city"? It's the most populous city on the Big Island, but Kailua on Oahu is bigger. So it seems that it's neither the Big Island's second city nor the state's. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would guess it's the second Hawaiian city most non-natives would think of. To be honest I've never heard of Kailua, and it doesn't look like there's anything particularly notable there. Powers (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Hilo metropolitan area is the second-largest in Hawaii per Wikipedia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Presumably, Kailua is regarded as being in the Honolulu Metropolitan Area, which I guess encompasses the entire island of Oahu (all part of Honolulu County, if I'm remembering my terms right), but that's not really the way things seem on the ground when you're driving around Oahu. If it's really fair to say that Hilo is "Hawaii's second city", it is an extremely distant second. Are we really sure it's instructive to use the term? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for February 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Armenian phrasebook

 * Very, very close. All it needs as far as I can tell are a few pictures; an easy enough fix. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I have some bad news. Armenian phrasebook. And the user who wrote most of what's in the phrasebook is long gone. Anyone here who understands Armenian or need we pick another phrasebook? Personally I don't think there'd be a problem with two or even more phrasebooks a year though others my disagree.
 * Unbelievable that FTT is running out of candidates again! Time to add some more! ϒpsilon (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It may not be as hopeless as you think. The translations in that section are present; it's just the pseudo-pronunciations that need to be added. The article says that Armenian is a very phonetically logical language and it's clearly described how each letter is pronounced, so all we need is for someone to transcribe the Armenian letters into the phonetic syllables. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Almost support — I think you're right, let's try to transcribe it and add some pretty pictures and feature it in the autumn or whenever. After all, this is to help visitors and not a professional course in Armenian. ;) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, as nobody else has fixed it. The transcription with the stress should be correct to at least 50%. ;) Otherwise our readers have to check out our Star status Russkii phrasebook instead. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Very useful guide to Armenia. Eat me, I&#39;m a red bean (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, and a belated "thank you" to Ypsilon for helping with both of the issues I mentioned in my previous comment. Looks like we've now got three support votes for this nominee, would anyone like to add a fourth? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - What do you all think about this proposal which has been brought up on the article's talk page? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I looked through the article, and although Ես հայերեն չգիտեմ, it looks fine to me :) Danapit (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for February 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Banff

 * Almost - per my comments. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC) ✅
 * The article definitely has potential, but as you said, Calgary just ended its stint as DotM. I'd be very concerned about placing two DotM candidates so close to each other on the schedule that are not only in the same country, but only 90 minutes' drive apart. If we feature this, it should be no earlier than winter 2015-16. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed a number of bad links and incorrect listings and added coordinates. Moved some information out to the park article and added a few images. In a better state now for consideration. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost. Most of the issues Ypsi mentioned in his initial comment seem to have been addressed. However, I still can't yet give this article my full support. There are some activities listed in the "Summer" and "Hiking" subsections of "Do" that have no descriptive blurbs, and some of the destinations in "Go next" don't have one-liner descriptions either. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great work so far, User:Traveler100! I agree with André that there are still a few small fixes needed, however can probably be quickly done. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Will try to look if there's something I can do to enhance this article in the weekend. Possibly Edmonton too. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad to see someone finally addressing the longstanding problems with Banff, Ypsi, but as for Edmonton, I wouldn't worry about that too much - it requires a lot more work than Banff does. The issues with Edmonton are spread out among five district articles, each of which are full of outdated listings and, still more problematic, outdated static maps. That article is probably going to get slushed, and that's all right with me. Well and good to encourage people to get off their duffs and fix what needs fixing, but to contend with problems of that magnitude is a bit much to ask, I think. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support ϒpsilon (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read only through "Do" so far. The article looks quite good. One thing I noticed, though, was this text under "Do/Spas": but only the Upper Hot Springs Pool and Pleiades Spa allow visitors the opportunity to bathe in water from a hot spring. Why is there no listing for Pleiades Spa in that section? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The full name of the first listing is "Banff Upper Hot Springs and Pleiades Massage & Spa", so it's probably one large complex with all kinds of wellness services. On their web page you can find Pleiades Spa in the Spa section. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that sure wasn't clear! The confusion should be ended. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I added a few descriptions of restaurants that had none, in the process of reading through the article and putting in some copy edits. There are still one "Drink" listing with no description other than the name (Aurora Nightclub and Hoodoo Lounge) and one "Eat" listing with no description other than the name (Three Ravens Restaurant and Wine Bar), so someone should really add descriptions if possible, but the article is quite excellent and I'm prepared to support it with those small caveats. (P.S. The confusion I referred to above has been effectively dealt with.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * About scheduling: If we want to feature Banff as a winter destination, March is a bit late, as average highs are over 5 C. at that time of year. Nov-Feb looks like the below-freezing season, with December-January ideal for skiing, et al. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just reviewed this article again. I'm prepared to give it my weak support at this time, and anticipate featuring it in January 2016. However, there are still a few listings in the "Eat" section (Vistas Dining Room, Mountain Chocolates, both locations of The Keg Steakhouse and Lounge) that lack descriptions of any kind, and the same is true of the Banff Summer Arts Festival and the Banff World Media Festival. Since my Wikivoyage to-do list is much clearer than before, I'll see if I can't attend to that after I get back from vacation on the 19th. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most of the issues should be fixed now... ϒpsilon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Seems to meet all the criteria and looks good. Most descriptions are compact but to be honest, I personally prefer that for my travel guides anyway :) JuliasTravels (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - DotM for January 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ein Gedi

 * Support by nominator. I'll be interested to see what kind of feedback this nomination gets. I think this article is wonderful, and the detailed descriptions of the hikes are extremely user-friendly for the traveller. I would be very disappointed if someone felt that they were "personal itineraries", and therefore somehow in violation of site policy. Instead, they look like good suggested hikes that are effectively "Do" listings (sublistings, if you prefer), and are printable and detailed enough to be really useful to visitors. This article is very well-written and doesn't obviously lack for anything I can think of, especially now that I added a climate chart. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. To Ikan's comments above, content in a destination article that could arguably be described as a "personal itinerary", I think, is an entirely different animal than personal itineraries as articles in and of themselves. That being the case, the article is well-written but, apart from the hikes, seems awfully short; are we sure there isn't anything more that can be said about the place? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment — If the routes are marked trails, I wouldn't say they are personal itineraries. Also, I would like to know if the latter part of the article could be expanded before giving the article my support. Another thing, there's an article I would like to nominate for FTT, namely Hiking and backpacking in Israel by the same author. I tried to contact Tamuz about that article (because despite being at Guide status, the article still has some empty headings in the end) but he hasn't replied. If that article would get featured sometime in early 2016, I guess there would need to be a few months between it and this one. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Tamuz hasn't replied to messages on his user talk page recently. Perhaps he may check after the Passover holiday, but we should be prepared for the possibility that he does not. User:ויקיג'אנקי, do you happen to be familiar with Ein Gedi? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tamuz used to be very active on Hebvoy when the website launched. He is a tour guide and has a lot of knowledge about this stuff. Unfortunately he stopped being active sometime around mid 2013. ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Indeed I haven't had much time to contribute in the past year. I'll find time this week or the next, to expand and improve the Ein Gedi article for this nomination. Thanks for your support and appreciation :) Tamuz (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrific! No huge rush, because we probably can't feature the article till next year, but I'm very happy to see you resurface. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, OK, here's one more support vote. I figured out some more places to eat. It'd also be good to know if there is some small convenience store or similar where hikers can stock up on snacks and beverages. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm just a bit confused... this article is about the whole Ein Gedi area? It mentions the kibbutz and the nature reserve in the lead, but it seems to describe only the hiking opportunities and such. Ein gedi is famous for wellness and spa-opportunities though, right? If it's a conscious choice to focus on the hiking aspects, shouldn't the title or lead reflect that? JuliasTravels (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have more information, please add it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, JuliasTravels, this seems to be the case, also by structure it is a "park" article. So I linked it to Israeli National Parks. Danapit (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am wondering about the first one of the two maps. Can't we use a dynamic map instead? That would be one one hand more useful (showing POIs) and probably also more "VW-stylish". This would however only be a better solution if there is a way to make the map display English names instead of Hebrew. I have no idea about that... Danapit (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dynamic map added for completeness. Support. Ibaman (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we could skip the static map of the Dead sea area, or are there any objections? Otherwise I like the hiking options description a lot and give the article my support. Danapit (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I object and don't really understand what you two are seeing, because what I see is that the static map of the Dead Sea area is a heck of a lot more informative and useful than the dynamic map. If anything, I would support removing the dynamic map, which shows very little unless clicked on at least once. I think what I'll do is zoom the dynamic map to 15. But it then will function as a local map, with the static map being a regional one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Zoomed to 15 and recentered to get all the points of interest on the map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, you have a point that it is much easier to overview than the dynamic map with Hebrew text. I can see it, too :) My problem with the Dead sea map is that it is a map of a region Dead Sea (even without Ein Gedi being highlighted), not the destination, so in my opinion it doesn't belong here. Or am I confused and we want to have region maps in destination articles? Danapit (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but it's a helpful route map of the area, making it clearer how to drive to Ein Gedi. However, now that I see that the same map is in the Dead Sea (Israel and the West Bank) article, I would agree with removing it from the Ein Gedi article. And when it's removed, we should have room to insert another nice photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed, per apparent consensus here. Now, someone can insert another nice photo or two. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Outcome - OtBP for January 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Altitude sickness

 * Support. The article could use a few more pictures, but otherwise it looks like it's good to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — I agree, some more photos would be great to have. As sunburn is featured in June, I would prefer not to feature this one before maybe Oct or Nov. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have trouble judging this type of article. Could we please have some physicians or other experts weigh in on this article and the Sunburn and sun protection article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, now there's at least some more pictures. When nominating Sunburn I asked our Travel Doc to have a look at the article but apparently he doesn't check WV frequently any longer. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a doctor (or biochemist, etc.) in the house? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. Anyone? To check and comment on this article and above? Any fake doctors, then? I've taken part in a basic first aid course but that was over ten years ago. :P
 * Personally I don't think it's impossible to feature those articles without a professional looking through them, but it would certainly be useful! ϒpsilon (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still have no medical degree :-) and I don't know whether User:Nbarth does, either, but he seems to really know what he's talking about and I think his additions to this article have greatly improved the article, so I'm adding my support to featuring it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a doctor, but I can summarize (and link to!) medical pages (you can check the references to verify accuracy). Glad it helps, and thanks for the kind words! —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nils, do you support featuring this article on the front page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ikan, yes, I support featuring this article on the front page. It’s of significant use to a wide variety of travelers to many destinations, and is of general interest. Plus, it’s now got numerous pictures ;) —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, support always anything that makes a traveller better informed of risks... good! JarrahTree (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Outcome - FTT for January 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)