Talk:Tourism in Tibet

Notability
@Theroadislong @DoubleGrazing I am sorry to say but I can't agree with your decline rationale. Sure, this article needs some copyediting and source cleanup, but the topic of Tourism in Tibet is obviously notable. See articles in Category:Tourism in Asia by country and stuff like Tourism in India by state Piotrus at Hanyang&#124; reply here 06:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hanyangprofessor2: nobody said that "the topic of Tourism in Tibet" (assuming that's the same as "Tibet travel", which I'm not sure it is) couldn't be notable, but "Tourism in country X" articles should discuss the tourism industry in country X, not provide a travel guide to country X. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing The topic is indeed tourism in Tibet (the article right now is an ongoing translation from Chinese Wikipedia, and - disclaimer - I am the instructor supervising this educational activity). As for what you say about focus; first, the 'Industrial Development' section is about the industry. The sections on travel regulations and local tourism media seem relevant as well. And sure, Wikipedia =/= Wikivoyage, but I'd certainly expect to find some discussion of promintent tourist attractions in the article. And this is what we find in most of our related articles, like the Tourism in India by state I linked above. Or Tourism_in_South_Korea or Tourism_in_Poland or dozens of other examples. I think it is good to remind ourselves that the purpose of the Draft is not to produce Good Article level articles. Things do not have to be comprehensive to be valid articles at start- or C-class levels. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll undo the rejection. Another reviewer can then take a view on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Thanks. Note that I agree the article is not ready for the mainspace, but this is due to the issues such as reference formatting and grammar/vocabulary, not notability of the topic or contents. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zoglophie Please check out the discussion here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll undo my action to let other reviewer decide. zoglophie •talk• 06:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zoglophie Thanks. However, what would be best would be to delay any review until the student addreses the issues raised (I left them feedback on their talk page). Can we remove the review pending status for now? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Submission is by them, they want us to review their draft. Maybe they need to be informed to not submit until the work is done. zoglophie •talk• 10:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zoglophie FYI I tell my students to work in the sandbox, not draftspace, to avoid such incidents (I sometimes find draft reviews useful, but not always, and anyway, I don't want to create extra work for draft reviewers when I can handle feedback for my students). Not everyone (students...) understands the concept of starting work in the sandbox, however, and after this was started in mainspace it was then draftified. So here we are. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)