Difference between revisions of "MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations"

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Florania)
(Florania)
Line 54: Line 54:
 
:<small>''Nominator: [[User:AgentBro|addison]] ([[User talk:AgentBro|talk]]) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)''</small>
 
:<small>''Nominator: [[User:AgentBro|addison]] ([[User talk:AgentBro|talk]]) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)''</small>
 
*'''COMMENT''' I have read the feedback of community members and believe now is a good time to nominate this article for GA. [[User:AgentBro|addison]] ([[User talk:AgentBro|talk]]) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 
*'''COMMENT''' I have read the feedback of community members and believe now is a good time to nominate this article for GA. [[User:AgentBro|addison]] ([[User talk:AgentBro|talk]]) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
*''SUPPORT''' For what it is, and for the amount of information available, this is an excellent article, and deserves GA status. {{DanielSig}} 02:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
+
*'"'SUPPORT''' For what it is, and for the amount of information available, this is an excellent article, and deserves GA status. {{DanielSig}} 02:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 
*'''SUPPORT''' Looked over the article, looks fine to me.-[[User:MissEDconexion|MissED the Target]] ([[User talk:MissEDconexion|talk]]) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 
*'''SUPPORT''' Looked over the article, looks fine to me.-[[User:MissEDconexion|MissED the Target]] ([[User talk:MissEDconexion|talk]]) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:07, 12 December 2020

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by asking an administrator. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to deal with objections during the GA process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult the author and/or regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

If a nominator feels that an article satisfies all the criteria, the article can be nominated by any user on the nomination page making sure that they provide the title of the article, a link to it and the signature of the nominating user. A user should only nominate one article each month. The article will then be reviewed by the community and voted on over a period of seven days after being nominated, with nominators and authors of the article being encouraged to respond to constructive criticism and to address objections promptly. While the number of votes in support or opposition are the main thing taken into account, the arguments on each side will also be considered. A nomination with several blank "support" votes and only a few "oppose" votes may still be rejected if those "oppose" votes make very good arguments against it.

Following the seven day period, an administrator will determine consensus of the community and it will either be approved or rejected. If an article is approved, the community deems that it satisfies the initial criteria. If an article is rejected, the articles does not satisfy the initial criteria and an explanation of why will usually be provided by the reviewing users. Rejected articles should only be nominated again after one month following the previous nomination, if progress has been made to improve the article since.

In the last week of each month, nominations which have been approved by an administrator either that month or the previous month will be voted on by the community. The approved nomination with the highest number of votes (with admin consensus providing a deciding vote in the case of a tie) will officially be listed as a Good Article.

Good Article status is thereby reserved for the very best of the best articles, with no more than one per month being granted the status.


Criteria

Please familiarise yourself with the following criteria prior to voting. A good article is one that is:

  1. Well-written: its prose is engaging, coherent, clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
  2. Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details, is of substantial length but does not go into unnecessary detail, remaining focused on the main topic.
  3. Accurate: it is well-researched and its claims are verifiable and not in dispute.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. Illustrated: it should, where possible, be illustrated with appropriate images with succinct captions.
  6. Well-structured: it should have a concise introduction that summarises the topic and a system of hierarchical section headings with a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.

Related articles

Nominations

North Atlantic Defense Union

Nominator:Aenopia, 14:00 UCT, 1 November 2020
This was submitted last month however did not achieve the number of votes needed to pass. I've decided to resubmit this, as I still feel as if it's capable of reaching GA status. Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 14:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The article is well written and seems perfect for me, I believe the article can be eligible for GA. Also a small suggestion, please try to add the flag of the Union of Garuda, instead of the one with a question mark. - Oritsu.me (talk) 1 December 2020, 4.58 pm UTC
  • SUPPORT I'll just keep it simple: beautiful. aydan (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Eh. It's extensive and illustrated, but the structure is questionable, the images are too big, the prose is poor and feels unedited, and in places, it reads like an advert. The main problem, though, is that it's laced with grammar and style errors — too many to list, but three particularly jarring problems include the headings in title case, the wikilinks, and the inline citations to unformatted Google Docs links. It would need an extensive copy-edit before it would be suitable for GA status. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Better! Though not there yet - the article is really not bad, but it does not stand out either. As Blackwood points out, the grammar and spelling overall needs improvement, and many sentences could just be worded better (i.e. The article uses "later" way too much where just using "erstwhile" instead of later or replacing it with "renamed" would be better). It also needs a touch on its neutrality. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 04:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Liberal Party (Plushunia)

Nominator: Cristi (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think it fills all the criteria, and out of my articles is the one I worked on hardest and that I like the most. Thus, I believe it is ready for GA status. Cristi (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT This page is well referenced, has no redlinks, is highly detailed and uses media in an acceptable amount. I am in support of this for GA status. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel RoscoeEnquiriesMy Work 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article is well very written, edited and referenced. Moreover, it is to be noted that it's the article of a political party, and such beautifully written. It should definitely receive GA status. Oritsu.me (talk) 9:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Jesus, that's a bloody good encyclopedia entry. Full support. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is a great article it's well written and has all the information anyone could ever need, I think is very worthy, and should receive GA status. Isaiah (Chat) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ela'r'oech

Nominator: Anthony Ramirez 3rd

Just thought it looked nice. My friend made it and I believed it filled out all the guidelines and it seemed he's been working on it for months updating it and refining it trying to make it look good. I think his work has paid off to the point where his article may be worthy of "Good Article" Status. User:Anthony Ramirez 3rd (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Thank you for submitting my article. I read the criteria and also believe my article is worthy. Charles (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I'm going to be honest the page is all over the place the date formats are wrong, relatively few references and grammar mistakes. Isaiah (Chat)
  • OPPOSE As above. A large amounts of the article consists of stubby sections, zero references and the article is quite a mess to name a few problems. Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Let's keep this short. The sections have little to no bulking out, they are very basic and do not convey a lot of information, the article is not referenced enough, and there is contested information e.g. (It is a common belief that they are discriminated against by admins and moderators of the MicroWiki@Discord Server.). It's a no from me. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel RoscoeEnquiriesMy Work 00:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Acteriendian model countries

Nominator: Ives Blackwood (talk)

The hope is that this meets the criteria above. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • NEUTRAL This page is well detailed and meets all criteria, however it could benefit from having more references. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel RoscoeEnquiriesMy Work 00:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I'm going to lean oppose if more references are added I'd change to support. Isaiah (Chat)
COMMENT I concede that I did mostly write this page with one source, Glastieve: A History, but said source is literally book-length (ca. 50,000 words iirc). I have also cited three other sources, one of which (the Skovaji wiki entry) is over 10,000 words worth of content. I would be grateful if you would expand on what the problem is with the references, as tbh, I feel like I'm having this conversation once a week at the moment and I feel like there's a disconnect between the GA criteria and each of your comments. Nothing in the article is not verifiable. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
AMENDMENT Following reading this, I hereby amend my previous verdict from 'Neutral' to 'Support'. Good luck in your bid for GA! Flag of Australis.svgDaniel RoscoeEnquiriesMy Work 13:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I have no clue why the above editors think an amazing article, expansive, fascinating, well-written article, completed with images and references at the bottom of the page think it should be rejected until more unreliable self-sourced links to Google Sites or Wordpress get added. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 10:16 a.m. (1016), 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED I really love this article and truly believe it should be a GA, but unfortunately two supports is not consensus - I would advice renominating it next month. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Zed

Nominator: addison (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT To keep it simple: I have no idea why this is not a good article yet. addison (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well written, nicely expanded with good detail should definitely be GA Isaiah (Chat) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT -MissED the Target (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Florania

Nominator: addison (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I have read the feedback of community members and believe now is a good time to nominate this article for GA. addison (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • '"'SUPPORT For what it is, and for the amount of information available, this is an excellent article, and deserves GA status. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel RoscoeEnquiriesMy Work 02:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Looked over the article, looks fine to me.-MissED the Target (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)