MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
< MicroWiki:Good articles
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Soaringmoon (talk | contribs) at 03:05, 18 October 2020. It may differ significantly from the current revision.
Jump to: navigation, search

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.


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


Aenderian Coast Guard

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Marks one year since the formal founding of the coast guard also its responsible for like 50% of the featured images. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT johann or smth (talk page) 00:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE 2/17 ≠ 50%, not even close. *it's. Billiam Bilson 13:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • NEUTRAL: I cant make my mind up on this one. The page is well referenced, and has decent presentation and use of templates.. but idk I can't place my finger on it.
    An articles age and whether its images are featured has nothing to do with GA however. Sertor (Chat) 13:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The article is well expanded upon, I think that its worthy of good article status. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


Nominator: Arthur Brum (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is well-structure following Wikipedia's patterns on country articles, well-illustrated, it presents all of the micronation's relevant information with cohesion, it provide links to related articles, although not in a repetitive way, it provide sources. English errors were overwhelmingly or totally corrected. Arthur Brum (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Karnia-Ruthenia (talk page) 09:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC) This article is well written and reports an impressive micronation with the potential to be one of the greatest of this decade among the micronations created in Latin America. Recognizing it as a Good Article transcends the obvious fact that the article is far superior to some other articles with the same label, but it is also a matter of fairness for a very interesting micronational project.
  • OPPOSE: It is without a doubt that the article is very well written. I however take issue with the fact that large swathes of the article are unreferenced, and as such the information present is unverifiable.
    If before the voting process is completed the article gets its references, this will be my number one candidate. Sertor (Chat) 13:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Sildavia 11:27 2 October 2020 (UTC) This is a very well written and detailed article, showing great micronational potential within the Brazilian and Latin American Sector.
  • SUPPORT Cobra Kai 16:30 2 October 2020 (UTC) The article is truly excellent, as it fully exposes the relevant information on micronation. Even if we not consider it to be a foreign-speaking micronation, its writing is very good. It complies with the integrality, to the point that its reading can be perfectly learned what is necessary from Ebenthal. He uses appropriate sources in this context, and none are even doubtful. Although it is understood that in this wiki the same heads of state collaborate many times, the article does not show a sezgo, and describes Ebenthal without exaggerating the qualities or importance of micronation. The images are excellent, and they illustrate correctly, without going too far. The landscapes were well chosen, and give the reader an idea of ​​the representativeness of territories, culture and personalities of the micronation. The order of the sections also seems very good to me, and beyond any doubt. I agree with user User:Sertor Valentinus that it would indeed be an even better article with more sources, hopefully external and in the press. However, if so, this article should also be on Wikipedia. But for a micronation wiki I think it deserves this nomination. An extra point of relevance is that this is a particularly good article on a micronation that is not English-speaking, which obviously contributes in diversity.

Finally, forgive my mistakes in grammar. This is not my mother tongue.

  • OPPOSE Though the article appears to be well expanded upon, the article has very few references, certain parts of the article are very obscure. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I consider it to be a well-written article, with an adequate order, and whose reading is quite clear. Provides correct reporting of micronation. User:MarcoAntonioRino 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I consider it to be a well-written, well-descriptive article, making all points and topics clearly and easily understandable for all the readers. Dhrubajyoti Roy 15:33 (IST), 08 October 2020
  • OPPOSE Not enough refrences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty (talkcontribs)
    • REJECTED 5:3 is not a sufficiently uniform consensus, and those opposed do make good points Austenasia (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Church of the Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion

Nominator:Citizen-Premier Sophia Albina (talk, 03:59, 2 October (EST)

This article is a well-written and detailed article on the Church of the Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion, a highly developed Church present within the Republic of Nordale and the Commonwealth of New Virginia. The antecedents to the creation of the Church culturally can be seen in the now Shoreline which was once Terentia within the Empire of Austenasia. This article documents a major accomplishment of micronational culture that I think is nearly unmatched within the community. Stella Blue I has put much effort and thought into the development of this religion which one can easily see within the article. For all of these reasons, I believe this article deserves to be a good article. Thank you for your consideration, my friends.

  • OPPOSE: A smallish article with merely 2 references isn't exactly GA material. Sertor (Chat) 13:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As Sertor said, even these aren't references. Aenopia (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Emperor Anthony I (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE While the article is by no means bad, it is not exactly exponentially good. Some sentences could be worded better, and it could due with minor grammar edits. It could also due with some images if possible, as well as references (although they are not required as some editors think!) which would really complete it. Minor expansion, such as its history, could also help. Flag of New Eiffel.svg/Royal coat of arms of New Eiffel.svg Zed Zarel  My Talk Page  Contribs  4:19 p.m., 4 October 2020 (UTC+1)

Kingdom of West Sayville

Nominator: Sertor (Chat) 09:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the article is well-structured, well referenced... and just generally a possible candidate for nomination.

  • OPPOSE Lots of [citation needed] marks in one area, not too many photos and some sections can be expanded. Aenopia (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE There's very scant information in certains sections of this article, which definitely needs to be expanded upon. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above; looks pretty stuby! Flag of New Eiffel.svg/Royal coat of arms of New Eiffel.svg Zed Zarel  My Talk Page  Contribs  4:20 p.m., 4 October 2020 (UTC+1)
  • OPPOSE Looks to stuby and could use way more citations User:Dusty

Operation Free Shelly and Fish Sticks

Nominator: leon | talk to me 19:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the page is quite good for what happened on that day- in my view it should be granted GA status.

National symbols of New Eiffel

Nominator: Flag of New Eiffel.svg/Royal coat of arms of New Eiffel.svg Zed Zarel  My Talk Page  Contribs  3:41 a.m. (0341), 7 October 2020 (UTC+1)

In my honest opinion the article is definitely well expanded upon, uses exceptional spelling and grammar, and has plenty of images, references and detail.

Isaiah Burdette

Nominator: User:Dusty, 7 October 2020.
  • SUPPORT: Good well expanded article with many images and a decent amount of citations —Preceding unsigned comment added by dusty (talkcontribs)
  • OPPOSE: Gonna be honest here, the article is all over the place. Large chunks are unreferenced, and it looks like it needs a bit of copyediting. Sertor (Chat) 17:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Definitely needs a copyedit. Aenopia (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added many more citations and referenced the hell out of the article i ask that you re-consider your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty (talkcontribs)
    • I just reviewed the article. A number of citations, for a example for the September Florania election... are literally just links to other MicroWiki pages. Sertor (Chat) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE: To be completely honest, the writing can get pretty repetitive in some sections, there's quite a few grammatical errors, and there's a bit of unnecessary information. I think copyediting and getting rid of unnecessary bits would serve the article well. Player Piano 19:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)<
  • OPPOSE Emperor Anthony I (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Huginn & Muninn

Nominator: User:GS Chris, 11 October 2020.

Comment by nominator (optional). Crows are epic, articles are epic, what more is there to say?

  • OPPOSE A good-sized article for an animal, however, I would like to see some references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mh06941 (talkcontribs) 04:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I really like this, definitely long enough and with enough images, however the grammar can be mildly improved and some sentences can be worded better. With these minor fixes, this can easily become a GA. Flag of New Eiffel.svg/Royal coat of arms of New Eiffel.svg Zed Zarel  My Talk Page  Contribs  12:46 p.m., 16 October 2020 (UTC+1)
  • SUPPORT Isaiah (Chat)

Grand Theft Auto V affair

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 14:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by nominator (optional) the microwar to end all microwars Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 14:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Jamez (talk page) 15 October 2020
  • SUPPORT leon | talk to me 14:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Sertor (Chat) 14:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT @Sertor Valentinus: any feedback? Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 16:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: The article is given the "silly things" tag, describing the page as "MicroWiki is a serious encyclopaedia for micronations, however from time to time, non namespace pages, such as MicroWiki:Unusual articles have popped up, which are meant to be comedic. It's good to laugh every now and then, and most humor articles don't cause much damage to MicroWiki as a website." Given the article itself asking readers not to take it seriously, I feel this alone would disqualify it from GA status. Sertor (Chat) 17:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment @Sertor Valentinus: Thank you for your concern. The topic of an article is not present in the criteria listed, as such should not have anything to do with GA. The article fulfills the present citeria in these ways, in my opinion, as well as being well referenced considering the topic. If though, the article does not fulfill a criterion, feel free to respond to this message and I will respond to you with an explanation, an objection, or I will fix such error. Thank you. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 17:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE No just no. Isaiah
  • SUPPORT johann. (talk page) 21:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Please add feedback when drafting your censusious for article above; I personally believe that this article fulfills all citerion listed on GA, those being
  1. Well-written, the article outlines the background of the event, describes the affair in detail, as well as international reactions and aftermath, enough for an affair like this, at the same time having correct reference placement (i.e. reference after period), and correct grammar and spelling
  2. Comprehensive, the wikipage details the affair leaving no details but being reasonable in its size.
  3. Accurate, you've got various references detailing what GTA V is, letters sent to leaders, messages, etc.
  4. Neutral, a majority of POVs are factored in this article
  5. Illustrated, has images of Leon's account playing GTA, Leon planning to re-install the game, that letter I sent to Trudeau and the M rating for which the ESRB rated the game. This supports the article and at the same time doesn't overwhelm the article.
  6. Well-structured, goes from background, to the main event, to aftermath and reactions. Enough headings for the article for an incident like this

I will be perfectly happy to responding your feedback to the article and I'll respond with an objection, an explanation, or will correct such error if possible. Thank you! Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 01:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


Nominator: Soaringmoon (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just done a week's worth of substantial editing to the page. I annotated what I could the best I can, and will likely be annotating the article further as I read through it for spelling and grammar I may have missed. As it is rather long.

  • OPPOSE Not structured well (i.e. using heading 1 instead of heading 2), goes too in-depth on various things including Ministries and Relationships which could be separated. Can easily be improved and will be a good tender for GA! Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 02:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Sections heading depth was easy enough to fix, that is already done. As for ministries, culture, and army content, do you think that it would benefit by being moved to their own separate pages? Maybe including a navigation box? SoaringMoon (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)