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:
- Well-written: its prose is engaging, coherent, clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
- 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.
- Accurate: it is well-researched and its claims are verifiable and not in dispute.
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- Illustrated: it should, where possible, be illustrated with appropriate images with succinct captions.
- 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.
|General information: |
Disclaimer • Copyrights • Manual of Style • Administrators • Staff • Patrollers • Basic rules of editing
|User roles: |
Nocats • Patrollers
Good articles • Featured pictures • Article message boxes • Talk pages • User talk pages
I have done quite a lot of work on the article and I think that it is worthy of good article status.
- SUPPORT Isaiah (Chat) 7:37 AM CST 27 October 2020
- OPPOSE More information can be added, like moving the "MicroCon 2019" to a separate foreign relation section under Government, and also creating separate pages for the flags and awards, those don't look good on the main page. Oritsu.me (Chat) 22:36 IST 27 October 2020
- COMMENT I feel that the article is close to deserving the status, but there are a few things that can be changed, such as things being unnecessarily set to bold and a bias in favor of policies of the Cycoldian government. I will work on fixing those shortly. leon | talk to me 17:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Over time I've been working on this page. I personally don't feel like it should have Good Article status yet, but I would like to have some feedback on it. Thanks. Australis (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- SUPPORT A well described page with information all round, however more information are required to be added, and also some parts are to be expanded like the Government and Grand Duke section. The history section is perfect, however adding some references can be good. Moreover, the page has good number of references, I would suggest some more references be added to it. Thanks. Oritsu.me (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- OPPOSE Government section is marked as wip, lots of redlinks, some sections are too short and the history section looks bare. 20:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- OPPOSE The references are sufficient however I take issue with the number of red links, and I would also expand the 'Demographics' section. Furthermore, some sentences are improperly capitalised. 8:44 p.m., 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe this page thoroughly explains what the royal arms are used for, and what they are in the first place. It is extensive on the usage, past versions, and what the blazon is. If it doesn't deserve GA status now, what should I change? Thanks :) cameron (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This is great page and I believe it deserves Good Article status.
- Nominator: 10:55 a.m., 1 November 2020
- I do believe this fits the criteria, if I may; it is well-written and sufficiently expanded enough, I moved some sections to their own pages to reduce its length. It also has an array of citations and is neutral enough. It also has images where relevant. 10:55 a.m., 1 November 2020
SUPPORT I can say that this article is best fit for Good Article, it's well-written, well-described. Oritsu.me, 1.45 pm UTC, 1 November 2020.
SUPPORT Isaiah (Chat)
SUPPORT Very well-written, illustrated, well-referenced. I think it's excellent for GA status. Noticed the absence of an infobox, quite unusual for a biography article, but I don't think it's a significant issue. Cristi (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
SUPPORT as pointed out before, the article would be complemented with an infobox but otherwise a good article - I feel as if the political career section could do with some more pictures though. 14:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- COMMENT Okay I finally added an infobox, and also added an extra image where relevant. 6:51 p.m., 1 November 2020
- Nominator: Oritsu.me, 1.36 p.m. UTC, 1 November 2020
- It has just been three months, I have joined the Wiki community but in this period, I had worked hard on this article based on our nation; it is well-written and expanded well. It has relevant images, references and notes. I wish for opinion from all ends. Thank you. Oritsu.me 1.36 p.m. UTC, 1 November 2020
SUPPORT very well detailed article, with lots of appropriate information, images and references to complement the article.
SUPPORT How long you've been in the community is not important. What matters is that you have an excellent article, with great detail, well-referenced, well-illustrated and sizable (yet readable). It certainly does deserve GA status. Cristi (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
SUPPORT It’s a very detailed article, you would think that it was a macronation’s article if you didn’t look closely. PresidentLuke (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
SUPPORT The page is really above the standarts here, very well explained, written, detailed, if one wanna know something about Vishwamitra the person can almost certainly found the information at this article. And it gets more exceptional if we notice it is a fresh new article from a fresh new editor. Vey much pro. Arthur Brum (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator:Aenopia, 14:00 UCT, 1 November 2020
- I feel as if it could do with more references and the Reform and Growth sections in the history section could do with expansion but I feel like it is sufficient to reach GA status. 14:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
SUPPORT I feel that the page is perfect for Good Article status, however, I'd simply suggest that the direct link of the page is provided (that shan't be an issue) and also, please change the name to "Union" from "organization" on the main infobox. Other than this, it's perfect. Oritsu.me, 14.10 UTC, 1 November 2020.