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)
- REJECTED Actually the article is quite good. It has references, images and is nicely expanded. With a few small copyedits for grammar and pacing, it can easily be worthy. 8:39 a.m., 4 November 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. • Daniel Roscoe • Enquiries • My Work 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)
- REJECTED 8:49 a.m., 4 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)
- OPPOSE Article has no references, some sections have little info. • Daniel Roscoe • Enquiries • My Work 09:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- SUPPORT Basically as much information as you can get from a micronational CoA. 4:25 p.m., 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- NUETRAL Well no references but it's nicely written with much information
- REJECTED One support is not consensus. , 4:48 p.m., 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This is great page and I believe it deserves Good Article status.
- OPPOSE Bland and non-illustrated history section, empty "Contemporary Era" section, disputable claims ("Karnia-Ruthenia is regarded a micronational world power"). Cristi (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- OPPOSE Doesn't feature many images at all, one section is empty and again disputable claims. 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- 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
- COMMENT That is Wikipedia. There is no such policy on MicroWiki. 3:05 p.m., 2 November 2020
- COMMENT Hey there Zeddy boy, do you know what "Cf." means? Kenosis (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- COMMENT Scratch that, looks like I typoed "Cf." as "Cl." My point still stands though, one should compare (confer) the source linked for why I do not believe this fits the encyclopedic nature of MicroWiki.Kenosis (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- COMMENT This is MicroWiki. The rules on editing here are much different, and as such one may create articles that, on Wikipedia, may be a CI, as there is simply not enough external resources/influence for a non CI article to be written. Hope this clears things up. • Daniel Roscoe • Enquiries • My Work 03:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- APPROVED , 4:48 p.m., 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- 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. 14:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- SUPPORT This micronational page is very detailed! I would say that new micronationalists can get a lot of inspiration from looking at this page, even though it is very long, it is not hard to read, and it offers a lot of information. A+ from me. StefanSNG (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2020 (EET)
- COMMENT This is very good, though upon closer inspection it does have a few grammatical errors and unnecessary use of bold text — the article is very long, so I believe the history section should have its own article. The Timeline of Vishwamitran history article can stay alongside it for a quicker overview and lesser important events. With these easy and minor changes I see no reason to reject. 4:43 p.m., 5 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.
- OPPOSE Some sentences could be worded better, improper capitalisation, and the article is written in past-tense yet it was revived? Also not fully factually correct as TOES was founded a day prior to the given date and by individuals, not ex-member states.
3:27 p.m., 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- COMMENT I've fixed the issues presented and I'm currently improving the page to suit the current conditions. 16:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- REJECTED One is not consensus, though in my opinion it is really close to GA. Feel free to renominate next month. , 4:48 p.m., 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I now—finally—have a personal article that merits GA status. I should be able to act on any comments or concerns.
- SUPPORT The censoring is a bit offsetting, though the article does match every other criteria. 1:12 a.m., 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator: His Majesty John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia King, Emperor of Ostreum (talk · ) 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- OPPOSE The article is fairly well-written, and I am fond of the lead section, however it is kind of short and there is a new paragraph every three lines which looks odd. The 'Personal life' section also seems to take up a large amount of the article compared to 'Reign', which I would argue is more important. I would also recommend giving 'Military career' its own section out of personal life.
11:00 p.m., 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Zed, I've tried to make a few fixes. I didn't touch the lead, I'm not sure what else to add, however, I do agree it looks a bit odd. I separated 'Military career' into its own section, and expanded on 'Reign'. --His Majesty John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia King, Emperor of Ostreum (talk · ) 03:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- SUPPORT The article is good enough to be a "Good Article", however please try to do away with the red link on the introductory paragraph of the article. Oritsu.me (talk) 13.02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- OPPOSE Zero references and some sections are rather short. 15:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- SUPPORT Well-written, informative and gives all information that one would expect to be available. The prose is clear and precise. The structuring is acceptable—the lead section is good; the military career section perhaps leaves something be desired but is definitely passable. IMO this deserves to be a GA. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Trying again because last time there wasn't a common consensus other than 1 support and one oppose. Zed had rejected it last time in an odd way too so... 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- SUPPORT I feel that the article deserves a GA tag. The flags and awards can have individual articles, however, there's no problem if they are on the main article. Oritsu.me (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- OPPOSE. The lead section is poorly-structured—the pronunciation guide is poorly-integrated, a fifty-word full name is present in bold, there is a non-standard cross-reference, there are unnecessary upper-case letters on "See" and "Constitutional Monarchy", and the logic for what merits inclusion is confusing and renders the lead section a poor summary of the article at large. There is a good amount of content but the structure, grammar and prose are consistently mediocre. Three particularly grating flaws running through the article are the constant wiki-linking of Christinia I after the first instance, the deluge of unnecessary upper-case letters and the unnecessary wiki-linking of years. The references are inconsistently formatted—the date is actually shown in no fewer than three different ways (see references 9, 10 and 14). In addition, your little swipe at Zed in the nomination, complete with passive-aggressive ellipses, is completely unmerited. He said when rejecting this article that it was "quite good" but that it needed copyediting; you ignored this recommendation and relisted it with a comment implying that the fact he said it was "quite good" should have qualified it for GA status. I suggest that this time you act on Zed's suggestion and copyedit the article before nominating it a third time. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)