MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
< MicroWiki:Good articles
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by King Ezri (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 27 February 2021. It may differ significantly from the current revision.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Please watch this space for the unveiling of a new Good Articles process.


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

Kingdom of Burdette

Nominator: Isaiah (Chat) 01:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It got passed the first stage last time I want to see how it does this time.

Flag of Australis

Nominator: Flag of Australis.svgDaniel HamiltonEnquiriesMy Work 01:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this page is worthy of Good Article status. I have expanded it to be as expansive as a flag page can be, included references, images, and a great amount of detail. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel HamiltonEnquiriesMy Work 01:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Gymnasium State

Nominator: AtomCZ (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rather than actually aiming to get Good Article status right away, I'm interested in ways to improve it, but if it was approved I wouldn't complain.

  • OPPOSE Don't get me wrong, this is a lovely page and definitely has potential as a Good Article. However I feel as if a majority of sections are too short and could do with some expansion. The culture section could also do with a few images but otherwise it's a great article. Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 09:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I love this article! It's got loads of references, which is good, includes lots of images which is also good, but the main place where this article is brought down are the stubby sections. For a nation established in 2016, the history section could be exponentially expanded. Also, go into more detail on how the Government works. Other than that, it's pretty good. Look forward to seeing the edits! Flag of Australis.svgDaniel HamiltonEnquiriesMy Work 11:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Amazing article and only requires a few fixes as mentioned above. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 13:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The article has potential but as per Logan Ross some sections are stubby. Isaiah (Chat) 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I think the article is on the right track towards reaching GA status, however, the history section could use some work in the sense of an expansion. Also, a few illustrations would help reach the article towards Good Article Status. Other than that, it's very good. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sough2020

Nominator: Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 09:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the quality of this article is close enough to warrant GA status, excluding improvements that I'm going to continue making. Always open to improvement.

  • SUPPORT Because everyone else seems to be supporting their articles. Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 13:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article is quite good, and about as detailed as you can get for a convention article. However, I feel like more detail should be put into the Content section. Other than that, good work! Flag of Australis.svgDaniel HamiltonEnquiriesMy Work 11:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT i see no issues with the article. Isaiah (Chat) 13:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Emperor Anthony I (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Upon closer inspection you notice that some of the text of some sections may be rather confusing to readers. For instance; "In total, 6 meetings took place between 11 October 2020 and 21 November 2020, lasting 42 days in total" should explain that the meetings were for the creation of the convention. It also links to articles that have already been linked throughout (which is redundant), minor spelling mistakes, and some sentences can generally be worded better to be made less redundant. Also what constitutes a "notable nation"? I do not disagree with it, but it is certainly subjective and rather odd to include it. Should be a very easy fix, than I can fully see this gaining GA status. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Glorious Anthean Republic

Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that this meets the criteria. The ostensible lack of detail on some matters (e.g. culture, party politics) reflects the fact that the information does not yet exist — the entry is about a nation that is fewer than two hours old. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE While this article is very detailed, it lacks sufficient references which are generally a requirement for such long pages about micronations. Also, I would possibly recommend re-nominating once the nation has been around long enough to have the party politics and culture you mentioned. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel HamiltonEnquiriesMy Work 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Considering the fact that the nation is quite literally a few hours old, I think that it should wait a bit longer to develop itself more in order to bulk up the page before the article is approved. Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 13:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The culture section is a bit stubby but it has a lot of potential. Isaiah (Chat) 13:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I do feel like it is too new and the page may be rapidly changing as the nation further develops; generally most GAs should be complete. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

GUM Member States Positivity Survey

Nominator:★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 17:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Good, but I feel like some sections could be extended, and possibly more references. 17:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Some sections, such as aftermath, are very short and need expansion whilst it could do with some more references and images. Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 17:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • NEUTRAL Aftermath section is short but it's still a good article so I'm going nuetral. Isaiah (Chat) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Grand Republic of Cycoldia

Nominator: 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Been trying to get this to GA for a while now, if anyone has critisisms on it also I want to be able to know, Thanks!

  • Support Looks like every nominator is voting support on their articles.-𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔)
  • OPPOSE I think this article is well referenced, and very detailed in some areas. However, I find the lack of consistency with that detail to really bring this page down. Sections such as History need to be updated to even include the year 2020. In addition, the Government section could go into more detail on how the Government works and how the different branches interconnect with one another. Also, the Diplomacy section could be improved in aesthetics, as well as better explaining the foreign policy. Also, make sure to go over and proof read the page, I found a couple of grammatical and spelling mistakes here and there. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel HamiltonEnquiriesMy Work 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE ^^^ Empire of Aenopia flag.png Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done. Empire of Aenopia flag.png 17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above Isaiah (Chat) 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I think the diplomacy section could be formatted better and perhaps the full details of the section would be better for a separate page. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Republic of Wendatia

Nominator: Flag of Wendatia.png jonas | talk 17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Any tips? First time of me nominating a GA. I think it meets most of the criteria

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: Emperor Anthony I (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT A fantastic article that fully meets all criteria. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 19:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 8:50PM, 5 February 2021 (EST)
  • OPPOSE The article is well put together and the references suffice for the type of page. However, I did notice several spelling and grammatical errors on the page, such as a lot of words being capitalised when they shouldn't be. It wouldn't be a huge task to go over it and make some edits. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel HamiltonEnquiriesMy Work 14:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT I have made several grammatical corrections to the article. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC) - Precedent is that 2/1 isn't enough

Republic of Matthewopia

Nominator: User Mh06941 talk ☼ 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominating again after some improvements. User Mh06941 talk ☼ 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE This article could get up to scratch easily with your editing skills. However, the main issue which jumps out at me is that the page has a lot of stubby sections. If at all possible try and expand these sections by filling relevant information in, and this is going to sound like I'm telling a primary schooler, but consider who, what, when, where, why and how for expanding these sections. Flag of Australis.svgDaniel HamiltonEnquiriesMy Work 14:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above. A few changes and I can see this getting GA. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 17:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Department of the Interior (Dracul)

Nominator: MissED the Target (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Sluke91 (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The length of the article is good, but there are no references and I found quite a number of spelling and grammar mistakes. User Mh06941 talk ☼ 02:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Examples please?--Moist the Target 00:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Snagovian Federal Republic

Nominator: StefanSNG (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't think it is worthy of being a GA just yet, but I would like tips! What should I add? What should I change?

  • OPPOSE Definitely needs more references, and one thing I noted is that the article flips between Snagov, the nation and the country. I'd recommend sticking to one instead of changing. Some sections such as the ones in Demographics are rather stubby and could do with some expansion. There are far too many redlinks, and some sections could be worded a bit better. Other than that it's a very good article that with a bit of work could be worthy of GA status.
  • OPPOSEToo many red links Isaiah (Chat) 12:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above - I would like to see Military expanded as well. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Dracul

Nominator: Moist the Target 00:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Charles Ross

MSTarget (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Good length, images and well-written, however it could use some citations, and some sections like Personal life and Political views are rather short; perhaps they could be merged. Additionally the Quotes section is odd. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits | full) 23:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


VOTING

Voting is now open for February 2021's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

The first four articles are included in this month's vote due to having been approved last month.

Query as to article suitability

Hello.

I am aware the Kingdom of Burdette article has been approved, but reviewing it... I am rather confused as to how this status was awarded.

I will briefly go over the main issues.

  • Several sections are very poorly expanded upon, such as the climate and culture sections. Some subsections notably contain only a single template list and end there.
  • The parliamentary election subsection — and by extension the speaker election nested within... is of shoddy quality, and I'm surprised has not been picked up on unless this was a later addition. Bearing in kind this article is being featured on the front page, this isn't really something I feel should be aired in public view.
  • The article as a whole needs a major copyedit due to several grammatical errors, lack of flow in the body, and as mentioned prior some very poorly expanded sections.

As a minor note, as it has become de facto practice.... the article is also very poorly referenced.

As I have mentioned earlier, this is going on the front page. Unless these issues are fixed by the sites editors, this article is in no way fit to be considered a GA.

Feel free to comment. Sertor (Chat) 00:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I did my best to fix some of these and expand as much as possible Isaiah (Chat) 02:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am against the inclusion of the article Kingdom of Burdette. There is constant unencycloopedic language on it. I feel like TBA would become a Good Article before this one in the kind of language used in the article. --𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)