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've had a shot at trying to make a decent election article. I think it's alright.
- SUPPORT This is about as good as an election article can get. Well done! This deserves GA status. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 09:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that this finally deserves GA, people have also before told me it qualifies, especially with the fixing up of the references.
- SUPPORT This has actually really improved since the last nomination! Alongside the references which you mentioned, it also has a lot of images which really make the article feel alive, and the previous bias issue with the text has been fixed. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 13:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- OPPOSE Well some of your references are discord messages and you just post a link to the message which most won't be able to access I don't really even care about references but this makes the article quality go down. Isaiah (Chat) 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Truly think this article is the best it's been in a while after some changes.
- SUPPORT I've detailed why I like this article many times. Why stop now I guess? Really like the changes made to the first few paragraphs. They were sorta scattered but now they make more sense and have better organization. I'm going to remove the "defunct" part because it's my assumption that this is a part of an April Fool's joke but please let me know if I am wrong. Anthony Ramirez 3rd (talk)
- SUPPORT Very nice article Isaiah (Chat) 14:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- OPPOSE The History part has a lot of sections that are each just sixty words long each, I would consider merging them. For instance I would have only the Post-Charles Era, and remove 'The Leave' and 'The Return' as they seem a bit redundant. There are some issues with the tone, such as "Of course they also are taught to appreciate war and the good and bad it can do, as well as acknowledging it isn't always needed." I see MicroWiki under "Foreign Relations", which is odd since MicroWiki is a website, and MicroWiki@Discord is a social media, and neither of which really make sense for a section on foreign affairs, unless you mean the "MicroWiki Sector" (which in that case should be added). I do like the number of citations, lengths of the other sections, images and the spelling and grammar is not actually half-bad. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 14:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- COMMENT Edited as per Zed's recommendations Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- OPPOSE The badge in the top right is against MOS, and is a clear attempt to mimic GA/FP Status. Sertor (Chat) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- COMMENT The badge was put there for fun and it used on other articles discussing Ela'r'oech or Elarian entities. It will be removed if that is preferred. Cannot have badges clashing anyways.
- SUPPORT He took away the badge and edited it with Zed's reasoning in mind. I think not only should this article receive GA, but both current Opposition Votes should be overturned. MNSD (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- OPPOSE It is a quite nice article, just it seems like it has some bias in some of the terms such as stating if something was a good thing for the nation or not. Also it has multiple sections that are extremely short and should probably be expanded or removed. Also subject areas that are blank other than their subsections don't really look too good graphically. Though the article is coming along really well I don't personally think it is GA yet. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- SUPPORT Pretty neat article User:KaiserKozmás
- SUPPORT As per Anthony. User:Reeses Puffs, Puffs 1st
- Nominator: ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 14:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC): This article has as much information as possible on the subject, and, alongside its highly proficient grammar, good formatting and styling, it is neutral, perfectly illustrated (articles without images are boring!) and amply referenced.
- SUPPORT I think the movie is really detailed tbh I am glad! Ezri A. 17:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- SUPPORT This article has been fleshed out as much as it could be. It deserves the status of GA! • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 11:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this article fully fufills the criteria of good article status.
- SUPPORT And you would think correctly! I made some touch-ups on the grammar, and it is pretty much as expansive as possible, complete with citations and images. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 14:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- OPPOSE A solid chunk of this article is just lists. In addition, areas need a lot more expansion, and the page could probably do with a copyedit. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 11:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator: 20:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Although it is a little short, and the event itself was partially satirical, I believe that this article fulfills the qualifications for a good article.20:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)