MicroWiki:Good articles

Criteria

A good article is one that is:

Well-written: its prose is engaging, coherent, clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. There should be a minimal number of red links.
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.

Process

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. Neither will a simply majority be considered; broad consensus needs to be reached, which will be decided at the discretion of the administrator who closes the vote.

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 criteria, and it will officially be listed as a Good Article. If an article is rejected, the article does not satisfy the 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, and only if improvements have been made to improve the article since.

In the last week of each month, all Good Articles approved that month or the previous month will be voted on by the community. The approved Good Article with the highest number of votes (with admin consensus providing a deciding vote in the case of a tie) will be Featured on the Main Page for at least the first fourteen days of the new month (the Featured Article for the remainder of the month will be a previously approved Good Article decided by consensus of the admins, to ensure articles are not only ever Featured once).

Nominations for November 2023

Tsarist Empire of Gishabrun

Nominator: Gishabrun (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I'd like to think I did a good job. Gishabrun (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Macronation

Nominator: ★ ZabëlleNB ♥︎ —formerly Z Luna Skye— (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT Mtonna257 (talk) –
SUPPORT User:Editor Moe 2

Co-Sovereigns of Northwood-Oregon

Nominator: 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 17:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I believe this article would be ready for GA status. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 17:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Support—very well-written, formatted exceptionally, good images and I love the references. No concerns from me regarding the content, definitely GA material. Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 14:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Support. Well-written and very detailed. R. Slant, President of the Atlantean Federal Republic | talk 05:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

YAMO

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 05:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT Mtonna257 (talk) –

Empire of Shahawkia

Nominator: ShahawkNation (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I think my article is ready for G.A. status. ShahawkNation (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE I'm very sorry to have to oppose, as content-wise I like it, but the tables are too cluttered, making it very inaccessible (even for basic comprehension). Do try improving those, and I'll consider switching. Mtonna257 (talk) –

I've completed what you said, I've cleaned up some (admittedly messy) infoboxes. I hope Shahawkia's page can be ready for GA status, but if not I understand, if not also please point me in the right direction to fix said mistakes (this was written by Stemow)

Imperium (political theory)

Nominator: {{{1}}}

Comment by nominator: I see virtually no reason for this article not to be GA. It reads like a high-quality Wikipedia article. It's incredibly comprehensive without going off-track, the pictures are relevant and well-placed, and almost every claim is backed up by a reference - not to mention it's longer than some articles for micronations with GA status that I've seen on MicroWiki. I wholeheartedly support its nomination. —Addison^{(My talk page and contributions)} 22:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

COMMENT: Whilst it isn't enough for me to vote either way on the page, it concerns me that thus page was and still is currently under the highest page protection level, usually reserved for exceptional incidences, because of an edit war six years ago. I don't think it would be right for this page to be considered until this is resolved. If this page were given GA or even FA status, if inaccuracies were discovered or the page were to become outdated, then there is little chance for any corrections to keep it in line with the GA/FA standards outside of administrative intervention. Sertor (Chat) 21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT Mtonna257 (talk) –
SUPPORT User:Editor Moe 2
OPOSSE (for now) — this is fantastic but I have only three small suggestions before I can confidently support this article for GA status; they should be fairly quick fixes. Firstly, I echo the concerns by Sertor Valentinus. Secondly, the lead can definitely be greatly expanded to summarise the ideology, its schools of thought, history and development, and influences. Finally, in § recognition of empires, there are two bullet points which are seemingly placeholders that should be elaborated upon; they are entitled "Indian 1878" and "German 1881" respectively. Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

GUM Diss Track

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Funny Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sovereign State of Ridgeland

Nominator: RidgelandGov (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Me and another user from Ridgeland have been working on this article together. I hope it's good enough. It's a very long article, though. RidgelandGov (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured article voting

Voting on which article will be featured on the Main Page. Please sign below a article to vote, you may only vote once.

Intermicronational organisation
- User:Indradhanush
- Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 19:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Aardvarks on Parade
Urabba Parks
- Mtonna257 (talk) –
Worker's Street