MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to: navigation, search

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by asking Austenasia, Joseph Kennedy, or another 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. 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.

Following the seven day period, Austenasia, Joseph Kennedy, or another 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 be listed as a good article. If an article is rejected, the articles 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, if progress has been made to improve the article since.

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

Baustralia

Nominator: H.M. John I of Baustralia (Talk) 15:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
COMMENT: Article improved on since last nomination. Infobox also spruced up a little. HM John I of Baustralia (Talk) 15:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE: I don't believe that this article matches the criteria for a Good article. However, although this may not be a Good article in the sense of the criteria above, it is undoubtedly a good article with serious potential to be improved.
There are grammatical mistakes throughout the article, including in the lead section, and the tone is not always appropriately formal. For example, the first sentence reads "Baustralia, or officially the Third Kingdom of Baustralia is micronation founded on 17 October, 2017, after the implementation of a constitution, bill of rights, and a basic Justice and Law Act." Firstly, there should be a comma after "Third Kingdom of Baustralia," as it is an embedded clause. Secondly, "X is micronation" is not correct; it should read "X is a micronation." Thirdly, although this is sometimes considered a matter of personal preference, I would not use a comma before "2017" in the date, especially when it is immediately followed by a comma. Additionally, the second list item should read "a bill of rights" in line with the use of an article in the other two list items. The tone is also a little too casual. A revised first sentence might read "Baustralia, officially the Third Kingdom of Baustralia, is a micronation founded on 17 October 2017 with the agreement of the Constitution of Baustralia and the signing into law of a Bill of Rights and the Justice and Law Act 2017."
The second sentence is also, from the perspective of crafting "engaging, coherent, clear and concise" prose, flawed. From where was the capital moved? Why is this information relevant in the lead section? The article's lead section needs rewriting to more adequately summarise the contents of the article. I would recommend looking at WikiProject Countries on Wikipedia for ideas about how to structure the article. I would be happy to help you myself, too, but I'm not an expert in Baustralia so you'd have to give me more information. These issues of tone are repeated throughout the article; "allowed us" is used in the History section where "allowed the Government" or similar should be used, which makes the article appear to be the work of the Government and not of the encyclopedia; in the Law and order section, the first sentence is structured "Until ...., all citizens are," which changes tense (it should say "Until...., all citizens were"); similar issues are found throughout the article.
Finally, the article is just too short. It has almost half the content of Matthewsgate controversy, an article about an argument that caused someone to sulk off. This lack of content also causes it, in my opinion, to fail the illustrated requirement, as with the exception of the infobox and some images of airport logos, there are no photos. What does the country's territory look like? Are there any official Government files or photos of Government activities? How about notable politicians? The two go hand-in-hand - there just isn't enough there.

I really do think this article is on the way to GA status, but I can't vote in support of it yet. It doesn't seem like a finished article; more like a draft that shows promise but still needs work. - Will Campbell (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Matthewsgate controversy

Nominator: Will Campbell (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE It's a good article in content and is extensively detailed, but this page has so many red-links I got tired counting them. Admittedly I never learned how to count higher than three, but really on a good article there shouldn't be any. Bob Christ (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT All redlinks have been replaced with blue links, so the above criticism is removed. :) Will Campbell (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Principality of Andany

Nominator: Pablo Macías (Talk) 23:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

SUPPORT - It was written by a 12 year old. Need i say more, well punctuated and very well written. Should be approved. User:Sakasarian Federation

SUPPORT - The detail put into the article is outstanding. There is a well-needed lack of red links, and I am especially euphoric to see how well the infobox is designed. My only issue, and a personal one at that is of the short name in the infobox. It is a multicoloured image instead of a simple typed word. I believe this can be overlooked, however, and I can see this article obtaining approval. - Nicholas Kaos 02:58 UTC, 8 April 2018

OPPOSE - Reluctantly and for now. Clearly a great deal of effort has gone into the article, but I have a couple of concerns, namely a) the article, particularly in the economic section, makes a number of claims that aren’t backed by evidence: it’s the largest exporter of wind products? It exports medical equipment? It has a GDP of $3,600? Without references or anecdotal evidence to prove these claims, it’s difficult to see how they can be accepted without a dubious tag being added. The other problem, b), is that in places, particularly where it refers to an incident with the Kingdom of Imvrassia (and, to a lesser extent, the Andanian Revolutionary War), it uses a conversational tone incompatible with the encyclopaedic nature of the wiki and of a Good Article in particular. For these reasons, I’m personally currently unable to support this submission. Bob Christ (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

COMMENT - Hello! I do agree the the Andanian Revolutionary Wat and Imvrassia parts are the smallest of biased. I will change it to completely neutral. Thanks for the notices!

--Andany Gov (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


SUPPORT- Awesome article and written by a 12 year old. Well written great detail and really nice and informative. Tom Kap

COMMENT - The last paragraph about Andany's present seems biased.
Example: The Andanian times are creating more efficient articles every day.
I would recommend some fixes before this is a good article. Sez (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

COMMENT - I will changed the few things in there as well. Thanks for telling me that!--Andany Gov (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
COMMENT - This process should have ended way earlier. Any comments before this comes up to an admin for a final decision?

--Andany Gov (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

COMMENT - The final paragraph in history needs editing. Lots of bias. Also, I would delete the Andanian times part, since it is totally unnecessary, and the paragraph itself needs editing. Sez (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
COMMENT - Hello! I have edited the last paragraph of the history section. I would gladly appreciate a clearer specification as to where the bias is. Thanks!

--Andany Gov (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

COMMENT - I'd like to know if the article is a good article, as this has been on for over a month! :)

--Andany Gov (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

OPPOSE - Apologies that this took so long to get round to. Starting out with a brief overview of the article, I thought I would support it after having made some minor edits and corrections, but as I started editing I realized that there is more to correct than I can really do myself, not having an insider's perspective about Andany.
  1. If you have a population of 15, how are there 33 members of the Assembly?
  2. Please make sure that any future edits you make abide the style guide in terms of the formats of dates, i.e. "25 July 2017" rather than "July 25, 2017". I've corrected all instances of this that I found, but just for future notice.
  3. The section on Imvrassia's offer needs rewriting to remove sarcasm and bias. Saying that reception to the idea was "mixed" and going on to say that it was unanimously opposed just isn't encyclopaedic language.
  4. You mention the American federalist system, Native Americans, and the American military in such out-of-context places that I have to assume that you copy-and-pasted large sections of the article from that of the USA on Wikipedia. This has to be fixed and rewritten. I should not be reading about the Andanian military and suddenly be told that US forces can be rapidly deployed by a fleet of transport aircraft.
  5. If Floris has a population of 5, how does it have 14 Representatives?
  6. You are referred to as the "de facto" Prince in places but elsewhere presented as the actual, de jure Prince.
  7. Several claims in the Economy section, such as that "The Andanian economy is also the fastest growing Micronational economy in Europe.", and "Andany is the largest micronational importer of goods and second-largest micronational exporter" simply can't be quantified and should be removed.
REJECTED - Austenasia (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Duchy of Francisville

Nominator: Francisville Archive (Talk) 12:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - satisfactorily fulfills the criteria. It's concise, comprehensive, well illustrated and thorough. ricky háblame 21:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - I've cleared up a few minor grammatical and formatting mistakes (as well as de-italicized a lot of things which I don't know why were italicized), but this article was superb even before I did so. Why can't more articles be like this? Austenasia (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)