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.


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.



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)

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)