MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to: navigation, search
Overview
Nominations
Archives
Featured
Statistics
List
Template

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.

Nominations

Empire of Pavlov

Nominator: Deniz (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Very nice made and full of information Kolkaria
  • SUPPORT Very well made, well detailed. OpesLP
  • SUPPORT Good article Fazili.farzeen 15 December 2016
  • SUPPORT A good article. Meets every aspect of the criteria. Austenasia (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well structured, detailed and informative. Mike Lewis (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT ricky háblame 05:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sabia and Verona

Nominator: ricky háblame 05:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Not too shabby on an article. The pictures of stuffed animals and their ties into the history of Sabia and Verona are a unique and creative touch. DNSgov (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT A very well-written and well-detailed article. The article has a great structure and has a good amount of pictures and tables. Cip (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT A detailed and well written article, seems to fall into the category. Chi-rho.svg HIM Aleksandr IV TALK 13:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is a fantastic article. Austenasia (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Abeldane Empire

Nominator: Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy User Profile User Talk Contributions
  • SUPPORT I believe it to fulfill all requirements needed to be considered a good article. Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy User Profile User Talk Contributions
  • SUPPORT So do I. It fulfills the requirements. MilitarmiaGov (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2016 (GST)
  • SUPPORT Meets the criteria. Would like more references though. Mike Lewis (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Meets the criteria well. Kit McCarthy
  • SUPPORT Meets the criteria. Shorewell (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2016 (EST)
  • SUPPORT As above. Bob Christ (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    • APPROVED - I'm somewhat disappointed this got so much support. Please can people read through an article properly before supporting it; if you had done, you'd probably noticed some of the numerous mistakes I've just had to fix to bring this article up to scratch. However, those now gone, there's really nothing wrong with it, so approved. Austenasia (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Florenia

Nominator: Nathan | Kingdom of Florenia | 19:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well-written, detailed, and comprehensive. Fits the criteria. ricky háblame 21:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT As above. Austenasia (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Virtual Football World Cup 2016

Nominator: Tom 01.45, 06/2/17 (GMT)

Comments from archive 7 taken into account. Definitely improved the article and believe it to be more professional. Lots of effort gone in and if rejected appreciate more detailed feedback.

  • OPPOSE The article starts off by mentioning things like the FISA and DRF; it's not explained what these acronyms stand for, and there's not even a link to their pages. There's irregular use of capital letters and numbers ("Official Stamp", "two clubs/16 teams"), and - most importantly - there's no explanation of how the football games described were played. It says they were virtual, but was this via an online game, a simulator...? Austenasia (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above. Additionally, the introductory section is a mess, and there are no categories. There is still much room for improvement. ricky háblame 03:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above. Many organizational issues. Nathan | Kingdom of Florenia | 17:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Kid United Republic

Nominator: therepublicofdayane (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • <INHALES> "boy" Bob Christ (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE There are empty sections and the ones that do have content are poorly structured. It has a single picture. The overall tone of the article is bad. It needs a lot of improvement before it can be considered a "good article". ricky háblame 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Shorewellese Empire

Nominator: Shorewell (talk) 3:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE User:Zenrax (talk) 10:36 UTC, May 25th, 2017. (Originally ruled SUPPORT, 21:03 UTC, May 20th, 2017). I would still like to see more elaboration on the main page regarding geography, culture, and foreign relations.
    • COMMENT User:Zenrax (talk) 10:41 UTC, May 25th, 2017. I am reverting my original vote to OPPOSE, based on feedback from certain others who I shall not name here. I have received disturbing reports that certain parts of this article have been plagiarized and modified to suit Shorewell's narrative, and no credit has been given. Until your article clearly reflects original and well-thought language, I cannot support this article until both this and the original vote's concerns have been met.
  • SUPPORT KingdomCoria (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well-written, well-structured, detailed, and illustrated. Fits the criteria well. ricky háblame 17:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The article is very well wrighten and gives very detaled info.
  • OPPOSE What is meant by "discretionary" in the third paragraph? Also, I'd point out that there's hardly anything about Shorewell's history other than when it was founded. Austenasia (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Discretionary has been removed. Additionally, Shorewell has just reached one year of existence, making me think a history section would be inappropriate. However, I do intend to add some history in the coming weeks and months, so that shouldn't be a problem. Shorewell (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2016
      • COMMENT "Discretionary" is still there. I would be unable to support this unless either some sort of citation is given for "Shorewell is considered by numerous to have been the a standout among the most compelling nations in the MicroWiki Community since mid-2016" or the sentence is removed. Bob Christ (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        • COMMENT "Discretionary" was initially only removed from one sentence, as I failed to notice it written twice. The second one has also now been removed, and the sentence you refer to as troubling or in need of citation has been amended. Shorewell (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          • COMMENT You have amended the sentence, but that hasn't resolved the concern - you still make a claim that the country is considered by the community to be of noticeable quality without actually citing anyone in the community expressing this view. Bob Christ (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            • COMMENT That sentence has also been revised, hopefully eliminating any more concerns. Shorewell (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article is very well structured, detailed, and nevertheless a "wiki work of art". I think anyone could agree that the criteria has been filled. --Cinnamon Creek (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Lord Admiral Joseph (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT User:Elsanorgov 19:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC). Meets the stated requirements for a "Good Article", though I would like to see more actual images of Shorewell. Overall, a solid main article.
  • SUPPORT Kostas (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Pause due to its obvious theft from another page. Formatting and even the text contents are borrowed, and to add on there are several parts of the text that need clarification. In addition, as said above I like the idea of seeing more real pictures of Shorewell. User:Twain (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT What Ricky said. Nedland (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • REJECTED ...for now. This was a difficult one to decide, but seven in support and four in opposition is not a consensus. A consensus means that there has to be overwhelming support (albeit not necessary unanimous); just under two-thirds in support is not a consensus. I would give the following three suggestions: 1) Include a "History" section; the article is simply incomplete without it. You say that not enough has happened in a year to warrant one, but I don't think that's entirely correct. Not only does a lot happen in a year in micronationalism, but the article talks about the nation improving and expanding to become the dominant member of a group of other micronations; that can't happen without at least some events of notes which can be discussed in a History section. At the very least, you could detail the evolution of Shorewell's titulature from a Kingdom to a Sultanate to an Empire; right now it looks like the Shorewellese Empire was founded a year ago rather than the Kingdom of Shorewell, which is historically misleading. In my opinion, the article's simply incomplete without a section on its history. 2) Change the wording of the third paragraph, which is clearly copied (word-for-word in some places) from the introduction to Empire of Austenasia. 3) Have the article carefully read through and checked for minor errors; there are quite a few (e.g. "by excellence of his office", as opposed to what I assume you meant to be "by virtue of his office"). Don't get me wrong, this is not a bad article by any stretch of the imagination. It's certainly improving compared to its previous nominations; it's just not quite there yet. Austenasia (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Union of British States

Nominator: Bob Christ (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • COMMENT It looks pretty good, but I don't think I can give my vote to it until the WIP template is removed.DNSgov (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: From an impartial standpoint, the article is well-developed and has practically flawless grammar and spelling. As far as I can tell there is little if not any bias at all. Nedland (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: The one problem I had with this article (the ongoing WIP template) has been removed. I now have no reason to object an article that fits the criteria for good article status. DNSgov (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Austenasia (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Federal State of Indokistan

  • Nominator: Nedland (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Not only does it have a "Defunct" template on, meaning it needs to be updated, but a quick skim through reveals numerous grammatical mistakes. Austenasia (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Breckland

  • Nominator: Kit (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator Comments: The article has improved drastically since a few months ago, i wish to nominate it for good article status.
  • OPPOSE: While it is undeniable that Breckland is one of the most well-known micronations currently in the community, this article does not really reflect that. It is lacking in a great deal of material. How are members of the King's Council chosen? When did the King accede the throne? How did Breckland's flag come into being? Why is the Vice Chancellor seat vacant? Such practical information is sorely needed to reflect the importance usually associated with this micronation. And, to top all of that off, there are conflicting dates for the foundation of Breckland: the infobox says 2014, but the body of the article clearly states 2016. Which is it? DNSgov (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • COMMENT: I am glad to see the dating error has been solved (so 2014 is correct?). But my opposition still stands until sufficient detail on Breckland is given. DNSgov (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Empire of Adammia

Nominator: ADAMVS PRIMVS IMPERATOR (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: An amazing article, truly ready for good article status. Shorewell (falk) 00:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: Well-written and comprehensive article. MilitarmiaGov (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: Very well-written. Meets all the criteria. Austenasia (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: Not at all shabby. It even has a doggy! I love animals... Anyways, very well written and heavily detailed. Certainly meets the criteria. DNSgov (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT As above. ricky háblame 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Overturn GA status of Federal Republic of St.Charlie

Nominator: Austenasia (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As much as it breaks my heart to propose this, we need to acknowledge that this article hasn't been meaningfully updated by anyone actually from St.Charlie since October 2014. There's very little information about anything which happened after 2011 or so, and - although most "is"s are now "was"s - still requires some updating to reflect its defunct status. Sections such as the Government reflect the nation as it was in 2012, not at its dissolution. I really don't think this article is still of the quality it was to warrant GA status in 2010. Austenasia (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE - Although these small changes should certainly be made, outside of them it's still a very good if not great article. Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy User Profile User Talk Contributions 15:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - As much as the article could eventually be fixed, it's a lot of work to be done, especially considering that things such as the government gallery are several years out of date. And beyond that it would require fixing all of the article to detail the states activities or lack thereof in its final years, and would need to detail the Chancellor reformations that took place as the nation sunk into inactivity. All of this needs to be updated, and that alone will take quite a bit of time, especially with little contact for any ex-St.Charlians besides the occasional time Alexander Reinhardt pops onto Skype. If we make a project out of bringing the article up to standards then I will by all means support its reentry into Good Article status, but at this time it is not up to the appropriate standards. Twain (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - I think this is a good article. However, it needs a massive revamp, which will have to be done by somebody who is familiar with St. Charlie. As this overhaul has yet to come to fruition since the micronation collapsed last January, I believe that it will take time to accomplish. Until then, I agree that this article should be removed from the roster, at least temporarily until the article has been revamped. Suzuki (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - Leaving sentimentalities aside, this article is definitely not up to scale. ricky háblame 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Abeldane federal election, August 2017

Nominator: ricky háblame 01:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: This is a work of art, and a great piece of Abeldane histroy and needs to be nominated for a great yes! Cinnamon Creek
  • SUPPORT: After various edits, I believe this article has indeed become thorough enough, and with the great detail of others approved this status, to be accepted as a good article. Nicholas Kaos (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2017‎ (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: Unfortunately, I don't think I'm allowed to specifically say what I would like to say about this article here on the Wiki. So, here is a rough translation from my famous Trucker dialect into something a bit more appropriate: "Gosh diggety-dog! This a mightily-fine example of what a good article looks like! 100% supported? Fruitcake, more like 1,000%!" Suzuki (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: I believe this article fulfills the criteria of a good article. MilitarmiaGov (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • APPROVED --Luxor (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Whoopsie, not ready for that yet. We will have to wait a few more days. --Luxor (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • APPROVED Twain (talk) 4:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Baustralia

Nominator: HM John I of Baustralia (Talk) 01:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - I'm going to say "no" for now. This article does have good potential, especially in its varied usage of charts and graphics. However, it lacks detailed written information, especially around the topics of history and culture, and it contains a few red links. The usage of the flags in the Geography section is a real turn down for my approval, but others may enjoy it, I'm not sure. Keep up the good work, though, John! I'm sure this article will be given a green star one day. Suzuki (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - It's definitely on the positive side of MicroWiki. But it has much work to be done. The "purge this page" template on the top of the page among those issues, it also needs much more writing. Much more detail is needed, and I feel you could easily attain this from looking at the thoroughness of good articles such as Austenasia and Adammia. Twain (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - I believe that the article could be expanded upon, especially in Government and Politics, Law and order, Foreign relations, and military. The few red links should be dealt with, such as the Baustralian Armed Forces link. The nation infobox is very nice, but the rest of the page could do much better with a touch up. Nicholas Kaos (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Essian Commonwealth

Nominator: Twain (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: Successfully meets the criteria. Well-written, detailed, illustrated and most importantly, referenced. ricky háblame 04:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: A complete, well-written, and very A E S T H E T I C article. Überstadt (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: Postive - very well , certainly deserving of being a good article; Negative - no kittens are to be found... Shame! Suzuki (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: This is definitely a good and well written article, though I must point out it lacks too much content. I would suggest a few more paragraphs in the government and culture sections. Shorewell (talk) 1:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Baustralia

Nominator: HM John I of Baustralia (Talk) 15:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Article improved on since last nomination. Infobox also spruced up a little. HM John I of Baustralia (Talk) 15:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)