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.

Related articles


Kingdom of Ikonia

Nominator: Vulture001 (Talk)11:03, 6 December 2018 (EST)
  • COMMENT I've made some minor improvements in formatting and grammar, and cleared up some ambiguities caused by what I assume was copying and pasting content from a certain other article to use as a template. Also, for some reason the link to Molossia was a link to their article on MicroNations Fandom; in future please be sure to stick to the articles on this wiki. Some points in the article which I feel should be clarified are: 1) you refer to two crown dependencies (Gironia and Pasteque) which are referred to as cities but are not included under the list of cities in "Administrative divisions"; 2) in the "History" section, the date of foundation is given as 19 October in the first paragraph but as 18 October in the second; 3) in the infobox, it specifies that Ikonia is a de jure absolute monarchy, but that doesn't really need to be said unless it is de facto something else. Overall though this article is coming along really well, and I hope this helps! Austenasia (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I would like to thank you for your time for going over my article, I will add the crown dependencies page and Gironia and Pasteque page today, I didn't understand the de jure and de facto part and thank you for going over it, and will fix the links and History errors, thank you for your time and I hope you can go over it once again! - Vulture001 (talk) 3:24, 12 December 2018 (EST)
  • OPPOSE Unfortunately I don't think it's quite up to scratch yet. "Greek" and "English" aren't capitalized, a sentence is repeated in the Etymology section, and due to the fact that you seem to have copied Austenasia's History section (I don't mind, just be careful so you avoid mistakes like this!) the article states that in your first two months so far you have had "the most rulings passed during any era" - quite obvious, given it's your only one! This was just from going through the first few paragraphs, so I'm going to have to oppose this time around. Austenasia (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Thank you for going over my article, I will try to fix all the mishaps and edits caused by copy and pasting. Is there a specific nomination deadline? HM King Cameron I (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Central Minecraft Region

:Nominator: PackerfanGamer (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - Too many red links, not enough pictures, and dates are not in accordance with the manual of style. Austenasia (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - The dates are not as they should be on MicroWiki (see how people sign off the date in these comments), and furthermore the grammar used with your dates is lacking the word "the" in front of them to begin with. Many sections, such as Politics and Government, Economy, and Culture can all be expanded upon. Finally I suggest adding pictures to the Culture and History sections especially in order to brighten up the page more. Nicholas Kaos (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Thank you for going through my article and giving me criticism! I have made some improvements now (such as the dates and a new picture), but I'm going to get working on expanding the sections Nicholas mentioned. PackerfanGamer (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • REJECTED (it's coming along well, though! Fix the red links and nominate it again and it'll probably pass next time) Austenasia (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Royal coat of arms of Baustralia

:Nominator: His (Imperial) Majesty, John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia, and the Dominions, Emperor of Tentacion 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Well written, grammar is perfect and all in all, a great article Vulture001 (talk) 1:26, 15 December 2018 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Made some minor edits; overall a very good article. Austenasia (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Federal Kingdom of Arkonia

Nominator: PrimeMinisterArkonia, the First Prime Minister of Arkonia. 14:29, 9 January 2018 (CST)

  • COMMENT I have lots of pictures and text. I am open to any comments. Prime Minister A. Dillman of Arkonia. Vote Patriot Party this November! 16:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE First thing I saw upon opening the article was a "Work In Progress" template. Looking through it, there are too many red links and empty sections. Austenasia (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

New Florence

Nominator: Anthony Clark (Talk) 16:03, 10 January 2019 (GMT)

Uniforms of the Baustralian Armed Forces

Nominator: His (Imperial) Majesty, John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia, and the Dominions, Emperor of Tentacion 23:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Really not bad at all. My main concern with this article is that the images can make large gaps in the text between paragraphs; is there any way the formatting could be tweaked to fix this? Also, please make sure to use "its" and "it's" correctly! Austenasia (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Austenasia: Fixed and expanded upon.
His (Imperial) Majesty, John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia, and the Dominions, Emperor of Tentacion 03:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Overturn GA status of Kermadecia

Nominator: Austenasia (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This article has since its approval as a Good Article gone through several revamps and major edits in accordance with the political changes going on in the nation itself; however, these edits were never completed (as there are now quite a few empty sections) and the last I heard, Suzuki has left the community, so I doubt these sections will be completed any time soon. The article is also outdated overall, and I don't feel we should have a Good Article which has had a "please update me" template on it since September 2017. Austenasia (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


Nominator: RedArmyGods ([[User_talk:RedArmyGods|Talk}})10:38, 6 February 2019 (MST)
  • Comment by nominator: would like some feedback and improvements
  • OPPOSE If you just want feedback you should message Johnathan I. Anyways, I would say there are a couple things you could improve on. 1) There are too many red links. 2) The date formatting is wrong. Instead of 20th of September, 2018 it should be 20 September 2018. 3) None of the Images for the logos of the ministers work. 4) Sections like Media and Law and Order are empty. And finally 5) bold text is used too much during the article when it shouldn’t. I hope this helps! Z. Luna Skye (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)