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)