MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations/Archive 15

From MicroWiki, the free micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
OverviewNominationsRevisitsArchivesFeaturedSummariesStatisticsList

January voting cycle nominations

Tsarist Empire of Gishabrun

Nominator: Gishabrun (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I'd like to think I did a good job. Gishabrun (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Imperium (political theory)

Nominator: Addison(My talk page and contributions) 22:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC) {{{1}}}

Comment by nominator: I see virtually no reason for this article not to be GA. It reads like a high-quality Wikipedia article. It's incredibly comprehensive without going off-track, the pictures are relevant and well-placed, and almost every claim is backed up by a reference - not to mention it's longer than some articles for micronations with GA status that I've seen on MicroWiki. I wholeheartedly support its nomination. —Addison(My talk page and contributions) 22:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

COMMENT: Whilst it isn't enough for me to vote either way on the page, it concerns me that thus page was and still is currently under the highest page protection level, usually reserved for exceptional incidences, because of an edit war six years ago. I don't think it would be right for this page to be considered until this is resolved. If this page were given GA or even FA status, if inaccuracies were discovered or the page were to become outdated, then there is little chance for any corrections to keep it in line with the GA/FA standards outside of administrative intervention. Sertor (Chat) 21:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Mtonna257 (talk)  –
  • SUPPORT User:Editor Moe 2
  • OPOSSE (for now) — this is fantastic but I have only three small suggestions before I can confidently support this article for GA status; they should be fairly quick fixes. Firstly, I echo the concerns by Sertor Valentinus. Secondly, the lead can definitely be greatly expanded to summarise the ideology, its schools of thought, history and development, and influences. Finally, in § recognition of empires, there are two bullet points which are seemingly placeholders that should be elaborated upon; they are entitled "Indian 1878" and "German 1881" respectively. Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • REJECTED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strubber (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

GUM Diss Track

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Funny Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sovereign State of Ridgeland

Nominator: RidgelandGov (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Me and another user from Ridgeland have been working on this article together. I hope it's good enough. It's a very long article, though. RidgelandGov (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Republic of Athabasca

Nominator: Xulf (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Treaty of mutual recognition

Nominator: 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 03:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: General article on the subject. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 03:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ranzania

Nominator: Razvan Juncu (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I believe this article is worthy of the Good Article status. Razvan Juncu (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Roscami Federation

Nominator: DesertHeat (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

February Featured article voting

No featured article voting was held due to only one article being approved for GA status and receiving FA status by default.

February voting cycle nominations

GUM Diss Track

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Funny Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE For the moment, I think this is a decently written page however my main concern is that I would want to see more focus on its reception and responses from the community. While the article talks about it being the anthem of the CA until backlash, I would like to see potentially more background to why it was made, details on how it was responded to, etc. etc. I think those things would make this more justifiable, to me, to be a GA on MicroWiki. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I am busy with uni right now but I'll be free to deal with this within a few weeks. Thank you :] Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 22:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
REJECTED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sovereign State of Ridgeland

Nominator: RidgelandGov (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Me and another user from Ridgeland have been working on this article together. I hope it's good enough. It's a very long article, though. RidgelandGov (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE There are some current glaring issues with this page, a broken table, "Main articles:" that are just linking to red links, numerous other red links throughout the text and especially the infobox. A outlying claim of Joe Biden being "inspired" by Ridgeland seems to be a misrepresentation of the most likely defaul email received and makes me concerned about other issues being mispresented. References, while not necessary for GAs currently, should still be done correctly if used and the current plain links to tiktok and Twitter should be replaced with proper references as seen on Wikipedia or other MW pages (I.e. my own example of the references on Royal Order of the Sovereigns, also see the documentation of w:Template:Citation on wikipedia with can be used on MW). Also hard to navigate at points, many subsections should be cut down on or merged together for readability. These problems need to be fixed before I will support GA status. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
REJECTED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Republic of Athabasca

Nominator: Xulf (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I know this micronation is new, but the article is still very short and lacking several sections that other micronation GAs have—§ Culture, § Economy (if applicable), § Demographics etc. Outside of this, the bold text in § Politics is not necessary; the external URLs to the constitution should be removed; and § References should go above § External links. Personally I would wait until the micronation is a bit more developed before nominating this article again.. I imagine details may frequently change for the first few months. Otherwise, make sure to expand upon these hypothetical but necessary sections! Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 02:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
REJECTED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Treaty of mutual recognition

Nominator: 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 03:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: General article on the subject. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 03:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT: The article I didn't know I want but the article I needed. User:Editor Moe 2 8:40, 2/3/2024.
  • Comment @Strubber: Fantastic article! I have just one comment: for the bullet points in "These additional elements or clauses may include:", could you covert this into a paragraph or two elaborating upon each of these, i.e. their definitions, purpose(s), means of achieving these clauses etc.? Other than that, I think this article is great. Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Implemented a new paragraph to replace the bullet list and to add a little more detail behind the clauses. Let me know what you think! 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 01:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Changing to support per the changes implemented. Really looks good! Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 19:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
APPROVED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ranzania

Nominator: Razvan Juncu (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I believe this article is worthy of the Good Article status. Razvan Juncu (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  • @Razvan Juncu: This was fun to read! For starters, remember to wikilink relevant information (linking to Wikipedia where necessary can be done [[w:like this|like this]]). See Wikipedia's manual of style for a good guide of when to wikilink entries (their policy also applies to MicroWiki). I will review the other sections later, but for right now (I worked from bottom to top for some reason)—§ Colonies can be a subsection of § Administrative divisions. Also, in the infobox for the divisions the 'Part of' parameter is unnecessary since the reader already knows that they are all part of Ranzania. Can § Relations be expanded at all (i.e. dates when Ranzania joined intermicronational organisations, means of conducting diplomacy, treaties, foreign policy, details about its relations/history with some of the micronations listed, etc)? Right now, it is very empty. § Geography is well-written and expansive but I would merge some of the shorter paragraphs into each other, i.e. the first four paragraphs of the subsection § Fauna of Ranzania would probably look better as one. Both § Ranzanian Holidays and § Traditions and Customs can be merged into each other as they cover very similar topics; this will also help make the current § Ranzanian Holidays look a lot less empty. The section can probably be called § Public holidays and traditions. The URLs in § See also should be moved to the very bottom of the article under a new section entitled External Links (also, the numbers are unnecessary—use bullet points). Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
RETAINED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Roscami Federation

Nominator: DesertHeat (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
RETAINED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Nanonation

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I like the article and I am ready to support once a few minor things are fixed and a suggestion is at least considered if not implemented. Minor things first, there are a few formatting things. The references are a bit strange to read for me though that might be a me problem, I am a sucker for the citation template but even if there is some other way just to improve readability for them I would want to see that, if not and it is just a consequence of the material cited being a bit strange then that is something I can live with. There is a broken file link and the dates in the table are a bit hard to read since it seems like each one just as a consequence of not knowing dates or being in the same month causes that even if it is done appropriately, similar to the citations I am not sure perfectly how to fix such but something to think of if there is a way. The quotes in the Etymology section also hinder readability, potentially using the quote template or such may help just because it would break it out but again, just something to consider. The one suggestion I would have stems from our actually very recent conversation on the MW discord, that being that list potentially becoming unsustainable or unfinishable going forward. I think replacing it with case studies of specific nanonations that demonstrate an important part of the nature of them would be something I would rather see. Other than all that nitpicking, very interesting article that I would be willing to support soon. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 01:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
RETAINED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

March Featured article voting

No featured article voting was held due to only one article being approved for GA status and receiving FA status by default.

March voting cycle nominations

Kingdom of Ranzania

Nominator: Razvan Juncu (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I believe this article is worthy of the Good Article status. Razvan Juncu (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  • @Razvan Juncu: This was fun to read! For starters, remember to wikilink relevant information (linking to Wikipedia where necessary can be done [[w:like this|like this]]). See Wikipedia's manual of style for a good guide of when to wikilink entries (their policy also applies to MicroWiki). I will review the other sections later, but for right now (I worked from bottom to top for some reason)—§ Colonies can be a subsection of § Administrative divisions. Also, in the infobox for the divisions the 'Part of' parameter is unnecessary since the reader already knows that they are all part of Ranzania. Can § Relations be expanded at all (i.e. dates when Ranzania joined intermicronational organisations, means of conducting diplomacy, treaties, foreign policy, details about its relations/history with some of the micronations listed, etc)? Right now, it is very empty. § Geography is well-written and expansive but I would merge some of the shorter paragraphs into each other, i.e. the first four paragraphs of the subsection § Fauna of Ranzania would probably look better as one. Both § Ranzanian Holidays and § Traditions and Customs can be merged into each other as they cover very similar topics; this will also help make the current § Ranzanian Holidays look a lot less empty. The section can probably be called § Public holidays and traditions. The URLs in § See also should be moved to the very bottom of the article under a new section entitled External Links (also, the numbers are unnecessary—use bullet points). Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
DECLINED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Roscami Federation

Nominator: DesertHeat (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: I mean, this has been here a while. If anyone cares to give their opinions on this, I’d like to hear it. - DesertHeat (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @DesertHeat: Giving it a quick-read through, I have some initial, minor grammatical and formatting suggestions; the article inconsistently uses both curly quotations (“ ”) and straight ones (" "); use one for consistency, ideally the straight quotation marks. Dates like "1st of March" should just be "1 March" per the Manual of Style. I see you also use only the dates a lot after the month is mentioned, like in § Political polarisation. However, the month name should always be included (unlike what we do for years). For instance, the first sentence of the § Political polarisation section should instead read "In the midst of political polarisation, the Electoral Commission began planning the 4th chamber election, with campaigning beginning in early part of November. On 13 November, the 3rd Chamber of Representatives dissolved itself by a motion presented by the Majority Caucus, in preparation of the 4th chamber election. [paragraphs break] On 22 November ..." etc. For date ranges like "3rd - 4th of December", use instead the en dash (–): "3–4 December". Lastly, the § History section is super long, taking up most of the article. It can definitely be its own separate article while the history section for this page should be abridged. This might take some time, but ping me when you are done so I can give you some other feedback regarding content, images, etc. I reckon it can attain GA status with some work! Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 14:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
DECLINED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nanonation

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I like the article and I am ready to support once a few minor things are fixed and a suggestion is at least considered if not implemented. Minor things first, there are a few formatting things. The references are a bit strange to read for me though that might be a me problem, I am a sucker for the citation template but even if there is some other way just to improve readability for them I would want to see that, if not and it is just a consequence of the material cited being a bit strange then that is something I can live with. There is a broken file link and the dates in the table are a bit hard to read since it seems like each one just as a consequence of not knowing dates or being in the same month causes that even if it is done appropriately, similar to the citations I am not sure perfectly how to fix such but something to think of if there is a way. The quotes in the Etymology section also hinder readability, potentially using the quote template or such may help just because it would break it out but again, just something to consider. The one suggestion I would have stems from our actually very recent conversation on the MW discord, that being that list potentially becoming unsustainable or unfinishable going forward. I think replacing it with case studies of specific nanonations that demonstrate an important part of the nature of them would be something I would rather see. Other than all that nitpicking, very interesting article that I would be willing to support soon. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 01:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Strubber: I have done everything except for the citations. How does it look now? Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
APPROVED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous nation

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 18:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: This article is clear, concise, and displays its information in an easily readable format. I understood everything in this article, and it helped formed an opinion on indigenous nations. I would be surprised if this was not approved for Good Article status. - DesertHeat (talk) at 12:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
APPROVED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Flag of New Eiffel

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
RETAINED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

April Featured Article Voting

Voting on which article will be featured on the Main Page. Voting will begin halfway through the month. Treaty of Mutual Recognition was chosen as FA by default for March cycle.

June voting cycle nominations

Flag of New Eiffel

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: A fairly comprehensive article about the New Eiffelic flag. Its not enough to sway my vote, but the article will need a look around with a minor edit or two: there are a few redlinks to speedy-deleted articles, and some sentences are worded a bit clumsily. Sertor (Chat) 23:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
APPROVED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Intermicronational treaty

Nominator: 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: My obligatory nomination for a page I am proud of. Another foundation page, more to come hopefully. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Very good, I have only one concern before I can vote support: "Other enforcement methods may be included or implemented" – such as? Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 02:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    Added a little blurb of other potential methods, let me know what you think. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 04:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    Lovely! Definitely a support from me now. Fantastic article overall. Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 15:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
APPROVED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 Malusian Federal elections

Nominator: --X (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) ❧ (contribs)
  • OPPOSE Before going deep into the article itself there is the glaring problem that this article is about an election that has not yet occured. While that is fine for this article as it has quite a bit of background at first glance, rather than being a redlink saver like other articles, I don't think it would be appropriate to give this good article status when it is still ongoing. There is still over a month of activity that will be going into this election, let alone the results, that could radically change the content and what is in it. While it seems to be in a decent state now, making it a GA with the understanding that it is still going to be under development for a little bit of time isn't something I am comfortable with. I think the election this article is about should run its course and then it should be renominated again once all possible content is added to it. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Understandable. X (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: Page appears to have been speedy deleted under MW:G8 on 7 April 2024. I cannot find any trace of similar pages/intended pages, leading me to assume that the page as a whole no longer exists. As such, I think it would be fair to automatically disqualify this nomination. Sertor (Chat) 23:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
DECLINED Articled deleted for unrelated reasons. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sean II and V

Nominator: Ayunipear (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Short and stout. Ayunipear (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  • COMMENT: Page was redirected to multiple titles within the span of a week, before being deleted on 22 April under MW:G9. I think this is fairly reasonable grounds to automatically disqualify this nomination. Sertor (Chat) 23:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
DECLINED Articled deleted for unrelated reasons. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Micronational dictionary

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 16:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: I believe this is a fairly comprehensive, high-quality article. Sertor (Chat) 23:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
APPROVED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

MicroWikiDictionary

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 06:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
RETAINED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Alsann Republic

Nominator: Diegg24 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Diegg24 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Diegg24: Oo – this is quite good, but before I leave my comments I have to ask: the last major edits were made in October 2023; is everything still up to date history-wise? The history section also mentions elections for 4 November 2023—did those ever occur? :] Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
RETAINED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

June Featured Article Voting

Voting on which article will be featured on the Main Page. Voting will close on the 15th of June. Sign under the article you wish to vote for.

July voting cycle nominations

MicroWikiDictionary

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 06:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Fine article. I assume the current red links are going to be created pages relatively soon so that's fine. Only thing I wonder is if there is a better substitute for circa in the infobox like something that means by. That's not even a minor problem though in fairness. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Seems good enough to me. It says what it needs to say, without adding too much fluff for the sake of length. Shiro Mephistopheles (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • APPROVED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 16:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Alsann Republic

Nominator: Diegg24 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Diegg24 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Diegg24: Oo – this is quite good, but before I leave my comments I have to ask: the last major edits were made in October 2023; is everything still up to date history-wise? The history section also mentions elections for 4 November 2023—did those ever occur? :] Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Noone: I don't know ; I asked the creator and they haven't responded yet. User:Diegg24 (talk contribs) at 10:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    … I just found out that it was rated 29/30 according to the Hubbard System, which according to Matthew, should be a Good or Featured article. Diegg24 talk 14:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: Agreed, it hasn't been updated in months. The odds are very high that it's likely out of date. I crawled around the creator's sandbox, and as of May 4th, seemed to still be in progress and in the middle of an update. Until they respond, I am disinclined to vote in support. Shiro Mephistopheles (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • REJECTED 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 16:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

New Eiffel and the Micronational Olympic Federation

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 16:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Empire of Pacifico

Nominator: Diegg24

Comment by nominator: It is quite short but in my opinion it is quite good. Diegg24 talk 15:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE: The comment by the author sums it up: it's too short in many of its sections. Comprehensiveness is one of the marks of a good article. That is not seen here enough for me to warrant putting my vote of support at this time. Shiro Mephistopheles (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that it is short in many sections, but the information provided is worded very well Diegg24 talk 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment – @Diegg24: It is definitely well-written – and there is nothing inherently wrong with short articles – but there is definitely some room for expansion in this case! For instance, Geography could use some more content, including the addition of short sections (if applicable) on the most notably different geographical features of each administrative division. See, for example, Republic of Molossia#Geography; and for a good example of a decent climate section, see Geography of New Eiffel#Climate. Also, this could use a Culture section.. even if it is similar to its macronation, it is still worth noting. It could even be a single section with two or three large paragraphs. Republic of Molossia#Culture and Abeldane Empire#Culture are decent examples of such a section. Best of luck and happy editing, Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 23:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
OPPOSE: As above, short isn't bad but there seems to be more that can be added. Are the people who hold the positions in the infobox also named after their positions? I'd like to see a clarifying note if that is the case because it can be a bit confusing at first. The way the climate section is written makes it sound like its almost a weather broadcaster saying it with the adjectives (pleasantly, forgiving, comfortable, etc.), so I am not sure if that's written the best way for an encyclopedia. I'd also like to see an elaboration on the multiple administrative divisions which can make that section more meaty than just a sentence and a table. If more subsections aren't going to be added to demographics than it can probably just be turned into a population section instead of demographics with a population subheader. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 15:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Landopia

Nominator: ZuppaDiCarlo (talk contribs) at 20:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
WEAK OPPOSE: In addition to Strubbers opposition, I think this article has potential but the sections should be expanded a bit and remove biases. Ayunipear (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: Has quite a few red links here, but it's not bad overall. If the red links are fixed, I wouldn't mind people putting on their stamp of approval. Shiro Mephistopheles (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    Since they are not a "work in progress", I have to remove them, however they will be reinserted as I create the pages in question (for example the page on the Armed Forces of Landopia, on the Insula Maiestatis, on the Order of Merit of the Kingdom of Landopia). Thanks for the comment. KingCarlo (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
OPPOSE: Ill go over small things first. References are not formatted in any proper way, my preference and an easy way of formatting them is by using Template:Citation. One reference is just a link to wikipedia that could instead be linked to in the text itself. There are no images that aren't captioned in any way that should probably be. External links aren't masked in any way which I think should be. There are two quotes that aren't used as context in any clear way those being at the tops of the history and constitution sections, the context is additionally lost due to no translation being provided for them. I assume there are some odd phrasings just due to translations that I think should be gone over again maybe by another individual just to ensure clarity. There are some places where capitalization isnt applied correctly and ive noticed one spelling error (Gran Unified Micronational) so checking over for any others would also be good.
The main meat of my opposition comes from how the article is written, that being that it does not seem to be written in an encyclopedic tone at points and that it doesn't seem to be neutral such as putting religion in quotation marks when refering to Satanism or referring to segments of the history with very high praise. There is also the fact that some of the article either seems to be bending the truth or maybe not representing things fully as they happened. For instance saying that the King was given a report on the "uncontrolled spread of an virus" from an agent implying by how it was written that this information was sourced directly by that agent, and this section never directly says it was COVID-19. There is also the attesting of a war with the Italian Republic in which territory was acquired and that Landopia won. Until these pretty major tonal issues are fixed and facts are more represented in a clearer way I am opposing this nomination. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 22:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Westavia

Nominator: Ayunipear (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: Optional comment. Ayunipear (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ranzania

Nominator: Razvan Juncu (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I think that this article is a really good candidate for the Good Article status. Razvan Juncu (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

July Featured article voting

No featured article voting was held due to only one article being approved for GA status and receiving FA status by default.

Retrieved from "https://micronations.wiki/index.php?title=MicroWiki:Good_articles/Nominations/Archive_15&oldid=1838731"