Micronations.wiki costs £160 per year to keep online.
Since we are unable to run advertisements, we ask that any users who are able to do so
make a contribution so that Microwiki may continue to survive and thrive. Thank you!
MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations/Archive 7
- 1 February 2016
- 2 May 2016
- 3 June 2016
- 4 July 2016
- 5 August 2016
- 6 September 2016
- 7 October 2016
- 8 December 2016
- SUPPORT --ricky • háblame 01:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT Bob Christ (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT Austenasia (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator: Trenton Daniel
Well written, I know it took a while to write. Time was spent to perfect it.
- OPPOSE The writing is decent, but the formatting is a royal mess. Überstadt (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE As above, while the content itself is reasonable, the lack of formatting makes it difficult to comprehend. It also has a distinct lack of images. Bob Christ (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE for now, even though I removed the main issue the Wiki had with it (which resulted it being enclosed in <pre> tags), I think there should be more images (if possible), preferably subheadings, the Coat of Arms should be a transparent PNG (unless the white background is supposed to be there). Besides that, there are not any more major issues, I think. There are very few minor errors (the article links to too few other articles, there is one extra space before a comma and that might be it). I hope my post was helpful. --Luxor (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT. I wonder why this wasn't done before.Überstadt (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT. Of course, I'm hardly unbiased here, but trying to be as objective as possible I genuinely do not think it fails any of the criteria for Good Articles. Austenasia (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT. It's time. ricky • háblame 14:40, 12 April 2016 (BST)
- Nominator: Swena (2016-03-18T05:00UTC)
Theodian language is the proper successor to Þeûdspråxa, one of MicroWiki's first Good Articles. It covers the language in its current state nigh-completely, is exceptionally well-formatted, and has easy-to-read code that's even been minified. This nomination is a long time coming, and is the result of years of work.
- SUPPORT -ricky • háblame 04:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT -Luxor (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE - While most of the article is certainly impressive, it's apparently unfinished; the "Mathematical constructions" part is still a WIP. Furthermore, several images linked to have not been uploaded. Once this is done, though, I'd be more than happy to support. Austenasia (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2016 (BST)
Nominator: Usrgovernment (2016-04-30T05:00UTC)
The Slaviac Republic is a national entity founded in 2014, and has been a collaboration of work by man people working to better spread our message.
- OPPOSE The formatting's a mess, and the article needs copyediting. It therefore does not meet the criteria for GA status.
/swɛ́na/💬 17:06, 4 May 2016 (BST)
- SUPPORT User:Michal Nowacki/sig 10:50 AM, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE - for the same reasons as Swena. Also, there aren't any photographs. Austenasia (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2016 (BST)
- OPPOSE ricky • háblame 05:43, 7 June 2016 (BST)
- SUPPORT - I can't see anything really wrong with this article. Maybe a photo or two of government activities (at the moment the only images are of the land claims; how do we know you have eleven people?) would improve the article, but overall it's very good. Austenasia (talk)
- SUPPORT ricky • háblame 05:43, 7 June 2016 (BST)
Nominator: Michal Nowacki (2016-06-03T17:15UTC)
Litvania is a young micronation with eager people and goals, one of which is to spread the word about ourselves.
- OPPOSE Nowhere near enough images or indeed detailed information, numerous red links, I'll pass this time fam Bob Christ (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2016 (BST)
- OPPOSE - As above. Also several formatting inconsistencies in regards to dates. Austenasia (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2016 (BST)
- OPPOSE ricky • háblame 05:43, 7 June 2016 (BST)
- Nominator: 'Grand Duke John I of Breckland' 5 June 2016
Comment by nominator Looks like a great article and looks like it fits the criteria.
- SUPPORT ricky • háblame 05:43, 7 June 2016 (BST)
- SUPPORT I've made a few very minor tweaks, and can't really find anything wrong with this article at all. Very well written. Austenasia (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2016 (BST)
Overturn GA status of Cheslovian Federation
I can't see how this article was approved in the first place. It has innumerable grammar and formatting errors, incorrect capitalisation, red links and un-uploaded files, thumbnails with no captions... I realise how important Cheslovia was seven years ago, but this article should not be able to retain its status as a "Good" one merely by resting on the laurels of its subject matter.
- SUPPORT This should be done with some other GA too. ricky • háblame 17:23, 25 June 2016 (BST)
- COMMENT Instead of overturning the "Good Article" status, it may be a better idea just to fix the article. I think the errors could be repaired so the "Good Article" status could be maintained. Also, if these errors were not considered troublesome seven years ago, why are they being brought up now? (Unless, of course, our Old Guard predecessors were abusers of the English language, which I suppose could be true). ☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2016 (BST)
- SUPPORT - Bob Christ (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The formatting could use a bit of work (most notably in the infobox at the beginning of the article, but also in other parts), and the article overuses images. Try to pare it down to the images that really add something to the article, and place the others into more specialized articles.
/swɛ́na/💬 03:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE - Out of date following the establishment of Karnia-Ruthenia. Plus the comments by Theodia, and also I feel that there really should be some more photographs to help substantiate your claims (the article doesn't warrant a Dubious template, but it would be good to have some sources for your large land and population claims). Austenasia (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2016 (BST)
- Comment: I appreciate the criticism and even the indication, however, I have only one question to do. How can I provide information about my private property? I do not think reasonable expose here documents that prove that these properties belong to my family. About the number of citizens,I update numbers according to the entries in our form. How would I do proof without exposing personal data? Oscar of Ruthenia (talk) 08 June 2016.
- You claim a very large area. Surely not all of that is identifiable as your own; are there gardens, fields, that sort of thing? Any national landmarks? Austenasia (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2016 (BST)
- Comment: That's the point: it is. Maybe you think strange, but le me remember you the size of Brazil... There's only one or two houses and forest or plantations within some territories and documents. And some people claim a whole region of USA or Britain, but is my area that make people feel that is something wrong? Oscar of Ruthenia (talk) 08 June 2016.
- REJECTED - The nomination can't be up indefinitely, and hasn't gained enough support. Austenasia (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator:Nick Kaos 10:32, 22 July 2016 (EST)
The page follows all criteria needed. I have spent several hours working on it. Well wrote and professional.
- OPPOSE - The tone of the article swings between formality and informality; further at times the language used is sufficiently confused so as to obscure meaning, c.f. "not as connected to Pacem", "these are nations that Pacem has low relations with Pacem", "Dif-tor heh smusma" (the relevance of the latter is not made clear). More images would also not go awry. Bob Christ (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2016 (BST)
- SUPPORT Ian Nolon (talk) 1:21, 3 March 2016 (GMT)
- COMMENT The article does not have a "non-serious" template, which would be necessary in my view for it to be considered a good article. There are just too many silly elements (Holy Apostolic Church of the God Warrior, Meme-master General, and the like) for it to be considered a good article, without that clarification. What do you think? ☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2016 (BST)
- OPPOSE Now out of date. Austenasia (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Took lots of time to create and it shows a real professional outlook to micronations across all social media platforms. I believe it fulfils all criteria. Appears to have got lost with othe rnominations so posted again. Well made and well written. Extremely professional.
- OPPOSE - The opening paragraphs are rather confusing, and make some claims (e.g. "most nations") which need explanation or evidence. There are also several "citation needed" links throughout the article.
- OPPOSE - The article does indeed make rather wide claims. "Popular demand", "most nations", "being keen to participate in the tournament", all require citations. It makes reference to "Presidential issues domestically"; what issues? "Presidential" doesn't sufficiently explain what the issue is related to or why they would prevent the team from entering. Semicolons are used oddly in places throughout the introduction which interrupts the general flow of the opening paragraphs. tl;dr: The article needs tightening for bias, and citations, and semicolons need to be substituted for commas or hyphens in places. Bob Christ (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Ive spent hours and hours to perfect it when i should have been studying. To me it looks like it fulfills all criteria.
- OPPOSE - Has a "Work in Progress" template on it; contains some red links and several spelling and formatting mistakes. Austenasia (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- COMMENT Another very good article. I also reaffirm my nomination of Kingdom of Ruthenia for Good Article status. ☩ Markus II of New Israel ☩ (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2016 (BST)
- OPPOSE - Needs more photographs; also some minor formatting mistakes. Austenasia (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator:Bilal I 9:09, 27 July 2016 (EST)
The page I feel has met the criteria and I spent hours working on it and continuously keep improving it.
- OPPOSE - Needs updating to reflect its transition into Avinonia; also only has a single photograph. Austenasia (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT ricky • háblame 23:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT- I don't see any reason for it not to be a good article Bilalirfan2004 (talk) 19:08 6 December 2016 (EST)
- Nominator:Bilal I 19:08, 6 December 2016 (EST)
I have made several improvements to the page and I think it meets or surpasses the criteria for it to become a good article.
Originally nominated as Kingdom of Shorewell.
- SUPPORT - I believe it shows the standard criteria and passes it, I recommend it should receive Good Article status in the best interest of MicroWiki and it has my deepest support for this article. Dallin Langford, 9 December 2016.
- SUPPORT - Very good article Fazili.farzeen, 15 December 2016.
- SUPPORT - Article is very informative and it should receive Good Article status. Nikola I, 15 December 2016
- COMMENT - Contents of this article has been moved to the Shorewellese Empire Page. Bilalirfan2004 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2016 (EST)
- OPPOSE - At least for now. There aren't nearly enough images of things to satisfy the illustrative criterion; moreover, the humanitarian services projects bit uses the "we" pronoun repeatedly, meaning it probably isn't written from an impartial standpoint. Correct those two, provide somewhat more detail across the board - most of the paragraphs are rather short - and I would be more able to support this. (Oh, also, the bit where you say "Shorewell is considered by numerous to have been the a standout among the most compelling nations" etc. could do with a citation) Bob Christ (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE (nomination considered to have been moved to Shorewellese Empire) - Numerous clumsily worded or plain misspelt sentences, even in the opening paragraphs (what is "discretionary" meant to mean?). Paragraph titles aren't capitalised correctly, the Political Parties table is completely superfluous, and there's a single photograph which looks suspiciously like a stock image. This article shows promise, and it has improved since the previous nomination, but I don't think it's ready yet. I suggest working with an admin to improve it to the necessary standard before nominating it again. Austenasia (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE - While there is a vast amount of information, paragraphs are often nonsensical and grammatically incorrect. The article lacks original pictures which makes the formatting a mess. Perhaps some subheadings could be merged to make quality paragraphs of a decent length. Mike Lewis (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)