Many articles that achieve Good Article status eventually fall in quality and no longer meet the standards of Good Articles today. Similarly, sometimes a Good Article doesn't win the Featured Article vote by a very close margin, or maybe it improved since then and might deserve FA status now. This page seeks to address both of those situations.
This is where you will place demotion from GA nominations as well as promotion to FA nominations.
Demotions from Good Article status should only be made if the article's quality no longer matches the current expected quality of Good Articles. A justification for the demotion is not optional, and justification needs to be made or it is subject to be automatically discarded.
- Nominator: 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 14:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Justification: This article is not rich in content. Sections are fairly short with one just being various dates of when tables were released. This article is mostly made up of long sprawling tables. This article would be good if it included insights into results and more in-depth analysis, but it does not, and there is next to no chance people will be able to go back 10+ years in their memory to add all that information.
- Strong agree: Quite frankly this page doesn't come close to GA standard. The criticisms noted by the nominator are very much valid, and this page would do well to have its GA removed. Sertor (Chat) 22:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support, regrettably, in its current state. The sections including and after Thirteenth Survey have no information about who conducted it/why, how/where it was conducted, methodology etc. Unfortunately, despite being such an historical element of MicroWikian culture, it is simply not GA worthy. If we can get more information from seasoned MicroWikians about these empty surveys, than we can hopefully expand upon them and renominate. Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 20:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment by nominator: was approved in February 2022 under the agreement that the "issues raised can be corrected quite easily." A year later, none of my concerns in my original oppose vote have been fixed. The article is evidently quite poorly written with informal wording and poor word choice throughout, and the images are poorly formatted. ★ ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 14:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment by nominator: Aside from 'History', the other parts of the article are fairly poor—the lead is a single sentence; 'Geography and climate' could perhaps be expanded with a climate table; and 'Landmarks' simply consists of a list of locations. The omission of several sections (i.e. 'Economy', 'Culture', 'Architecture' etc, which are definitely plausible additions) leaves a lot to be desired in terms of being a GA. ★ ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 14:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Promotions should be made for current Good Articles that did not win their Featured Article vote. Users may only nominate one promotion per cycle. Nominations to promote biographical articles should be approved by the subject if possible.
Articles that are promoted to Featured Article status from GA status will be featured in the latter half of the month on the Main Page. The first vote will take place in the second half of Apri, if it does not, bother User:Strubber on their talk page.