MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by asking an 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. A user should only nominate one article each month. 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. A nomination with several blank "support" votes and only a few "oppose" votes may still be rejected if those "oppose" votes make very good arguments against it. Neither will a simply majority be considered; broad consensus needs to be reached, which will be decided at the discretion of the administrator who closes the vote.

Following the seven day period, an 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 officially be listed as a Good Article. If an article is rejected, the article 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, and only if improvements have been made to improve the article since.

In the last week of each month, all Good Articles approved that month or the previous month will be voted on by the community. The approved Good Article with the highest number of votes (with admin consensus providing a deciding vote in the case of a tie) will be Featured on the Main Page for at least the first fourteen days of the new month (the Featured Article for the remainder of the month will be a previously approved Good Article decided by consensus of the admins, to ensure articles are not only ever Featured once).


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.


Motto of MicroWiki

Nominator: ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 10:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator: this took several hours to research and expand, but I finally think it is ready for GA status due to its accuracy, levels of detail and good grammar. I hope it is not too confusing and that the list of mottos section at the bottom will help make any possibly confused readers better comprehend it. I would love any feedback! ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 10:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Flag of the Gymnasium State

Nominator:AtomCZ (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator: Finally got around to improving Gymnasian articles and accidentaly created one of the longest flag related pages on the website, might as well give this a try. AtomCZ (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I have made a few edits but here are some concerns I have:
  • Does State flag need to be capitalised?
  • "The Imperium was the first proto-micronation before the Socialist State of Gymnasium" I think state-like community should be used here. Or, alternatively, perhaps "The Imperium was the first state-like community (proto-micronation) before the Socialist State of Gymnasium"?
  • Add dates in 'The Imperium' for when it dissolved and when the flag was created. Or, if unknown, add an estimate.
  • "The design was however quickly determined to give the impression that the micronation was a communist state and could be associated with the communist regime of Czechoslovakia or the contemporary Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and a replacement was considered." The text references that this was an undesirable outcome, but to whom was this so? Was it the general populace and why was it bad? i.e. associated with evil history/controversies. Explain.
  • "After dissolution of Socialist State" is missing a few thes.
  • "minus the hammer and sickle" is this heraldic terminology? Otherwise "minus" sounds unencyclopaedic here.
  • "proposed for the territory it consists of was considered as it's official flag, but was never used." Any particular reason why?
  • Additionally, the lead can be greatly expanded to include a few quick points about the flag's previous designs. ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 17:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, tried to implement it as much as I was able to. AtomCZ (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
SUPPORT Mtonna257, President of  Melite and  Fgura 06:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Republic of Suverska

Nominator: Suverska2021 (talk | edits) 16:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator: This micronation had been my project for nearly nine years, and a lot of the work I and others have put into it are reflected in this article, which I believe deserves the recognition of Good Article status. Thank you! ~ Atyko (Suverska2021 (talk))
SUPPORT It looks very good—I should ask you to help me write articles in the future! The grammar and word choice is amazing, article is well-illustrated and the templates used are a nice touch, the sections are relevant to the article, and the refs and notes are sufficient. Although I have made several edits there are some concerns I have that should be quick fixes for you:
  • Date formats should be standardised to DD/MM/YYY; the article currently uses both this and MM/DD/YYYY.
  • "European settlement in the area can be traced back to the 1840s" is any more information available on this, such as which country they settled from and perhaps why?
Other than that, great work! ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 17:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind comments and your suggestions! I appreciate it lots. I have now standardised the dates used in the article and added an extra paragraph of sourced context to the Pre-Suverian history section. Cheers. Suverska2021 (talk | edits) 20:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured article voting

A tad late, but better late than never.

Please cast a vote for the Good Article approved the past two months which you think would look best as a Featured Article on the Main Page. The GA with the highest number of votes (a tie will be broken by the admins) will be featured on the Main Page for two weeks at the end of August 2022, and go on a list to hopefully be featured again some point in the future.