MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations

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


OverviewNominationsRevisitsArchivesFeaturedSummariesStatisticsList

Process

Nominating an article

A user can only nominate one article per month. Nominations should NOT be made just to ask for advice on improving an article.

  1. Click the tab above the page labeled "Add topic" to create a new post.
  2. Do not add a post subject!
  3. Add the following template and nothing else, supplying the parameters for your signature, the title of the article you're nominating, and optionally, a comment:
    {{subst:Gan|Article name|~~~~|comment = Optional comment. ~~~~}}
  4. Save the page.

If you see a new level three section with the name of your nominated article as well as your signature (and a comment, if you included one), then you've successfully submitted a good article nomination.

Voting on nominations

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.

To vote or comment on a nomination, start your reply in one of three ways:

  • * '''SUPPORT:'''
  • * '''OPPOSE:'''
  • * '''COMMENT:'''

This should be followed by your message, and a signature. There is no need to ping the nominator.

Nominations for February 2024

Kingdom of Ranzania

Nominator: Razvan Juncu (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

  • @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)Reply[reply]

Roscami Federation

Nominator: DesertHeat (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nanonation

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 01:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indigenous nation

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 18:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Closed nominations from February

Discussions

GUM Diss Track

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by nominator: Funny Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 20:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
REJECTED 𝄞 StrubberContributions 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sovereign State of Ridgeland

Nominator: RidgelandGov (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 20:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
REJECTED 𝄞 StrubberContributions 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Republic of Athabasca

Nominator: Xulf (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
REJECTED 𝄞 StrubberContributions 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treaty of mutual recognition

Nominator: 𝄞 StrubberContributions 03:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by nominator: General article on the subject. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 03:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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! 𝄞 StrubberContributions 01:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
APPROVED 𝄞 StrubberContributions 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kingdom of Ranzania

Nominator: Razvan Juncu (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

  • @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)Reply[reply]
RETAINED 𝄞 StrubberContributions 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roscami Federation

Nominator: DesertHeat (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RETAINED 𝄞 StrubberContributions 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nanonation

Nominator: Template:ZedSig (talk contribs) at 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 01:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RETAINED 𝄞 StrubberContributions 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]