MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations/Archive 11

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

Pre-July

Fifth Aenderian Republic

Nominator: User:Jaydenfromcanada 6:28PM 2 January 2019 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 3:20PM, 5 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE For such a large page I would expect more citations. There are areas I feel could be condensed and others that could be expanded greatly, such as an expansion of the foreign affairs section and condensing of the history section User: Gb555 8 jan 2020 3:32pm
    • COMMENT Hey, thanks for the feedback! This is quite the average amount of citations for a page of that size in MicroWiki at least, but at the final note it is your opinion and I will respect that. Regarding the expansion of the foreign affairs section, it is that short for a certain reason; Aenderia does not have many diplomatic affairs with other nations (though we are improving!) and for the history section, Aenderia has a lot of information; a majority of the information in the history section is already condensed. Thank you through for the feedback! -User:Jaydenfromcanada 12:11AM 8 January 2020 (ET)
  • SUPPORT --ThatMLGDorito (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT --Simmascoppe 05:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE So close! Just a few spelling mistakes and things I would phrase better. For example, "It failed pretty badly and thus was unsuccessful" could simply be "The impeachment was unsuccessful", and if it was a known event for being a failure you could state so after that. I forgot which part it was in otherwise I would fix it, but somewhere it says "undemocratic-ally" but undemocratically is a word. Other than that, sources? Check. Images? Check. Nicely expanded? Check. So close!
    • COMMENT Hey, thanks for the feedback! All issues should be fixed. User:Jaydenfromcanada 11:48PM 17 January 2020
  • SUPPORT Chau Khang (talk) 11:04am, 22 January 2020 (ICT)
  • SUPPORT --Emperor Anthony I (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT meets the criteria. -ricky • sup? 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Definitely a good article, I just find the formatting around some places to be quite awkward. I would remove the history in the etymology section, make the formatting of images in the Lycon's First Term, the Second Aenderese Political Crisis: Resigning Crisis, the The Fifth Republic and the Degense sections a bit better, look for a way to better represent text conversations in Discord (an example of a template I'm working on for conversation with MSN messenger is located here), remove the history in the Parties and Election section, replace the "Коммунистическая Партия Республики Андерии" name with a translation and that in small next beneath it, merge the Official Name, English Name, French Name, Vietnamese Name, Russian Name and Spanish Name columns into one, remove the Special Administrative Region and Federal Dominion sections and make the National Holidays section a bit better. Mahuset (Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy, also known as Oxocero) (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Thanks for the feedback, will definitely take a look at some of your recommendations. Regarding your statement with the Коммунистическая Партия Республики Андерии party, that is the official name. It does not uses an English name. User:Jaydenfromcanada 22 January 2020
    • APPROVED Austenasia (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Arms of the Aenderese Republic

Nominator: User:Jaydenfromcanada 6:28PM 2 January 2019 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 3:20PM, 5 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE I will say that I love the design of the Arms very nice! However I would expect more information and citations if you're going to do a page like this. User:Gb55 8 Jan 2020 3:33pm
  • SUPPORT --Simmascoppe 05:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Chau Khang (talk) 11:04am, 22 January 2020 (ICT)
  • OPPOSE while it is a well-written and well-structured article, some of the formatting makes it look rather awkward and there just isn't enough content to fill all the sections properly. -ricky • sup? 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE as above Mahuset (Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy, also known as Oxocero) (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Grand Republic of Cycoldia

Nominator: User:Summi Imperatoris 17:20 07 January 2019 (CST)
  • OPPOSE: There is not enough citations on the page. The whole page needs fine tuning and expansion. The section regarding 'Entry into the Nation' is no needed and can be Incorporated into other areas of the page. Also the pages formatting needs a re-tweak, it doesn't flow very well. I do appreciate the infobox that is very well put together. But overall not worthy of GA status in its current form User: Gb555 8 Jan 20 3:26pm
  • SUPPORT: Nice article, good amount of references and information. Would add a photo in the history section if possible. -User:Jaydenfromcanada 2:30AM 10 January 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 4:15PM, 10 January 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Good article, non-biased, straight to the point, and written clearly -User:Luke825015
  • SUPPORT meets the criteria. -ricky • sup? 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Excessive details in some places and awkward formatting in others. Mahuset (Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy, also known as Oxocero) (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED A difficult one, as it's really not a bad article by any means. However, the two who voted in opposition raised some good points and articles with a 2:1 support:oppose ratio have almost always been rejected in the past. I noticed a few other things, too; taking the Diplomacy section as an example, the statement "Cycoldia has been recognised by the United States Department of Education" must be changed to something like "Cycoldia claims to have been recognised...", some of the nations have been given flags and some haven't, and the Entry into the Nation section is written like an advert rather than an article. Overall not bad, but needs some work imho. Austenasia (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Republic of Viadalvia

Nominator: --A chap from Phokland (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE: Nice amount of photos and information, but there are no references, a photo is broken, and a few grammar mistakes. User:Jaydenfromcanada 2:24AM 10 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE: A bit too much red links Tsar Stefan I (talk) 4:13PM, 10 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE Red links, grammar mistakes, and none of the sentences even have periods. Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zabëlle I) (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Enough red links to even drive me off, grammar issues, and around enough periods only to supply one chap for 5 milliseconds. HIM Christina I of Cycoldia (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE: It looks as if it was poorly translated from another language, too many red links and whomever wrote this must have some sort of full stop phobia. Aenopia (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UCT)
  • OPPOSE as above. -ricky • sup? 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Mahuset (Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy, also known as Oxocero) (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Empire of Aenopia

Nominator: Aenopia (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2020 (UCT)
  • SUPPORT: Nice amount of information and photos. Work on your references, otherwise it is a pretty good article! -User:Jaydenfromcanada 2:26AM 10 January 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 4:13PM, 10 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE There isn't exactly a bias as such, but sections of the article don't read neutral. I would also like to see an expansion of the History and Government sections. User:Gb555 12 Jan 20 10:20am
  • SUPPORT Good article. There are a few areas I'd change but that are fully allowed within the criteria. Mahuset (Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy, also known as Oxocero) (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Small changes needed, overall very good. Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zabëlle I) (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Halfasinteresting-stania

Nomintator:User:Jaydenfromcanada 3:00AM, 10 January 2020 (EST) a behemoth amount of information for a state lasting less than 5 seconds

Union of Millania and New Granada

Nomintator: Nicolás Millán 4:38PM, 12 January 2020 (CST) I believe we're ready.
  • SUPPORT a man has fallen into the river in lego city User:Jaydenfromcanada 12:08 AM 15 January 2020
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 2:51PM, 15 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE Fix the weatherbox. Mahuset (Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy, also known as Oxocero) (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Fixed, and I redid the geography section and added tons of links where needed. Nicolás Millán 8:48PM, 26 January 2020 (CST)
      • REJECTED: I'm sorry, not enough feedback. Overall not that bad but I do agree that a bit more information could be added--Guess I never Miss (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ebenthal

--MissED the mark (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: this will be my last proposal for a while.

J16

Nominator: Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zabëlle I) (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC). Comment: Made a lot of changes since the last nomination.
  • SUPPORT a man has fallen into the river in lego city User:Jaydenfromcanada 11:08 AM 20 January 2020
  • OPPOSE Too short. Mahuset (Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy, also known as Oxocero) (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT It is slightly longer than the shortest good article (within twenty bytes). And is, in my opinion, expanded upon enough. Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zabëlle I) (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Not bad. --Emperor Anthony I (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Good article Ari Telford (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Rather short, however informative nevertheless. Aenopia (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2020 (UCT)
  • OPPOSE I do not believe it is important enough for GA. Remember, the ga status is meant to demonstrate the best that the wiki has to offer and i feel as though this has been forgotten in recent times. --Guess I never Miss (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED I'm sorry, I just thing that this particular article is too short and miscellaneous to be GA at this time.--Guess I never Miss (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Repeal of GA status of Grand Unified Micronational

Nominator: User:Jaydenfromcanada) 8:03PM 24 January 2020 (EST). Am I legally bilnd or is there no references? Also, should have more photos imo
  • OPPOSE Articles do not require references. And in any case, references can easily be added; removing and re-adding GA status would just be an unneeded hassle. Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zabëlle I) (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Ari Telford (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE: References are not required. Tsar Stefan I (talk) 9:58PM, 24 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE as above -ricky • sup? 08:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Fails the "accurate" criterium via its lack of references. Mahuset (Emiel Sebastiaan Hardy, also known as Oxocero) (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Articles do not always need references. Other good articles do not have them, we can add them in the future but taking it away wouldn't help. NickRandouler) (talk) 05:42 PM, January 25, 2020 (EST)
  • RENOUCED fixed thanks to the epic Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zabëlle I)
  • CLOSED Repeal denied due to popular vote, and references being added. cameron (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I call BS Cameron, you cannot just close a thread, you either APPROVE or REJECT. I get this is rejected but saying "COSED" just seems like a poor choice of words in my opinion. Also this is the GUM so obviously there will be discourse (this last part is drected at the proposer). --Guess I never Miss (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • JONATHAN gave me the ability. Take it up with him, not me. "BS" smh cameron (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Baustralia

Nominator: His (Imperial) Majesty, John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia, and the Dominions, Emperor of Tentacion 17:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC). I've improved the article since my second-last nomination. The last nomination I don't believe was seen by many.

Kingdom of Coria

Nominator: NikolaJovanovic (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Great article imho.

Nikola I of Coria

Nominator: NikolaJovanovic (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Great article imho.

Ned Gunderson

Nominator: NikolaJovanovic (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Great article imho.
  • OPPOSE Very little on the page, almost no images and no references. Aenopia (talk 19:22, 26 January 2020 (UCT)
  • OPPOSE Tsar Stefan I (talk) 2:55PM, 26 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE Stub Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zabëlle I) (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE stubby sized Jaydenfromcanada (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I like it though my only recommendation would be to add an image.--Guess I never Miss (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Small, not much told about the person other than offices, religion and awards... His (Imperial) Majesty, John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia, and the Dominions, Emperor of Tentacion 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • REJECTED Stubby! cameron (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Rushymia (original kingdom)

Nominator: NikolaJovanovic (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Great article imho.
  • OPPOSE Literally only has one image, no references and has a biased tone. Also it literally consists primarily of a History section and an awards section (a half-arsed one at that). No way is this GA worthy. Aenopia (talk 19:25, 26 January 2020 (UCT)
  • OPPOSE Tsar Stefan I (talk) 2:54PM, 26 January 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE as above Jaydenfromcanada (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

New Llandudno

Nominator: Aenopia (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2020 (UCT)
  • SUPPORT honestly amazingly written, tons of information, images. I believe it meets the criteria. Anthony Dickson (talk) 05:52, 10 February (EET)
  • SUPPORT FTFcz (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Looks great, a good amount of information for a city! NickRandouler (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2020 (EST)

Kingdom of Baustralia (No. 2)

Nominator: His Majesty John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia King, Emperor of Ostreum (talk · email) 14:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC). I've improved the article since my third-last nomination. The last two nominations I don't believe are being seen, sadly.
  • OPPOSE Decently written, images are perfect, and the references are nice. And although it is not bad by any means, I feel like it does not really qualify for GA status; nine red links, and some areas could be written better, for example "... there are currently thirteen administrative divisions of Baustralia, or provinces, and number 82 in population ..." unless the number changes very often it should ideally not have 'currently', and I feel like "and number 82 in population" should just be "and a total population of 82". Just my thoughts however. --/ Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  05:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Z. Luna Skye: I've followed through with your suggestions. Would you wish to re-review? His Majesty John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia King, Emperor of Ostreum (talk · email) 15:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I really enjoy this article anytime i see it. The page has to be one of the best if not the only good written article on this wiki. At the moment the article has a few grammatical mistakes around the article. In conculsion if fixes are made i see no reason for this to not to get GA status in the future -Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Changed to SUPPORT Changes were made and fixed. -Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cookieman1.1.1: I ran the article through Grammarly to remove these mistakes! His Majesty John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia King, Emperor of Ostreum (talk · email) 15:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT As stated above, corrections were made. I see no reason why not to add this page. -Guess I never Miss (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Certainly improved. Tsar Stefan I (talk) 2:13PM, 12 February 2020 (EST)
    • APPROVED Adding tags now! cameron (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

TOES

Nominator: / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  2:55 am (01:55), 13 February 2020. References, well-written, I think it qualifies.
  • SUPPORT What Zabëlle stated above. --ThatMLGDorito (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE It is well written and all but I'm not sure if it should be taken seriously or not. It does use a good amount of refrences however some seem like 'filler refrences' that do not actually provide support to the validity of the article. The seriousness of this too makes it hard too. Especially with the banned members part and the validity of that, and all of the blue links. Yes blue links are good but I feel like in some parts its an over load. Someone could probably persuade me and change my mind but what I have to say. NickRandouler (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Lots of references, pictures to complement article and overall a goog article. Aenopia (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2020 (UCT)
  • OPPOSE No. Austenasia (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: Emperor Anthony I (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Quite well made. Tsar Stefan I (talk) 9:20PM, 18 February 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Well written, good amount of references, and overall a very good article. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:19 PM (15:19), 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Too many grammatical mistakes, unfortunately. Otherwise not bad! Austenasia (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Indonesian sector

Nominator: Nabil nordamdie (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE There are a few grammar mistakes and very few references for an article its size. Aenopia (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2020 (UCT)
  • OPPOSE As above Austenasia (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

July nominations

Union of Millania and New Granada

Nomintator: Nicolás Millán 10:54PM, 6 February 2020 (CST)
  • SUPPORT (Please if you support consider giving feedback) Very well-written and expanded upon, a generous amount of references, and a nice amount of images. There is some minor sentences which could be phrased better and in my opinion all I would add is another image or two but it is not needed. Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zabëlle I) (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Austin Jaax (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 10:44PM, 6 February 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT FTFcz (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Aenopia (talk) 19:36, 9 Febuary 2020 (UCT)
  • SUPPORT Has a perfect amount of information, and at some parts which are kinda short, it has separate articles for, so that can be excused Anthony Dickson (talk 05:52, 10 February (EET)
  • OPPOSE A generally good article with many pictures and detailed sections. The issue is, with a page as expansive and detailed as this, it only has 14 references, half of those (7) are statements relating to documents, bodies, and areas which the reader does not have access to. William I (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2020 (CST)
  • SUPPORT The page looks fine the way it is, plenty of description, not too much, it's a great one. Sluke91 (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Új Repülő

Nominator: / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  01:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Good information, used it as a template for my Hui City article. SovietWeeb (talk) 15:15 February 2020 (CST)
  • SUPPORT Very well written and engaging as per usual Zabëlle, I also used this to help me create the New Llandudno article. Aenopia (talk 19:54, 9 February 2020 (UCT)
  • SUPPORT really nicely written, good information and images too. -Anthony Dickson (talk) 05:52, 10 February (EET)
  • SUPPORT FTFcz (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Looks great, anything New Eiffelic is great NickRandouler (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Well structured. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well designed with great layout. Plenty of information to understand the nation Sluke91 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Naveria

Nominator: GDC Navārdia (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve been considering nominating my article for several months, but I decided to take time to improve it (particularly after all that happened as a result of the dissolution of Phokland). I’ve done all I can to improve it, at least for the time being, so I’m ready to nominate! GDC Navārdia (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Dracul

Nominator: --Guess I never Miss (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Sluke91 (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Lack of sources and doesn't consistently use 'academic-style' prose which should be used in a wiki page. Certian sections, for example the President and Vice President sections, should have their own pages, as the information stated is enough to secure that those particularly new pages aren't stubs. --Billiam Bilson 17:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Sources are not a requirement for GA on MicroWiki, additionally many other GA's have more detailed sections then this one... seems a bit brash to oppose a page because it's TOO descriptive. Guess I never Miss (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The history section is somewhat outdated but that’s any easy fix. Overall, a pretty good and detailed article in my opinion! —GDC Navārdia (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE It needs easy fixing however it might take some time so I have to oppose it for now: it is far too descriptive, like 'Awards and Certificates', 'Foreign Relations' and sections of 'Government' like 'President' could be added into their own articles. Having the lyrics of your National Anthem also reads weirdly. Furthermore, 'Geography' and 'Economy' are pretty short, merging 'Economy' with 'Business' could work. And also, remember to add links to various pages on MicroWiki and Wikipedia. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:24 pm, 14 July 2020 (UTC+1)
    • COMMENT We are in the process of modifying these suggested issues and hope it will be corrected within the allotted time Sluke91 (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT We have made various revisions as of 22 July 2020. We are still continuing to make the corrections. Sluke91 (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Flag of Aenopia

Nominator: --Aenopia (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

For while I feel like it isn't 100% complete, please feel free to leave any comments or suggestions on what needs improving.

  • SUPPORTGuess I never Miss (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE It is good so far however I feel like it needs a slight touch of grammar - and like you said, it is not complete, however if it is made longer (because I feel like you can squeeze in a lot more info) it could well meet the criteria. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:28 pm, 14 July 2020 (UTC+1)
    • COMMENT I have improved the page a bit with some more stuff to bulk it up a bit longer and bigger. Aenopia (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Seems a little cluttered with graphics and tables and stuff, and I think it could be just a tad bit longer. aydan (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I think micronations, not flags, should be nominated. It is also very cluttered. / Emperor Eshaan I  My Talk Page • Timonoucitiland  23:32, 15 July 2020 (SGT))
    • COMMENT Any article can be submitted, regardless of whether it's a Micronations page or not. Hence why there are pages about Coat of Arms, Micronationalists, Territories, Surveys and even journalism scandals. Aenopia (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED--Guess I never Miss (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Francisville

Nominator: --FrancisvilleArchive (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

State of Sandus

Nominator: aydan (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORTGuess I never Miss (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSEAenopia (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Despite being very in-depth which I must credit you for, there lack of references and images/interactive graphs (climate graphs, boxes, ect.) lets it down.
  • OPPOSE Like Aenopia cited, there is indeed a lack of content, such as 'Administrative divisions' and 'Cooperatives' being completely empty. And for what is there, there is a number of redlinks, and although some sections read perfectly (see culture for example), the grammar could overall be improved in some parts. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:35 pm, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Free Republic of Florania

Nominator: aydan (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Trust me, the history section could not be any longer. This micronation is only a few days old. If there is anything I could add, such as a Transportation section or something like that, please let me know. aydan (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE If the micronation is only a few days old, then it CERTAINLY does not deserve GA status. It looks good, dont get me wrong but wait a few months till you have more meat to add and trust me, your page will thank you for it. --Guess I never Miss (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Hey @MissEDconexion: 1) time is not a criteria; 2) I mean it's in the name "good article", the articles are not necessarily judged on quantity but rather its quality, how good it is. If it's a good article, I don't see why it shouldn't receive GA status. New Eiffel Main Route 1 is a prime example of this. aydan (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE It is true that short articles can be accepted as long as they fully meet the criteria, however I have to agree with MissEDconexion that it should have a little more time to be expanded upon, as some sections are rather short, like 'Media and Culture'. I would say adding 'Climate' and 'Territory' into a 'Geography' section and perhaps including things like 'Natural history' could help. Also improving 'National symbols' to perhaps include the flag and other symbols if possible. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:41 pm, 14 July 2020 (UTC+1)
  • OPPOSE per previous commenters Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 15:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: aydan (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC): I have fixed some critical mistakes, and I believe that now this article is more than worthy of GA status.

New Leeds

Nominator: / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  2:34 am, 23 July 2020 (UTC+1): Feedback appreciated just like your supports.

Karnia-Ruthenia

Nominator: / Founder of Baránok and Talcon I. Kvajda  My Talk Page • Contribs  12:58 am, 23 July 2020 (UTC+1)

Aenderian Coast Guard

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 06:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1st Cupertino Alliance Ministry

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 06:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

July voting

Voting is now open for July 2020's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

August nominations

Organisation of Active Micronations (New Eiffel Union)

/ Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  12:18 p.m. (12:18), 11 August 2020

I feel like this is nicely written and expanded upon well enough, if it needs to be copyedited into British English that can be an easy fix.

  • OPPOSE: Very few references for an article of its size and numerous parts (mainly the Membership section) do not represent the Organisation at the time of dissolution. Aenopia (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Aenopia

Aenopia (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel like it's an alright right now, ample of references and a few pictures. Aenopia (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE The various article sections seem pretty short and a lot of it consists of lists. It is informative and has a lot of references, though it has some grammar mistakes like improper capitalisations, and there are some areas which could be worded better; i.e. "(GUM for short)" could be simply "(GUM)". / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  7:07 p.m. (19:07), 21 August 2020 (UTC+1)

Ebenthal

Arthur Brum (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe this article fulfill the criteria well enough and follows precisely the wikipedia country's articles pattern on writting and distribution of images and it provide sources.

  • SUPPORT Doesn't have many references and there are a few redlinks but otherwise it's a pretty detailed page. Aenopia (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Looks nice. / Founder of Baránok and Talcon I. Kvajda  My Talk Page • Contribs  12:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The layout is great; nice formatting, and plenty of detail. The reason I've opposed is that there are just too many little errors in grammar. "It's" instead of "its", "have" instead of "has", and "withdrawal" instead of "withdrawing" - and that's just in the introduction! I appreciate that English isn't the first language of the author, but it should be thoroughly checked for little grammatical mistakes like this before being nominated. Once these are cleared up, I really see no obstacle. Austenasia (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC) (2:1 isn't enough for approval; see former precedent)

August voting

Voting is now open for August 2020's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

The following articles are eligible due to their nominations having been approved last month:

September nominations

Aardvarks on Parade

Nominator: / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  11:34 a.m. (1134), 2 September 2020 (UTC+1)

In my opinion the article has a sufficient amount of references, is nicely expanded, detailed, informative, and the images and grammar should be decent enough. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  11:34 a.m. (1134), 2 September 2020 (UTC+1)

William I of Gradonia

Nominator: Billiam Bilson 16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 7:37PM, 2 September 2020 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Meets the criteria for Good Article Status. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE For now; the article is really good, however there are a few instances of sentences which can be worded better and a few unneeded capitalisations, such as "De Facto" and "Hate speech", which should both be uncapitalised. I also feel like the 'Political views' section seems to list a bunch of said views in an unorganised manner, however it is pretty short and could perhaps be expanded a bit if possible. Either way, very good so far, and with a few changes to the grammar and spelling it can be GA status. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:36 p.m. (1336), 5 September 2020 (UTC+1)
COMMENT Big thanks to Chadmeron for fixing the first half of those objections and to me for the other half. --Billiam Bilson 01:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Nice page overall, however early life doesn't have many references which is otherwise understandable. Aenopia (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I believe this article meets the criteria.. King Thomas I (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2020 (CDT)
  • SUPPORT Very good, if it keeps up the momentum, I'll approve it tomorrow.--Guess I never Miss (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Good article. Wyatt400 (President of the Federated States of Gapla) 20:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Great article, very comprehensive, about a pretty cool Texan who I am a fan of. PremierOfNordale 21:49 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Overturn GA status of Empire of Aenopia

This is not a bad article. There's plenty of information, pictures, good use of wikitables, etc. However, before featuring this article I decided to skim through it to quickly check for any glaring problems, and I soon realised the number of mistakes in the text. Admittedly, these mistakes are relatively minor - incorrect capitalization, a few instances of informal language, minor grammatical errors - but cumulatively they do make me think that its status as a Good Article should be reconsidered. I have made some slight changes to the introduction, but the thought of doing this for the whole article is quite daunting, and the GA process is to find Good Articles, not make them. I'm always reluctant and sorry to propose the overturning of GA status for an article, but given we've rejected ones in the past which (to be blunt) were better written, I feel it's only in keeping with the standards we've set. Austenasia (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Austenasia (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I'm going to try to be as unbiased as possible with this for obvious reasons. I do agree with the point you've made regarding the fact that the GA process is to find Good Articles, not make them, however I do believe that the article can be improved sufficiently to bring it up to these standards. I would be more than happy to spend the next few days sifting through the article to remove any mistakes and whilst I'm at it, improve it further. Aenopia (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Shouldn't we try to fix the minor errors before outright removing GA status? leon | talk to me 18:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I agree with Jonathan. Good Article nominations are for already Good Articles, not ones that need improvement.. King Thomas I (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2020 (CDT)
  • OPPOSE While there is indeed room for serious correction to the article, seeing how minor the errors are and seeing how they don't take too much away from the article, I feel that removing GA status is unwarranted so long as the errors are corrected soon.--Guess I never Miss (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Wyatt400 (President of the Federated States of Gapla) 20:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I've reviewed and copyedited the whole article and fixed a majority of these mistakes. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 01:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ikonia

Nominator: User:Vulture001 12:59, 2 September 2020 (EST)
COMMENT Not looking for GA, just want criticism cameron (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I believe it meets the criteria; well expanded, good grammar and a sufficient amount of images and references. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  7:08 pm, 7 September 2020 (UTC+1)
  • SUPPORT Not the best place to go looking for criticism in my opinion, the forums has a thread for these kinds of things, but whatever you do you. It's good, not too much to criticize other than your choice of places to put the request.--Guess I never Miss (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Nice, long, and informative. Wyatt400 (President of the Federated States of Gapla) 20:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Isn't looking for GA status, gets it anyway. His Majesty John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia King, Emperor of Ostreum (talk · email) 15:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT That's how Ikonia works cameron (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Federated States of Gapla

Nominator: Wyatt400 (President of the Federated States of Gapla) 20:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I personally think this article is going to be deleted when people see it. Just doing this for fun. Wyatt400 (President of the Federated States of Gapla) 20:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT It's my article, and it has some good information.
  • OPPOSE: Well, if you are looking for feedback; the article has instances of improper capitalisation, uses the wrong date format (i.e. '28th of February 2019' should be '28 February 2019', like every date format), and the headings should not be capitalised. The article seems pretty long and mentions very specific things, such as the 'Identification', 'elections' or 'Symbols' section, which could be split into its own articles. It could also use some minor grammar copyediting. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:14 p.m., 14 September 2020 (UTC+1)

Matthewopia

Nominator: Mh06941 (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Lots of sections are relatively short and could do with expansion and could do with a few more references but the latter is just me. Aenopia (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Could use more expansions and refrences. Dusty (talk)

Matachewan

  • SUPPORT It is one of the better articles in the microwiki community and is a very serious micronations. Isaiah David
  • OPPOSE Only 2 references, incorrect date format and lots of sections have little to no information to name a few. Also the statement by the previous user about being a serious nation has nothing to do with the page. Aenopia (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Nothing against the nation itself, but there are only a handful of references, several unfilled sections, and weird formatting in a few areas. The article is definitely a work in progress and right now I don't think it's good article material. User:Player Piano (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As the writer and leader of Matachewan, the page is literally no where close to even be considered a GA, there aren't enough citations, formatting is incorrect in some places as well as the dating. So even though it is my creation and I'd support it being a good article I'm going to strongly oppose till it is actually ready to be a GA. Brandon Mierzwa (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (EST)

Reform Act (Aenopia)

Nominator: Aenopia (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  • COMMENT Looking for suggestions and notes for improvement as well. Aenopia (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
You could just post it on #wiki on the MW@Discord server and ask for the same thing without putting it up here. imo my opinion --Billiam Bilson 13:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE could be expanded and there probably should be more citations other then that solid article.

September voting

Voting is now open for September 2020's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

October nominations

Aenderian Coast Guard

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Marks one year since the formal founding of the coast guard also its responsible for like 50% of the featured images. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT johann or smth (talk page) 00:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE 2/17 ≠ 50%, not even close. *it's. Billiam Bilson 13:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • NEUTRAL: I cant make my mind up on this one. The page is well referenced, and has decent presentation and use of templates.. but idk I can't place my finger on it.
    An articles age and whether its images are featured has nothing to do with GA however. Sertor (Chat) 13:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The article is well expanded upon, I think that its worthy of good article status. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ebenthal

Nominator: Arthur Brum (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is well-structure following Wikipedia's patterns on country articles, well-illustrated, it presents all of the micronation's relevant information with cohesion, it provide links to related articles, although not in a repetitive way, it provide sources. English errors were overwhelmingly or totally corrected. Arthur Brum (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Karnia-Ruthenia (talk page) 09:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC) This article is well written and reports an impressive micronation with the potential to be one of the greatest of this decade among the micronations created in Latin America. Recognizing it as a Good Article transcends the obvious fact that the article is far superior to some other articles with the same label, but it is also a matter of fairness for a very interesting micronational project.
  • OPPOSE: It is without a doubt that the article is very well written. I however take issue with the fact that large swathes of the article are unreferenced, and as such the information present is unverifiable.
    If before the voting process is completed the article gets its references, this will be my number one candidate. Sertor (Chat) 13:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Sildavia 11:27 2 October 2020 (UTC) This is a very well written and detailed article, showing great micronational potential within the Brazilian and Latin American Sector.
  • SUPPORT Cobra Kai 16:30 2 October 2020 (UTC) The article is truly excellent, as it fully exposes the relevant information on micronation. Even if we not consider it to be a foreign-speaking micronation, its writing is very good. It complies with the integrality, to the point that its reading can be perfectly learned what is necessary from Ebenthal. He uses appropriate sources in this context, and none are even doubtful. Although it is understood that in this wiki the same heads of state collaborate many times, the article does not show a sezgo, and describes Ebenthal without exaggerating the qualities or importance of micronation. The images are excellent, and they illustrate correctly, without going too far. The landscapes were well chosen, and give the reader an idea of ​​the representativeness of territories, culture and personalities of the micronation. The order of the sections also seems very good to me, and beyond any doubt. I agree with user User:Sertor Valentinus that it would indeed be an even better article with more sources, hopefully external and in the press. However, if so, this article should also be on Wikipedia. But for a micronation wiki I think it deserves this nomination. An extra point of relevance is that this is a particularly good article on a micronation that is not English-speaking, which obviously contributes in diversity.

Finally, forgive my mistakes in grammar. This is not my mother tongue.

  • OPPOSE Though the article appears to be well expanded upon, the article has very few references, certain parts of the article are very obscure. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I consider it to be a well-written article, with an adequate order, and whose reading is quite clear. Provides correct reporting of micronation. User:MarcoAntonioRino 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I consider it to be a well-written, well-descriptive article, making all points and topics clearly and easily understandable for all the readers. Dhrubajyoti Roy 15:33 (IST), 08 October 2020
  • OPPOSE Not enough refrences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty (talk • contribs)
    • REJECTED 5:3 is not a sufficiently uniform consensus, and those opposed do make good points Austenasia (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Church of the Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion

Nominator:Citizen-Premier Sophia Albina (talk, 03:59, 2 October (EST)

This article is a well-written and detailed article on the Church of the Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion, a highly developed Church present within the Republic of Nordale and the Commonwealth of New Virginia. The antecedents to the creation of the Church culturally can be seen in the now Shoreline which was once Terentia within the Empire of Austenasia. This article documents a major accomplishment of micronational culture that I think is nearly unmatched within the community. Stella Blue I has put much effort and thought into the development of this religion which one can easily see within the article. For all of these reasons, I believe this article deserves to be a good article. Thank you for your consideration, my friends.

  • OPPOSE: A smallish article with merely 2 references isn't exactly GA material. Sertor (Chat) 13:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As Sertor said, even these aren't references. Aenopia (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Emperor Anthony I (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE While the article is by no means bad, it is not exactly exponentially good. Some sentences could be worded better, and it could due with minor grammar edits. It could also due with some images if possible, as well as references (although they are not required as some editors think!) which would really complete it. Minor expansion, such as its history, could also help. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  4:19 p.m., 4 October 2020 (UTC+1)

Kingdom of West Sayville

Nominator: Sertor (Chat) 09:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the article is well-structured, well referenced... and just generally a possible candidate for nomination.

  • OPPOSE Lots of {{citation needed}} marks in one area, not too many photos and some sections can be expanded. Aenopia (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE There's very scant information in certains sections of this article, which definitely needs to be expanded upon. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above; looks pretty stuby! / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  4:20 p.m., 4 October 2020 (UTC+1)
  • OPPOSE Looks to stuby and could use way more citations User:Dusty

Operation Free Shelly and Fish Sticks

Nominator: leon | talk to me 19:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the page is quite good for what happened on that day- in my view it should be granted GA status.

National symbols of New Eiffel

Nominator: / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:41 a.m. (0341), 7 October 2020 (UTC+1)

In my honest opinion the article is definitely well expanded upon, uses exceptional spelling and grammar, and has plenty of images, references and detail.

Isaiah David

Nominator: User:Dusty, 7 October 2020.
  • SUPPORT: Good well expanded article with many images and a decent amount of citations —Preceding unsigned comment added by dusty (talk • contribs)
  • OPPOSE: Gonna be honest here, the article is all over the place. Large chunks are unreferenced, and it looks like it needs a bit of copyediting. Sertor (Chat) 17:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Definitely needs a copyedit. Aenopia (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added many more citations and referenced the hell out of the article i ask that you re-consider your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty (talk • contribs)
    • I just reviewed the article. A number of citations, for a example for the September Florania election... are literally just links to other MicroWiki pages. Sertor (Chat) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE: To be completely honest, the writing can get pretty repetitive in some sections, there's quite a few grammatical errors, and there's a bit of unnecessary information. I think copyediting and getting rid of unnecessary bits would serve the article well. Player Piano 19:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)<
  • OPPOSE Emperor Anthony I (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Huginn & Muninn

Nominator: User:GS Chris, 11 October 2020.

Comment by nominator (optional). Crows are epic, articles are epic, what more is there to say?

  • OPPOSE A good-sized article for an animal, however, I would like to see some references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mh06941 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I really like this, definitely long enough and with enough images, however the grammar can be mildly improved and some sentences can be worded better. With these minor fixes, this can easily become a GA. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  12:46 p.m., 16 October 2020 (UTC+1)
  • SUPPORT Isaiah (Chat)

Grand Theft Auto V affair

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 14:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by nominator (optional) the microwar to end all microwars Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 14:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Jamez (talk page) 15 October 2020
  • SUPPORT leon | talk to me 14:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Sertor (Chat) 14:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT @Sertor Valentinus: any feedback? Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 16:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: The article is given the "silly things" tag, describing the page as "MicroWiki is a serious encyclopaedia for micronations, however from time to time, non namespace pages, such as MicroWiki:Unusual articles have popped up, which are meant to be comedic. It's good to laugh every now and then, and most humor articles don't cause much damage to MicroWiki as a website." Given the article itself asking readers not to take it seriously, I feel this alone would disqualify it from GA status. Sertor (Chat) 17:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment @Sertor Valentinus: Thank you for your concern. The topic of an article is not present in the criteria listed, as such should not have anything to do with GA. The article fulfills the present citeria in these ways, in my opinion, as well as being well referenced considering the topic. If though, the article does not fulfill a criterion, feel free to respond to this message and I will respond to you with an explanation, an objection, or I will fix such error. Thank you. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 17:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE No just no. Isaiah
  • SUPPORT johann. (talk page) 21:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Please add feedback when drafting your censusious for article above; I personally believe that this article fulfills all citerion listed on GA, those being
  1. Well-written, the article outlines the background of the event, describes the affair in detail, as well as international reactions and aftermath, enough for an affair like this, at the same time having correct reference placement (i.e. reference after period), and correct grammar and spelling, as well as nearly every statement referenced in some sort,
  2. Comprehensive, the wikipage details the affair leaving no details but being reasonable in its size.
  3. Accurate, you've got various references detailing what GTA V is, letters sent to leaders, messages, etc.
  4. Neutral, a majority of POVs are factored in this article
  5. Illustrated, has images of Leon's account playing GTA, Leon planning to re-install the game, that letter I sent to Trudeau and the M rating for which the ESRB rated the game. This supports the article and at the same time doesn't overwhelm the article.
  6. Well-structured, goes from background, to the main event, to aftermath and reactions. Enough headings for the article for an incident like this

I will be perfectly happy to responding your feedback to the article and I'll respond with an objection, an explanation, or will correct such error if possible. Thank you! Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 01:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Well-written, highly detailed and contains a lot of images and sources. GDC Navārdia (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT For while I usually wouldn't support an article with such focus as this, this article is clearly well written with lots of images and references to back it up - in some senses better than some pre-existing GA articles.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  18:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED To be fair, this is very well written, but as others have pointed out, the subject matter alone effectively disqualifies it. Austenasia (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I thank you for reading the following texts and your volunteer work throughout MicroWiki. I have received the notice of rejection for the article titled "Grand Theft Auto V affair". As you know, despite you stating that the article is well written, the article was rejected due to its subject. I humbly wish to object and overturn this decision.

The clause "This project is designed to help improve article quality on MicroWiki and reward good article editing and creation." listed on the page "MicroWiki:Good articles" implies that the system is in place to recognize quality articles. In my opinion, the topic matter on such a subject should not affect the quality of the article. In my opinion, quality articles generally mean a few things, including good grammar, effective use of photos, and others that create an engaging article that effectively presents the topic.

The sentence "If an article is rejected, the articles does not satisfy the initial criteria and an explanation of why will usually be provided by the reviewing users." listed at the opening paragraphs in the page "MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations" implies that pages which do not mean the criteria listed further down will get rejected. Nowhere in that criteria list that a subject matter affects one's ability to attain the Good Article score. I refer to my previous statement of this article fulfilling all the criteria, including its usage of photos, references, points of view in a neutral sense, structure, etc.

The clause "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" listed under the good article page is not justified here either. Various reviewers praised the article based on being highly detailed, usage of images, and references. Mr. User: Sertor_Valentinus’ argument on the usage of the humour template in my opinion does not affect the criteria listed and should be ignored. Mr. User: Isaiah Burdette did not add any other points besides “No just no”. Both users failed to reply with any additional criticism.

The topic of one’s article is not listed upon criteria at the time of nomination nor should, in my opinion, affect the quality of one’s article. Noticing all the arguments above, I urge you to appeal the rejection.

Respectfully, Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible  | 23:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Regelis

Nominator: Soaringmoon (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just done a week's worth of substantial editing to the page. I annotated what I could the best I can, and will likely be annotating the article further as I read through it for spelling and grammar I may have missed. As it is rather long.

  • OPPOSE Not structured well (i.e. using heading 1 instead of heading 2), goes too in-depth on various things including Ministries and Relationships which could be separated. Can easily be improved and will be a good tender for GA! Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 02:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Sections heading depth was easy enough to fix, that is already done. As for ministries, culture, and army content, do you think that it would benefit by being moved to their own separate pages? Maybe including a navigation box? SoaringMoon (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      • COMMENT Yes, this is about a general overview of the nation, not about what is the remistace ministry. I'll also recommend shortening the starting sentence (e.g. removing what Technocracy is). Furthermore, I'll also recommend you to add references to areas like Economy, Government, etc, where there are few. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 04:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
        • COMMENT I trimmed some serious fat on the article. Can you look at it now, and give me some feedback on what else I should change? I have excepted the fact that I will have to submit this as a GA at some later time. SoaringMoon (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The article goes into far too much detail about some things that would be better suited to a website or in some cases a different page. For example I wouldn't say that the advantages and disadvantages of the currency section is necessary on the main page, neither is relationships. Also the head of state section doesn't appear to be completed, with almost all of the table full of N/A. I'd say in that case you would be better off mentioning the positions rather than filling a table with N/A. The mission statement section is also rather biased and unnecessary imo. For while I feel like this page isn't ready for GA status yet with lots of improvement and maybe even sifting through to choose what needs its own page/is very useful for a wiki page it could reach GA status.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  11:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • NEUTRAL The article is detailed, but I feel that some sections can be looked into. Like History can be shifted above Basic laws (which might come into the Government/Parliament section), moreover, Climate seems to be a sub-section of Holidays, you can look into it. Oritsu.me (talk)| 09:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Isaiah (Chat)


Grand Republic of Cycoldia

Nominator: 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have done quite a lot of work on the article and I think that it is worthy of good article status.

  • SUPPORT Isaiah (Chat) 7:37 AM CST 27 October 2020
  • OPPOSE More information can be added, like moving the "MicroCon 2019" to a separate foreign relation section under Government, and also creating separate pages for the flags and awards, those don't look good on the main page. Oritsu.me (Chat) 22:36 IST 27 October 2020
  • COMMENT I feel that the article is close to deserving the status, but there are a few things that can be changed, such as things being unnecessarily set to bold and a bias in favor of policies of the Cycoldian government. I will work on fixing those shortly. leon | talk to me 17:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


Unified Royal States of Australis

Nominator: HRH Daniel I of Australis (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Over time I've been working on this page. I personally don't feel like it should have Good Article status yet, but I would like to have some feedback on it. Thanks. Australis (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT A well described page with information all round, however more information are required to be added, and also some parts are to be expanded like the Government and Grand Duke section. The history section is perfect, however adding some references can be good. Moreover, the page has good number of references, I would suggest some more references be added to it. Thanks. Oritsu.me (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Government section is marked as wip, lots of redlinks, some sections are too short and the history section looks bare.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  20:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

October voting

Voting is now open for October 2020's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

The first two articles are included in this month's vote due to having been approved last month.

November nominations

Grand Republic of Cycoldia

Nominator: 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have done quite a lot of work on the article and I think that it is worthy of good article status.

  • SUPPORT Isaiah (Chat) 7:37 AM CST 27 October 2020
  • OPPOSE More information can be added, like moving the "MicroCon 2019" to a separate foreign relation section under Government, and also creating separate pages for the flags and awards, those don't look good on the main page. Oritsu.me (Chat) 22:36 IST 27 October 2020
  • COMMENT I feel that the article is close to deserving the status, but there are a few things that can be changed, such as things being unnecessarily set to bold and a bias in favor of policies of the Cycoldian government. I will work on fixing those shortly. leon | talk to me 17:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED Actually the article is quite good. It has references, images and is nicely expanded. With a few small copyedits for grammar and pacing, it can easily be worthy. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  8:39 a.m., 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Unified Royal States of Australis

Nominator: HRH Daniel I of Australis (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Over time I've been working on this page. I personally don't feel like it should have Good Article status yet, but I would like to have some feedback on it. Thanks. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 05:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT A well described page with information all round, however more information are required to be added, and also some parts are to be expanded like the Government and Grand Duke section. The history section is perfect, however adding some references can be good. Moreover, the page has good number of references, I would suggest some more references be added to it. Thanks. Oritsu.me (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Government section is marked as wip, lots of redlinks, some sections are too short and the history section looks bare.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  20:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The references are sufficient however I take issue with the number of red links, and I would also expand the 'Demographics' section. Furthermore, some sentences are improperly capitalised. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  8:44 p.m., 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Fixed the redlinks. In addition, I have expanded the history section, added new images, and am in the process of making government and demographics section better. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 04:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Royal coat of arms of Ikonia

Nominator: cameron (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe this page thoroughly explains what the royal arms are used for, and what they are in the first place. It is extensive on the usage, past versions, and what the blazon is. If it doesn't deserve GA status now, what should I change? Thanks :) cameron (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Karnia-Ruthenia

Nominator: User:Ivan Brienovich I (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This is great page and I believe it deserves Good Article status.

  • OPPOSE Bland and non-illustrated history section, empty "Contemporary Era" section, disputable claims ("Karnia-Ruthenia is regarded a micronational world power"). Cristi (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Doesn't feature many images at all, one section is empty and again disputable claims.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Karnia-Ruthenia no longer depends on MicroWiki, they have their independent site for encyclopaedic knowledge. Oritsu.me (talk), 6:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs , 4:48 p.m., 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Zed

Nominator: / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  10:55 a.m., 1 November 2020
I do believe this fits the criteria, if I may; it is well-written and sufficiently expanded enough, I moved some sections to their own pages to reduce its length. It also has an array of citations and is neutral enough. It also has images where relevant. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  10:55 a.m., 1 November 2020

SUPPORT I can say that this article is best fit for Good Article, it's well-written, well-described. Oritsu.me, 1.45 pm UTC, 1 November 2020.
SUPPORT Isaiah (Chat)
SUPPORT Very well-written, illustrated, well-referenced. I think it's excellent for GA status. Noticed the absence of an infobox, quite unusual for a biography article, but I don't think it's a significant issue. Cristi (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
SUPPORT as pointed out before, the article would be complemented with an infobox but otherwise a good article - I feel as if the political career section could do with some more pictures though.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  14:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  • COMMENT Okay I finally added an infobox, and also added an extra image where relevant. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  6:51 p.m., 1 November 2020

OPPOSE Goes against the encyclopedic spirit of MicroWiki. Cl. Wikipedia:CONFLICT (Kenosis (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC))

  • COMMENT Hey there Zeddy boy, do you know what "Cf." means? Kenosis (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Scratch that, looks like I typoed "Cf." as "Cl." My point still stands though, one should compare (confer) the source linked for why I do not believe this fits the encyclopedic nature of MicroWiki.Kenosis (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT This is MicroWiki. The rules on editing here are much different, and as such one may create articles that, on Wikipedia, may be a CI, as there is simply not enough external resources/influence for a non CI article to be written. Hope this clears things up. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 03:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

State of Vishwamitra

Nominator: Oritsu.me, 1.36 p.m. UTC, 1 November 2020
It has just been three months, I have joined the Wiki community but in this period, I had worked hard on this article based on our nation; it is well-written and expanded well. It has relevant images, references and notes. I wish for opinion from all ends. Thank you. Oritsu.me 1.36 p.m. UTC, 1 November 2020
  • SUPPORT very well detailed article, with lots of appropriate information, images and references to complement the article.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  14:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT How long you've been in the community is not important. What matters is that you have an excellent article, with great detail, well-referenced, well-illustrated and sizable (yet readable). It certainly does deserve GA status. Cristi (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT It’s a very detailed article, you would think that it was a macronation’s article if you didn’t look closely. PresidentLuke (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The page is really above the standarts here, very well explained, written, detailed, if one wanna know something about Vishwamitra the person can almost certainly found the information at this article. And it gets more exceptional if we notice it is a fresh new article from a fresh new editor. Vey much pro. Arthur Brum (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This micronational page is very detailed! I would say that new micronationalists can get a lot of inspiration from looking at this page, even though it is very long, it is not hard to read, and it offers a lot of information. A+ from me. StefanSNG (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2020 (EET)
  • COMMENT This is very good, though upon closer inspection it does have a few grammatical errors and unnecessary use of bold text — the article is very long, so I believe the history section should have its own article. The Timeline of Vishwamitran history article can stay alongside it for a quicker overview and lesser important events. With these easy and minor changes I see no reason to reject. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  4:43 p.m., 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • ACCEPTED (though make sure to fix the minor errors Zed highlights) —Ives Blackwood (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

North Atlantic Defense Union

Nominator:Aenopia, 14:00 UCT, 1 November 2020
I feel as if it could do with more references and the Reform and Growth sections in the history section could do with expansion but I feel like it is sufficient to reach GA status.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  14:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I feel that the page is perfect for Good Article status, however, I'd simply suggest that the direct link of the page is provided (that shan't be an issue) and also, please change the name to "Union" from "organization" on the main infobox. Other than this, it's perfect. Oritsu.me, 14.10 UTC, 1 November 2020.
  • OPPOSE Some sentences could be worded better, improper capitalisation, and the article is written in past-tense yet it was revived? Also not fully factually correct as TOES was founded a day prior to the given date and by individuals, not ex-member states. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  3:27 p.m., 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ives Blackwood

Nominator: Ives Blackwood (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I now—finally—have a personal article that merits GA status. I should be able to act on any comments or concerns.

  • SUPPORT The censoring is a bit offsetting, though the article does match every other criteria. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  1:12 a.m., 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Other than the censoring (if your going to do that then I just recommend using an avatar since its pretty darn distracting), I like the article. --MissED the Target (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
If I ever find an avatar that looks vaguely like me, I'll replace the censored pictures. RIP having longish hair and using Caretaker AU's Chara. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

John I of Baustralia

Nominator: His Majesty John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia King, Emperor of Ostreum (talk · email) 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The article is fairly well-written, and I am fond of the lead section, however it is kind of short and there is a new paragraph every three lines which looks odd. The 'Personal life' section also seems to take up a large amount of the article compared to 'Reign', which I would argue is more important. I would also recommend giving 'Military career' its own section out of personal life. / Zed Zabëlle  My Talk Page • Contribs  11:00 p.m., 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks @Zed, I've tried to make a few fixes. I didn't touch the lead, I'm not sure what else to add, however, I do agree it looks a bit odd. I separated 'Military career' into its own section, and expanded on 'Reign'. --His Majesty John I by the Grace of God of Baustralia King, Emperor of Ostreum (talk · email) 03:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The article is good enough to be a "Good Article", however please try to do away with the red link on the introductory paragraph of the article. Oritsu.me (talk) 13.02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Zero references and some sections are rather short.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  15:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well-written, informative and gives all information that one would expect to be available. The prose is clear and precise. The structuring is acceptable—the lead section is good; the military career section perhaps leaves something be desired but is definitely passable. IMO this deserves to be a GA. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Formatting, specifically when it comes to the over abundance of redlinks and paragraphs. Fix the formatting and re-nominate, then I would be happy to support it. --MissED the Target (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC) edit: I saw improvements and changed my vote.
  • SUPPORT Austenasia (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Grand Republic of Cycoldia

Nominator: 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Trying again because last time there wasn't a common consensus other than 1 support and one oppose. Zed had rejected it last time in an odd way too so... 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT I feel that the article deserves a GA tag. The flags and awards can have individual articles, however, there's no problem if they are on the main article. Oritsu.me (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE. The lead section is poorly-structured—the pronunciation guide is poorly-integrated, a fifty-word full name is present in bold, there is a non-standard cross-reference, there are unnecessary upper-case letters on "See" and "Constitutional Monarchy", and the logic for what merits inclusion is confusing and renders the lead section a poor summary of the article at large. There is a good amount of content but the structure, grammar and prose are consistently mediocre. Three particularly grating flaws running through the article are the constant wiki-linking of Christinia I after the first instance, the deluge of unnecessary upper-case letters and the unnecessary wiki-linking of years. The references are inconsistently formatted—the date is actually shown in no fewer than three different ways (see references 9, 10 and 14). In addition, your little swipe at Zed in the nomination, complete with passive-aggressive ellipses, is completely unmerited. He said when rejecting this article that it was "quite good" but that it needed copyediting; you ignored this recommendation and relisted it with a comment implying that the fact he said it was "quite good" should have qualified it for GA status. I suggest that this time you act on Zed's suggestion and copyedit the article before nominating it a third time. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

.*OPPOSE per Mr. Blackwood; furthermore I recommend you to remove all the royal photos except the most recent as well as keep like 2 pieces of art, this article is about Cycoldia in the end of the day. The art can be moved to "Art in Cycoldia" and royal photos to the personal page of Christina. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible  | 17:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Decracy of Vilthia

Nominator: MissED the Target (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why has this not been nominated yet?

  • OPPOSE Zero references, quite a fair amount of it consists of single sentences and for half of the article there are too many images making it cramed whilst the other half doesn't feature any. Oh, also parts have a biased tone.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  19:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree with your other comments, but remember that references are not a GA criterion. Ives Blackwood (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Acteriendian model countries

Nominator: Ives Blackwood (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe this meets the criteria.

    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Too late in the month, sorry!

November voting

Voting is now open for November 2020's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

The first article is included in this month's vote due to having been approved last month.

December nominations

Republic of Tavil

  • OPPOSE Very short, lacks citations, and has a empty section. - Tsar Stefan I (talk) 2:20PM, 26 December 2020 (EST)

North Atlantic Defense Union

Nominator:Aenopia, 14:00 UCT, 1 November 2020
This was submitted last month however did not achieve the number of votes needed to pass. I've decided to resubmit this, as I still feel as if it's capable of reaching GA status.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  14:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The article is well written and seems perfect for me, I believe the article can be eligible for GA. Also a small suggestion, please try to add the flag of the Union of Garuda, instead of the one with a question mark. - Oritsu.me (talk) 1 December 2020, 4.58 pm UTC
  • SUPPORT I'll just keep it simple: beautiful. aydan (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Eh. It's extensive and illustrated, but the structure is questionable, the images are too big, the prose is poor and feels unedited, and in places, it reads like an advert. The main problem, though, is that it's laced with grammar and style errors — too many to list, but three particularly jarring problems include the headings in title case, the wikilinks, and the inline citations to unformatted Google Docs links. It would need an extensive copy-edit before it would be suitable for GA status. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Better! Though not there yet - the article is really not bad, but it does not stand out either. As Blackwood points out, the grammar and spelling overall needs improvement, and many sentences could just be worded better (i.e. The article uses "later" way too much where just using "erstwhile" instead of later or replacing it with "renamed" would be better). It also needs a touch on its neutrality. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 04:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Liberal Party (Plushunia)

Nominator: Cristi (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think it fills all the criteria, and out of my articles is the one I worked on hardest and that I like the most. Thus, I believe it is ready for GA status. Cristi (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT This page is well referenced, has no redlinks, is highly detailed and uses media in an acceptable amount. I am in support of this for GA status. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article is well very written, edited and referenced. Moreover, it is to be noted that it's the article of a political party, and such beautifully written. It should definitely receive GA status. Oritsu.me (talk) 9:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Jesus, that's a bloody good encyclopedia entry. Full support. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is a great article it's well written and has all the information anyone could ever need, I think is very worthy, and should receive GA status. Isaiah (Chat) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ela'r'oech

Nominator: Anthony Ramirez 3rd

Just thought it looked nice. My friend made it and I believed it filled out all the guidelines and it seemed he's been working on it for months updating it and refining it trying to make it look good. I think his work has paid off to the point where his article may be worthy of "Good Article" Status. User:Anthony Ramirez 3rd (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Thank you for submitting my article. I read the criteria and also believe my article is worthy. Charles (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I'm going to be honest the page is all over the place the date formats are wrong, relatively few references and grammar mistakes. Isaiah (Chat)
  • OPPOSE As above. A large amounts of the article consists of stubby sections, zero references and the article is quite a mess to name a few problems.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Let's keep this short. The sections have little to no bulking out, they are very basic and do not convey a lot of information, the article is not referenced enough, and there is contested information e.g. (It is a common belief that they are discriminated against by admins and moderators of the MicroWiki@Discord Server.). It's a no from me. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 00:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Acteriendian model countries

Nominator: Ives Blackwood (talk)

The hope is that this meets the criteria above. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • NEUTRAL This page is well detailed and meets all criteria, however it could benefit from having more references. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 00:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I'm going to lean oppose if more references are added I'd change to support. Isaiah (Chat)
COMMENT I concede that I did mostly write this page with one source, Glastieve: A History, but said source is literally book-length (ca. 50,000 words iirc). I have also cited three other sources, one of which (the Skovaji wiki entry) is over 10,000 words worth of content. I would be grateful if you would expand on what the problem is with the references, as tbh, I feel like I'm having this conversation once a week at the moment and I feel like there's a disconnect between the GA criteria and each of your comments. Nothing in the article is not verifiable. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
AMENDMENT Following reading this, I hereby amend my previous verdict from 'Neutral' to 'Support'. Good luck in your bid for GA! • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 13:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I have no clue why the above editors think an amazing article, expansive, fascinating, well-written article, completed with images and references at the bottom of the page think it should be rejected until more unreliable self-sourced links to Google Sites or Wordpress get added. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 10:16 a.m. (1016), 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • REJECTED I really love this article and truly believe it should be a GA, but unfortunately two supports is not consensus - I would advice renominating it next month. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 04:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Zed

Nominator: addison (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT To keep it simple: I have no idea why this is not a good article yet. addison (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well written, nicely expanded with good detail should definitely be GA Isaiah (Chat) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT -MissED the Target (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Florania

Nominator: addison (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I have read the feedback of community members and believe now is a good time to nominate this article for GA. addison (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT For what it is, and for the amount of information available, this is an excellent article, and deserves GA status. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 02:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Looked over the article, looks fine to me.-MissED the Target (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I don't believe there's anything wrong with the article, however I feel as if sections could be a bit longer and maybe feature other sections such as expanding the history section into different parts e.g Pre-History, Annexation, Bonumland era, ect. with the same for Culture. I also feel as if it could do with a few more references however it's otherwise a good article.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  12:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 in the MicroWiki community

Nominator: ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 16:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

COMMENT I forgot to nominate this before my hiatus Now, aside from it simply being a huge detailed and cited summary of events, that is not the sole reason I think it can be a GA, I do believe it is itself well-written and proficiently worded, neutral, has a good prose and enough sections to not be unnavigable or too long, and it is expansive enough with notable, sourced entries and excellent images. Of course, you know the drill so I do not really have to say it, but, feedback welcome! :3

  • SUPPORT I genuinely don't understand why this hasn't received any votes when it's such a good article.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  18:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Indeed it is an amazingly done article, not to mention it must have been very difficult to put this all together in a way that it is undertandable. It really deserves a good article status. Arthur Brum (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 2:20PM, 26 December 2020 (EST)

Royal coat of arms of Ikonia

Nominator: cameron (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Should add citations, if possible. - Tsar Stefan I (talk) 2:20PM, 26 December 2020 (EST)
  • OPPOSE The article seems incredibly cramped, there's a lack of reference and some sections are rather short. Not exactly necessary however I feel like adding a see also section would make the article better.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  19:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

December voting

Voting is now open for December 2020's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

The first two articles are included in this month's vote due to having been approved last month.

Retrieved from "https://micronations.wiki/index.php?title=MicroWiki:Good_articles/Nominations/Archive_11&oldid=1765706"