MicroWiki:Good articles/Nominations/Archive 12

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

January

Aleunnic Czardom

Nominator: Tsar Stefan I (talk). 2:40PM, 1 January 2021 (EST)

I know it isn't much, but since the Aleunnic Czardom is relatively new with relevant info and references, it could work. Any comments on how to improve it is appreciated.

  • WITHDRAWN From the comments received, I've decided to withdraw this article and probably renominate if more info gets added. Tsar Stefan I (talk). 3:03PM, 2 January 2021 (EST)

Overturn GA status of State of Berin

Nominator: Tsar Stefan I (talk). 2:40PM, 1 January 2021 (EST)

Not a lot of info, no pictures other than flags, and the lack of references.

  • SUPPORT For good articles you do not only look for articles that meet the expected criteria for an article of its category—i.e. the necessary images, expansive and well-written information, citations—a good article should encompass above average material which defies expectations; while information/length is not an issue for this article, as neither is references, and it is of historical importance, there is nothing exceptionally amazing about the article. In fact, it would be improved with at least one physical image, and the text could nevertheless be expanded a bit and do with some refreshing for grammar and spelling, such as the unnecessary bold text for its flags. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 23:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT As above. ricky • sup? 02:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I believe that I was initially going to oppose this, but I decided to support this call because even though I think it could be updated, Good Articles are meant to stay as.. good articles. Unfortunately, this one isn't right now. (User:ReesesPuffs, Puffs I)
  • COMMENT I the believe that this article must have been worthy of being a good article by the time it was created, and its historic relevance, when it comes to good articles, should be preserved. But I understand that for today's standarts the article isn't by far a "good article", it is too short and simple, although well done. I'm just not fond of the ideia of witch-hunting older good articles which, for today's standarts, aren't that good, otherwise we might start something that could end in chopping the list of good articles by the middle, hypoteticaly speaking. Arthur Brum (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ebenthal

Nominator: Arthur Brum (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the article fulfills all the required criteira. It is well-written (specialy if one takes into account that the micronation isn't natively English-speaker), it speaks coherently and reasonably in all of the micronation's facts and matters without going into unnecessarily detailed mega-texts, it provides a fair amount of sources, quality images providing detailed descriptions with no false/simulationist claims, it does not magnifies the micronation, it is honest on its position, and its structure follows the Wikipedia countries' articles' pattern. Arthur Brum (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Ebenthal's article is one of the most elaborate on entire MicroWiki, especially considering that it's from a relatively recent micronation. Without wishing to dwell on Ebenthal's regional importance as a micronation of preponderance, the work done to create a first-rate article has been achieved a long time ago, surpassing several articles accepted as good and which, due to elegance, should not be mentioned. However, once the quality threshold has been established, it's undisputed that this article far exceeds expectations and that failure to recognize its quality is more a political or xenophobic statement than a sincere opposition for some failure in it. This article has already been submitted for consideration and has been rejected; fair or not, the author dedicated himself to perfecting the article and now, there is little to criticize negatively, being more than apt to receive qualification, but being truly worthy of being placed in a differentiated rank, being an example for articles to be written in the future. Karno-Ruthenian Imperial Government (talk) 18:17, 01 January 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is a great article, being a template for detailing a micronation, and with a high level of information, details and references, the Ebenthal article reflects the great nation that is. Sildavia Government (talk) 17:26, 01 January 2021 (UTC−3)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 3:31PM, 1 January 2021 (EST)
  • SUPPORT This is by far the most well written article at this website, it is rich in information and content and I think it deserves the title of 'Good article'. Villa Alicia Government (talk) 22:03, 01 January 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is one of the best written articles on Microwiki, that still does not have a GA tag. I would like this article to be a Good Article on Microwiki. Oritsu.me (Oritsu.me) 7:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I have absolutely no idea what Karno-Ruthenian Imperial Government is talking about but I am sure somewhere in there are good reasons to support. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 23:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT As above. ricky • sup? 02:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is a not a good article but it is a gold article. This page is an inspiration to other micronationalists in aiding them to creating a way of writing about their nation in MicroWiki.Chandrachur Basu (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC+5.5)
  • SUPPORT Nice page, I recommend that others take inspiration from it. StefanSNG (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Statistic-Dime

Nominator: ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 21:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 4:36PM, 1 January 2021 (EST)
  • SUPPORT This article definitely deserves good article status. It is well written, well referenced, and is expansive. A big yes from me! • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Oritsu.me, (talk) 8.07AM, 25 January 2021 (IST)
    • COMMENT Change vote from oppose to support, Oritsu.me, (talk) 8.23AM, 25 January 2021 (IST)

Ela'r'oech

Nominator: Ela'r'oech Charles (Ela'r'oech Charles). 12:00Am, 3 January 2021 (CDT)
 I think it's grown a lot since the last time it was submitted. Some "biased" things were removed. Yadda Yadda, let's see how it works this time. If y'all gonna oppose, please lemme know why and give feedback.

  • SUPPORT I like the article, it's informative and explanatory. Kaiser-Koenig Christoph I
  • SUPPORT Should note that in foreign relations it should state the name of the nation. Overall, it's good. Tsar Stefan I (talk) 12:00PM, 1 January 2021 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Yes! I think this article is honestly amazing and provides a lot of information useful to any micronationalist. It's fairly a "new" micronation but it's got a good-looking article and I believe it's worthy of GA status. Not to go off topic, but I was really disappointed to see it get revoked the first time, especially when someone used "MW@D Discrimination" and claimed it to be biased, when it is just in the Elarian culture that unfortunately it is believed they are discriminated against. And that person who said it was biased... was a moderator! Really? Proving the point of that sentence right there. But now that I'm done with my little rant, I really do think that this article is worthy of the GA status especially with more informational changes with the map and such on the infobox. User:Anthony Ramirez 3rd 3:12PM, 3 January 2021 (CDT)
  • OPPOSE Sections are rather stubby and some parts are worded rather badly. The Civil War section embodies these problems whilst also making absolutely no sense to the reader without context. Some dates utilise an incorrect date format and the article seems rather biased (and again make no sense) in sections . There are also a few spelling and grammar mistakes sprinkled throughout the article whilst some parts are written in both past and present tense AND first and third person. Some sections go into far too much detail and are quite messy such as the foreign affairs section - instead of having a defined section for recognition, organisations, foreign relations, ect. these groups are needlessly clumped together. Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  22:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • WEAK OPPOSE Article is stubby in certain sections like Ela'r'oech after Charles and MW manual of style is not followed so it is a no from me. it doesn't even have a government section like a MW about a nation should. Isaiah (Chat)
  • COMMENT May I be informed as to which sections you believe are stubby? As said If you oppose giving Ela'r'oech the GA status please inform me of what I can do to amend this especially regarding bias. I am currently editing the article still as I was during the last time the article was submitted to hopefully amend anything I notice myself and add details.(Ela'r'oech Charles)
  • COMMENT Thanks for the info. Will update to amend. Please check it afterwards and perhaps consider changing your position.(Ela'r'oech Charles)
  • OPPOSE Much improved since last nomination, good prose, well-written in most parts and perfect images, though some sections are rather confusing, such as "It was founded accidentally by Charles Madgett in 2018, then in 2019 he made another nation which went defunct for a while until 2020, when on 15 August, it was purposefully established", which should explain more on how it was accidentally and later purposefully founded. Some subsections of its history are short, and I would remove the ones under "Pre-Ela'r'oech" - I would also move Locations and Climate into its own section titled "Geography". I agree with Logan (Aenopia) on the foreign affairs section. Furthermore, all date formats should be dd/mm/yyyy, so not September 16, 2020 or 16th of September 2020, but rather "16 September 2020". Also contains mild spelling mistakes or sentences that can be better worded. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 02:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I am confused though as to why there are any people necessarily opposing the GA Status of this article for the reason of Charles is listening to them and this article is continuously updated. I feel like a good amount of reasoning for these "oppose" views have been amended. (1/2) (User:Anthony Ramirez 3rd)
  • COMMENT (2/2) Charles has been waiting and patiently amending this all listening to the opposition, which is one thing I really respect and I have seen votes change before so I stand with him with reminding you and advising you to change your vote. Do not look at Ela'r'oech's article once. Look at it every day or a few times a day. There's many changes to it constantly. I see it as ; you're never voting for the exact same article in this nomination. Please listen to Charles when he advises you to change your vote. Please look at this article constantly, study it's changes. (User:Anthony Ramirez 3rd)
  • SUPPORT I always liked Charles, however it won't give me any bias when saying this article genuinely blew me away first reading it. Looking at the "OPPOSE" section it would say that there are incorrect date formats (there are none), stubby sections (there are none, maybe one or two I didn't catch), and bad grammar (which I'm admittedly not too good at so I wouldn't know), but at face value without nitpicking I really liked the article. But I'll also admit GA status is for those nitpicked articles that are still good. Could use some more work but I'm gonna support this one, since I really agree with Anthony, but I also agree somewhat with Logan (Aenopia) on the Civil War section. I'm sure it was worse before anything was said about it, but maybe that section could be removed or just expanded upon. I also don't think it fits in History/Ela'r'oech Era. Maybe Domestic Forces/Civil War would have been a better area for it. (Puffs I)
    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC) - 4:3 isn't consensus

Kingdom of Burdette

Nominator: Isaiah (Chat)
 I would like as much feedback as you can give I also wanna see how good the article is.

  • SUPPORT I wrote it and think it's good quality. Isaiah (Chat)
  • OPPOSE Zero images, lack of references, sections need expanding such as Economy, could probably do with a few more blue links and overall the article could do with expansion.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  10:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Definitely could use more images, but I helped expand the economy area and it doesn't look too bad. Could use more work but it does look like a good article. Charles
  • COMMENT I added quite a few images. Isaiah (Chat)
  • COMMENT The opening is good, Etymology could be worded better, Geography is a bit short, and Climate can be expanded (i.e. "In general, the climate of Burdette is cool and often cloudy, and mid-year temperatures are generally warm, sometimes hot."), Government and Law and order have minor sentences which could be worded better and can have more blue links. Also if possible images of the land would help improve the overall feel of the article. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 03:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I will beginning fixing the things you have named.
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 12:22PM, 19 January 2021 (EST)
  • SUPPORT Oritsu.me (talk) 8:00PM, 25 January 2021 (EST)

Kingdom of Trebor

Nominator: Ives Blackwood (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE It's slim pickings for images about the golden toilet joke nation that lasted for about a month, but I've added an image of Trebor mints — with which the country shares a name and a colour scheme — and of Glastieven E. I did think about adding the Myré flag to the 'Position in Glastieven history' section but I don't want to encourage the confusion! —Ives Blackwood (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ecologist Republic of Bartonia

Nominator: Jak123 (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2021 (CET)

January voting

Voting is now open for January 2021's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

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

February

Kingdom of Burdette

Nominator: Isaiah (Chat) 01:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It got passed the first stage last time I want to see how it does this time.

Flag of Australis

Nominator: • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 01:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this page is worthy of Good Article status. I have expanded it to be as expansive as a flag page can be, included references, images, and a great amount of detail. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 01:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Gymnasium State

Nominator: AtomCZ (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rather than actually aiming to get Good Article status right away, I'm interested in ways to improve it, but if it was approved I wouldn't complain.

  • OPPOSE Don't get me wrong, this is a lovely page and definitely has potential as a Good Article. However I feel as if a majority of sections are too short and could do with some expansion. The culture section could also do with a few images but otherwise it's a great article.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  09:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I love this article! It's got loads of references, which is good, includes lots of images which is also good, but the main place where this article is brought down are the stubby sections. For a nation established in 2016, the history section could be exponentially expanded. Also, go into more detail on how the Government works. Other than that, it's pretty good. Look forward to seeing the edits! • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 11:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Amazing article and only requires a few fixes as mentioned above. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 13:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The article has potential but as per Logan Ross some sections are stubby. Isaiah (Chat) 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I think the article is on the right track towards reaching GA status, however, the history section could use some work in the sense of an expansion. Also, a few illustrations would help reach the article towards Good Article Status. Other than that, it's very good. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sough2020

Nominator:  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  09:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the quality of this article is close enough to warrant GA status, excluding improvements that I'm going to continue making. Always open to improvement.

  • SUPPORT Because everyone else seems to be supporting their articles.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  13:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article is quite good, and about as detailed as you can get for a convention article. However, I feel like more detail should be put into the Content section. Other than that, good work! • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 11:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT i see no issues with the article. Isaiah (Chat) 13:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Emperor Anthony I (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Upon closer inspection you notice that some of the text of some sections may be rather confusing to readers. For instance; "In total, 6 meetings took place between 11 October 2020 and 21 November 2020, lasting 42 days in total" should explain that the meetings were for the creation of the convention. It also links to articles that have already been linked throughout (which is redundant), minor spelling mistakes, and some sentences can generally be worded better to be made less redundant. Also what constitutes a "notable nation"? I do not disagree with it, but it is certainly subjective and rather odd to include it. Should be a very easy fix, than I can fully see this gaining GA status. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Glorious Anthean Republic

Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that this meets the criteria. The ostensible lack of detail on some matters (e.g. culture, party politics) reflects the fact that the information does not yet exist — the entry is about a nation that is fewer than two hours old. —Ives Blackwood (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE While this article is very detailed, it lacks sufficient references which are generally a requirement for such long pages about micronations. Also, I would possibly recommend re-nominating once the nation has been around long enough to have the party politics and culture you mentioned. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Considering the fact that the nation is quite literally a few hours old, I think that it should wait a bit longer to develop itself more in order to bulk up the page before the article is approved.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  13:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The culture section is a bit stubby but it has a lot of potential. Isaiah (Chat) 13:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I do feel like it is too new and the page may be rapidly changing as the nation further develops; generally most GAs should be complete. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 17:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

GUM Member States Positivity Survey

Nominator:★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 17:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Good, but I feel like some sections could be extended, and possibly more references. 17:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Some sections, such as aftermath, are very short and need expansion whilst it could do with some more references and images.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  17:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • NEUTRAL Aftermath section is short but it's still a good article so I'm going nuetral. Isaiah (Chat) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Grand Republic of Cycoldia

Nominator: 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Been trying to get this to GA for a while now, if anyone has critisisms on it also I want to be able to know, Thanks!

  • Support Looks like every nominator is voting support on their articles.-𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔)
  • OPPOSE I think this article is well referenced, and very detailed in some areas. However, I find the lack of consistency with that detail to really bring this page down. Sections such as History need to be updated to even include the year 2020. In addition, the Government section could go into more detail on how the Government works and how the different branches interconnect with one another. Also, the Diplomacy section could be improved in aesthetics, as well as better explaining the foreign policy. Also, make sure to go over and proof read the page, I found a couple of grammatical and spelling mistakes here and there. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE ^^^  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above Isaiah (Chat) 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I think the diplomacy section could be formatted better and perhaps the full details of the section would be better for a separate page. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Republic of Wendatia

Nominator: jonas | talk 17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Any tips? First time of me nominating a GA. I think it meets most of the criteria

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: Emperor Anthony I (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT A fantastic article that fully meets all criteria. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 19:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Tsar Stefan I (talk) 8:50PM, 5 February 2021 (EST)
  • OPPOSE The article is well put together and the references suffice for the type of page. However, I did notice several spelling and grammatical errors on the page, such as a lot of words being capitalised when they shouldn't be. It wouldn't be a huge task to go over it and make some edits. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 14:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT I have made several grammatical corrections to the article. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC) - Precedent is that 2/1 isn't enough

Republic of Matthewopia

Nominator: User Mh06941 talk ☼ 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominating again after some improvements. User Mh06941 talk ☼ 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE This article could get up to scratch easily with your editing skills. However, the main issue which jumps out at me is that the page has a lot of stubby sections. If at all possible try and expand these sections by filling relevant information in, and this is going to sound like I'm telling a primary schooler, but consider who, what, when, where, why and how for expanding these sections. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 14:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above. A few changes and I can see this getting GA. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 17:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Department of the Interior (Dracul)

Nominator: MissED the Target (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Sluke91 (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The length of the article is good, but there are no references and I found quite a number of spelling and grammar mistakes. User Mh06941 talk ☼ 02:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Examples please?--Moist the Target 00:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Snagovian Federal Republic

Nominator: StefanSNG (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't think it is worthy of being a GA just yet, but I would like tips! What should I add? What should I change?

  • OPPOSE Definitely needs more references, and one thing I noted is that the article flips between Snagov, the nation and the country. I'd recommend sticking to one instead of changing. Some sections such as the ones in Demographics are rather stubby and could do with some expansion. There are far too many redlinks, and some sections could be worded a bit better. Other than that it's a very good article that with a bit of work could be worthy of GA status.
  • OPPOSEToo many red links Isaiah (Chat) 12:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above - I would like to see Military expanded as well. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Dracul

Nominator: Moist the Target 00:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Charles Ross

MSTarget (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Good length, images and well-written, however it could use some citations, and some sections like Personal life and Political views are rather short; perhaps they could be merged. Additionally the Quotes section is odd. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 23:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

February voting

Voting is now open for February 2021's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

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

March

Logan Ross

Nominator:  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  20:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For while I am currently re-writing and improving some sections as of this moment in time, I feel like it would be appropriate to nominate it now - even if it doesn't get through the suggestions would be pretty useful anyways.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  20:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Wow. Now this is a good article. Over 100 references, and each section goes into detail. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • Contributions 23:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I wish i could make articles this good! Jared 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is great! A variety of templates, photos, sections, refrences and more really completes it all. I agree with Daniel on this one. Good work! ] Liam Munroe  My Talk Page • Contribs  00:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I would wait a few more weeks, considering you just finished adding a large amount of content, and some sentences need closer inspection; several sentences could be worded better, as some are needlessly long or may be confusing to readers, and articles which have already been linked continue to be linked throughout. Some sentences use apostrophes ('for the foreseeable future', 'The Reform Act', 'Year micronational anniversary'), and I do not see the need for them. There are also several other minor grammatical mistakes. The article also uses a needless amount of citations just to reach a high amount, as for instance "[...] Ross would sign the constitution of the Glorious Anthean Republic alongside 17 other micronationalists." uses four; one citation, preferably the news article from Home-made Crown Journal would be ideal in that case. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 13:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Expanding on redundancy a bit more, the sentence "Ross served as a key figure in the Sough2020 project, acting as the author of the treaty and leader of the Sough2020 convention" should it not read; "Ross was the author and leader of the Sough2020 convention [...]" instead? Also some factual inaccuracies, I am not sure if it is phrased in the wrong location but Statistic-Dime had no involvement in the 19th Microwiki Influence Survey. Also on the "Trio" incident, Abrams Wiucki-Dunswed claims (I have a screenshot of the message somewhere) he vandalised the MicroWiki article of Tom Kap, after being pressure to do so by Ellis and Charles Ross, so that sentence should be rephrased. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 00:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Wow.Now,that was good.There was alot of references and also somethings are going into detail.Even thought it has some mistakes ,the article is fluent and describes Logan Ross properly.There are pictures as well.SO ,In my opinion this article is good. HouselandRepublic
  • SUPPORT I think this article deserves to be GA. / Founder of Baránok and Talcon I. Kvajda  My Talk Page • Contribs  17:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As per Zed. Isaiah (Chat) 14:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT My articles suck —Wegmat (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT me gusta -- leon!!!!!  talk to me please i have no social interaction • l-l-lookies at what i did!!!!!!! 

Houseland Republic

Nominator:Houseland Republic
  • OPPOSE No words. Terrible for a nomination..*
  • OPPOSE There's lot of work to be done, for certain. In the current form, it certainly doesn't deserve GA status. Cristi 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I would like to see some references before this article deserved GA status. As a nation page, it definitely needs some. Also has quite a number of spelling mistakes. User Mh06941 talk ☼ 21:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Not bad for starters, however many sections are rather short and should be expanded. Also uses the incorrect date format (should read dd/mm/yyyy) and needs more wiki links. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 00:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above
  • OPPOSE I lost my last brain cell reading this • Daniel Roscoe • Enquiries • My Work 01:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Democratic Liberal Party (Plushunia)

Nominator: Cristi 21:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have put a great amount of work in this article, and I thought it certainly deserves GA status (and should it receive that status, it will be the first GA to be about a political party). Besides, even if it doesn't win, I feel I still could use some community advice. Cristi 21:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT This was approved before and has only gotten better since then. Political articles are my worst subject but it looks great to me; lots of citations, relevant images and lots of detail, as well as no obvious grammatical mistakes. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 04:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Very nice article good job! Isaiah (Chat) 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

GUM DIS TRACK

Nominator: ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 04:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally believe this to be a really good article, and especially for a song; I have added all information I could on it, accompanied by several citations and images. Any feedback appreciated!

Federal Union of Wegmat

Nominator: Wegmat (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time to nominate this article as it no longer has any red links, is well illustrated, has better grammar and has references. —Wegmat (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  21:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Still needs work; opening is pretty short and can be expanded. I also noticed several grammatical, format and spelling mistakes, such as "May of 2019" which should just read "May 2019", occasional uses of the wrong there/ir/'re, and improperly capitalised words; some sentences can also just be worded better. Furthermore, some sections are rather short, like Ministries (could expand by adding the Ministers), Provincial Departments, Climate and Transportation, which is a pretty large industry in Wegmat. I also think the article should expand on animal citizenship, such as how animals are able to obtain it. Furthermore, the sentence "[...] “education” channel Wormhole TV" may also confuse some readers on why education is under quotations. Aside from that, images, citations and the demographics and climate template are perfect. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The beginning is fairly short. Isaiah (Chat) 19:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT I did some improvements on expanding the beginning —Wegmat (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Royal coat of arms of Ikonia

Nominator: Abrams (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is greatly in detail, and supersedes the quality of the already GA Royal coat of arms of Baustralia

  • SUPPORT Fulfils the criteria. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 05:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral Some sections with just a table but it's about as much as you can fit into a article about a coat of arms so I'm going Neutral Isaiah (Chat) 14:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I'm changing to OPPOSE. Isaiah (Chat) 19:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE References? • Daniel Roscoe • Enquiries • My Work 01:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above Jared 07:17 24 march 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT The Baustralian one doesn't have any. Ditto for mine

Abrams (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT This is a very well made article. Abrams brings a up a good point with the Bau article. It would be hypocritical to reject this one for lack of references. Even so I am aware that Ikonia is working on heraldic registry so in the future it will have references most probably. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Statistic-Dime

Nominator: ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This was previously approved; I think it fulfils the criteria, especially with more recent changes made to it since then in order to improve its quality - expansive, perfect wording and grammar, and plenty of citations and images to complete it.

  • SUPPORT It's well made Isaiah (Chat) 20:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT It's quite well made. That's probably the most someone could write on the subject. User Mh06941 talk ☼ 21:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

State of Indradhanush

Nominator: State of Indradhanush(talk | edits) 7:14 , 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Did my level best to come up with the page. Suggestions would be good

  • COMMENT As far as grammar goes it is very well written, and the images are perfect, but it has minor formatting issues, such as the date format which should be spelled "1 February 2021". On the part about the four battles with the Blackpink Forces, I think it should explain more who the Blackpink Forces were or how the battles took place and what happened. Also, some sections are a bit short (like Gadinagar and the history on the State of Indradhanush), but Indradhanush is new so I think it should wait as it will expand with time. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 13:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Oritsu.me (talk)
  • COMMENT It's on it's way. It's looking pretty decent at the moment, I just think it's not ready just yet. Good job so far! • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 08:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

King Fondren Bai ll

Nominator: User:Connor

it's awesome

  • OPPOSE Sorry mate, but a poor article is far from being classified as a Good Article. Maybe take a look at other micronation's articles (Such as Matthewopia or Australis) and see how they lay out their content? If you would like to learn how to make better articles, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. User Mh06941 talk ☼ 07:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Absolutely not Isaiah (Chat) 06:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE User:Connor you need to teach me how to make articles Jared 24 march 2021 (UTC)

March voting

Voting is now open for March 2021'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.

April

March 2021 Anthean general election

Nominator: Sertor (Chat) 09:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've had a shot at trying to make a decent election article. I think it's alright.

  • SUPPORT This is about as good as an election article can get. Well done! This deserves GA status. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 09:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I find it a bit confusing how the constituencies are MicroWiki and TFG, a social club. Now, I am not an expert on politics or elections, but I feel like this article should be a bit more clear for the average reader. There should also be some more details on the Boundaries Commission and background section in general, as well as on what the Beti scandal actually was. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT With regards to the constituencies, the project was intended to be a community micronation, and a majority of people decided to have MP's representing the various communities. However, I understand that due to your confusion, this may also prove to be confusing to the average reader, so I shall endeavour to expand on not only this, but also the Boundaries Commission. Thank you for the input! Sertor (Chat) 22:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • COMMENT Most of my concerns have been fixed which is good to see, however there are still several issues; the article itself seems a bit short, and there are a few grammatical errors and sentences which could generally just be worded better. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ – if your signature is more than 300 bytes you have problems (talk | edits) 14:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Focuses too much on the Beti incident in my opinion. jonas | talk 18:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT It's fairly good quality for an election article. Isaiah (Chat) 12:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Grand Republic of Cycoldia

Nominator:𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 13:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that this finally deserves GA, people have also before told me it qualifies, especially with the fixing up of the references.

  • SUPPORT This has actually really improved since the last nomination! Alongside the references which you mentioned, it also has a lot of images which really make the article feel alive, and the previous bias issue with the text has been fixed. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 13:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Well some of your references are discord messages and you just post a link to the message which most won't be able to access I don't really even care about references but this makes the article quality go down. Isaiah (Chat) 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Huge amounts of bias in favor of the Cycoldian government, tiny lead paragraph, an ungodly amount of formatting errors, and there is quite a bit of unnecessary information (the April Fools section, for example).  leon!!!!!  talk to me please i have no social interaction • l-l-lookies at what i did!!!!!!!  20:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Refer to what leon said. jonas | talk 18:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - Oritsu.me (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - StefanSNG (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Leon's explanation is on point.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  18:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ela'r'oech

Nominator: User:Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Truly think this article is the best it's been in a while after some changes.

  • SUPPORT I've detailed why I like this article many times. Why stop now I guess? Really like the changes made to the first few paragraphs. They were sorta scattered but now they make more sense and have better organization. I'm going to remove the "defunct" part because it's my assumption that this is a part of an April Fool's joke but please let me know if I am wrong. Anthony Ramirez 3rd (talk)
  • SUPPORT Very nice article Isaiah (Chat) 14:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The History part has a lot of sections that are each just sixty words long each, I would consider merging them. For instance I would have only the Post-Charles Era, and remove 'The Leave' and 'The Return' as they seem a bit redundant. There are some issues with the tone, such as "Of course they also are taught to appreciate war and the good and bad it can do, as well as acknowledging it isn't always needed." I see MicroWiki under "Foreign Relations", which is odd since MicroWiki is a website, and MicroWiki@Discord is a social media, and neither of which really make sense for a section on foreign affairs, unless you mean the "MicroWiki Sector" (which in that case should be added). I do like the number of citations, lengths of the other sections, images and the spelling and grammar is not actually half-bad. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 14:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Edited as per Zed's recommendations Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The badge in the top right is against MOS, and is a clear attempt to mimic GA/FP Status. Sertor (Chat) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT The badge was put there for fun and it used on other articles discussing Ela'r'oech or Elarian entities. It will be removed if that is preferred. Cannot have badges clashing anyways.
    • COMMENT Please do so; instead of that badge, you may use navboxes or sidebars instead. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 15:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • COMMENT Good progress! But I still see a few grammatical errors and sentences which could at least be worded better. I might copyedit this page if I have time within the week. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 20:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT He took away the badge and edited it with Zed's reasoning in mind. I think not only should this article receive GA, but both current Opposition Votes should be overturned. MNSD (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE It is a quite nice article, just it seems like it has some bias in some of the terms such as stating if something was a good thing for the nation or not. Also it has multiple sections that are extremely short and should probably be expanded or removed. Also subject areas that are blank other than their subsections don't really look too good graphically. Though the article is coming along really well I don't personally think it is GA yet. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Pretty neat article User:KaiserKozmás
  • SUPPORT As per Anthony. User:Reeses Puffs, Puffs 1st
  • SUPPORT Meets standards in my opinion. Needs some fixing here and there, but still. jonas | talk 18:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Some sections feel rather biased, also the lack of references.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  22:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT What sections are biased? Also references never stopped anyone else from having a GA. References here are just Google Sites and Wix Sites talking about them. Only the giants like Molossia and Sealand get actual media coverage. Anthony Ramirez 3rd (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • REJECTED 6:4's not consensus, sorry.

Insaniam

Nominator: ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 14:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC): This article has as much information as possible on the subject, and, alongside its highly proficient grammar, good formatting and styling, it is neutral, perfectly illustrated (articles without images are boring!) and amply referenced.

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: Emperor Anthony I (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this article fully fufills the criteria of good article status.

  • SUPPORT And you would think correctly! I made some touch-ups on the grammar, and it is pretty much as expansive as possible, complete with citations and images. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 14:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT just make everything by User:Emperor Anthony I GA lol. jonas | talk 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Technocratic Republic of Theodia

Nominator: Indradhanush (talk)
  • SUPPORT This is really good. User:Indradhanush
  • SUPPORT I quite like it - very expansive, well-written and plenty of images that suffice. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ – if your signature is more than 300 bytes you have problems (talk | edits) 14:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT While I had for years planned to hold off on seeking GA status for this article until it met my personal standards of "good", such wanton perfectionism is probably counterproductive. I thank Indradhanush for their kind nomination, and will support the elevation of this article to GA status, if the admins would have it. /swέna/ 💬 04:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • APPROVED Luxor (talk)

Operation Free Shelly and Fish Sticks

Nominator:  leon!!!!!  talk to me please i have no social interaction • l-l-lookies at what i did!!!!!!!  20:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Although it is a little short, and the event itself was partially satirical, I believe that this article fulfills the qualifications for a good article.  leon!!!!!  talk to me please i have no social interaction • l-l-lookies at what i did!!!!!!!  20:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE "Background" could be expanded, such as the part on 18768 First Avenue which may be confusing; "[...] who in turn gave the property to the Church of Spiritual Technology in 1993, with construction beginning in 1997." was it the construction of a building itself or renovations to one to better suit the Church of Spiritual Technology? I also do not see the point in claiming the solider is anonymous and likely Montan, when it clearly and evidently was him. The article is of good length, though I believe it could have more detail, like who L. Ron Hubbard is and why Montan claimed to be him, as I believe in scientology it is believed he will return? ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 20:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This seems fairly short and not long at all it should probably be expanded considering it's only 5,389 bytes. Isaiah (Chat) 22:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The article is very short, and poorly expanded at that. A section shorter, and it would have been flagged as a stub article. Sertor (Chat) 22:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT The size issue is fine, the shortest GA is 4,440 bytes; but I agree that this article itself could be expanded. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 22:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Really good article. jonas | talk 18:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Oritsu.me (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ebenthal

Nominator: Arthur Brum (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the article fills every required criteria perfectly. It is well written, structure following Wikipedia's model and well illustrates, it explains clearly, with no exaggeration, everything one must knows on the micronation, in good English, nor flattering nor cursing the micronation, staying neutral, and, the article provides a good amount of sources. Arthur Brum (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Abrams (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article is certainly one of the best and well-written articles on Microwiki which does not have the GA tag. This is not the first time, this article has been nominated for good article, but quite a time. The nominator, Arthur Brum has really given a lot of effort to this article and I wish people vote and make this "golden" article to a good article. For now, it's the best article nominated for GA for this month. If one clearly looks into the article, it can be understood how detailed each and every section is. The history, government, etc parts are so well written that one can easily understood so good on the system. Varuna Sriraya (talk), 10:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Has been previously approved ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 14:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Nice article! StefanSNG ～ (talk | edits) 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Already written by Varuna Sriraya, what I have to write. I think this was already approved and was well received. I had also said about it as it was a golden article. Please make this GA along with Theodia. User:Indradhanush
  • SUPPORT good article :| (would be easier for me to insert my vote if you nerds didn't use 20000TB signatures) jonas | talk 15:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Sildavian Government (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Tucker I, King of Oskonia OH ComL (let's chat!) 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I think it is comprehensive and well-written. Definitely deserves GA status! --E•M JAYDEN I D•G REX•NOV•HIE D•F (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Misberian Confederacy

Nominator: ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 23:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC) : I think this is rather good. Feedback appreciated!

Federal Union of Wegmat

Nominator: Wegmat (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC) : Much approved from last time I nominated this article. —Wegmat (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Even though your flag and that attempt at an emblem make my eyes hurt, it's a good article. StefanSNG (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
COMMENT I didn't create the emblem or flag, only made concept designs of them lol —Wegmat (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The article has indeed vastly improved in pretty much every aspect, however it still contains several spelling errors throughout. If administrators keep this nomination open for a few more weeks it can easily be fixed and meet the criteria for GA status. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ – if your signature is more than 300 bytes you have problems (talk | edits) 14:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE It must be outdated because it says you have full foreign relations with New Eiffel and recognize them but New Eiffel is defunct. Isaiah (Chat) 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
COMMENT It just meant we had a treaty with them. And if you’re referring to the embassy there’s a note that mentions it’s closure. —Wegmat (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
COMMENT Moving to SUPPORT Isaiah (Chat) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT neat article. jonas | talk 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • REJECTED 2:1 isn't consensus Austenasia (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • COMMENT I wish to point out an error. The ratio is in fact 3:1 (counting the Support votes of Stefan, Isaiah and Jonas). Sertor (Chat) 01:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. APPROVED Austenasia (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Saspearian

Nominator: addison (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT  Cole bairjjf!!1!  bill nye still hasnt replied to me on twitter please reply here bill nye • cole have a life challenge  14:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The article is certainly very well-written, however it contains some improper capitalisations and formatting issues. The section "Emperor Anthony I Era (2017-2021)" also contains some sentences which could be worded better (i.e. "In March of 2019, Jaiden Diaz became the second citizen, marking the end of the country having only one citizen [...]") and it is quite long, perhaps it could be trimmed down a bit. The citations should also be better described instead of just links. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 13:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT As the person who made the article, I feel as if it needs more expansion in various sections. Some of the information in the article is outdated such as the population and the estimated area land claims on the infobox. There's some capitalization errors in the article and I agree with Zed on that it could be better formatted and that the citations need more of a description. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Varuna Sriraya of Purvanchal

Nominator: addison (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This deserves a GA! It has everything about the micronational career of him. So many arms and photos, it is detailed as an article of this type can get. I have an issue though with it. The ancestry of this page is not clear. But this is no big deal. User:Indradhanush
  • OPPOSE The images are good and the article is expansive, but there are several grammatical errors, formatting errors and numerous sentences which could generally be worded better (i.e. "he was unanimously declared elected as the President"). ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 04:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Good article. David Augustus I of Monmark (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V affair

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible 

| 03:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC) As the affair inspired a literal film and a steam mod I believe it should now qualify for GA (Re: Last time it was denied due to the topic) Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible | 03:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT This is as detailed as an article of this type can get, and has more than a sufficient number of references. In my opinion, this article deserves Good Article status. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 03:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT User:Indradhanush
  • OPPOSE The article still suffers from several problems I mentioned in its previous nomination; it takes itself too seriously for a jocular event, such as the image description "The location of the main battle" and claiming New Eiffel and His Royal Army of New Eiffel were involved, which neither were in any official capacity as the article implies. Also, the statement; "James Frisch, Rector of the Serene Beaconite Republic, did not care" is not relevant to the article in any way - several micronationalists responded in a jocular manner but they do not get a mention, whilst Frisch not making any acknowledgement of the event does, which is odd, and Lycon did not even approach him for a statement. As far as the wording goes, several sentences could be worded better or overall improved (particularly the sections Film adaptation and 911 Operator expansion). Additionally, the citations are mostly worthless (screenshots of Discord messages and edit revisions) or clumped up just to achieve a high amount. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 04:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
COMMENT Thank you for your response.
  1. Info relating to New Eiffel has been updated
  2. I am not aware about other responses, feel free to add them to the article
  3. Last time I checked other micronational leaders can add their opinion to something without first getting my opinion- that is called free speech
  4. Frisch's reaction technically is a neutral stance, since he bothered to edit in the article but did not declare any affiliation
  5. The article describes the incident in detail, I suppose the image subtext can be edited
  6. Photos and even Twitter and YouTube can be considered citations- if Twitter can be considered an appropriate citation then I suppose Discord could considering it's messages on a internet forum. What should be considered a worthless citation? Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible | 07:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
COMMENT see also Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible | 07:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Also, the article switches between the terms "affair" and "incident"; it would be much clearer if it stuck with a single term. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 17:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • COMMENT its commonly cited and referred to as "GTA V affair" but its more of an incident Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible 

| 17:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

        • COMMENT "conflict" is also said three times. Using three terms to describe the "GTA V affair" may, ultimately, be rather confusing to readers. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 17:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT cool article jonas | talk 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE per zed Sertor (Chat) 11:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • REJECTED 3:2 isn't really consensus

Overturn GA status of Sixth Aenderian Republic

Nominator: addison (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT This article isn't bad. In fact, it's one of my favorite on the entire site. Upon having a closer look, though, I can see a number of mistakes; namely, some sections are written as though it were for a personal blog rather than a wiki, there are random caps in the middle of some sentences, and dead links all over the place (which are purposeful, i.e. "Main article: Government of the Aenderese Republic v. Jamez" where there is a dead link). Admittedly these mistakes are relatively minor but it does get me thinking that maybe its status as a Good Article should be reconsidered. addison (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT I would like to add that the article is also very outdated by several months. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 04:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Over half of the article is devoted to the History section -- this should be moved into its own article, and summaries should be written for the main article. As well, regarding the History section: it is inundated with quotes and screenshots of chats. The Statistics "section" is a single short sentence. There's a large, mostly empty table in Administrative Regions. The section headers don't adhere to MOS:TITLE; which, per what Jeremy Oakes told me in 2011, is something MicroWiki follows. /swέna/ 💬 05:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT With quite a few spelling and formatting issues dotted around the article, I support the removal of GA status on this article. User Mh06941 talk ☼ 06:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The latter half of the history section is... quite frankly just outright poor. As mentioned earlier, several other sections of the article are outdated. Sertor (Chat) 11:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT As above. This article would also require updating by a subject closely involved with Aenderia, but the article has not been edited since last month. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 13:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

| 17:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Theodian language

Nominator: /swέna/ 💬 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT While this article will never truly be complete, it is far and away one of the highest-quality articles on the wiki. It is time to return one of MicroWiki's first Good Articles to its rightful place. (The only reason this article lost GA status in the first place, was because it got mangled during the moves from MicroWikia to Referata to MicroWiki.org.uk. I fixed that mangling many, many years ago; but never reapplied for GA status, out of misplaced perfectionism.) /swέna/ 💬 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Not an expert on linguistics, but I see no issues with this article. The grammar is masterful as well. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits) 14:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE So it will never be fully complete? Also unless benifits to learn has references, I count it as bias. Isaiah (Chat) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Some context on "will never truly be complete": The article itself is a completely and fully comprehensive treatise on the features of the Theodian language. The language itself is managed by the Linguistics Jury of the Technocratic Republic of Theodia, meaning that it will always be changing as time goes on. It's not a fixed language, if that makes sense. And to be fair, no language is. And because of that, no article on the topic can ever truly be considered "complete". /swέna/ 💬 16:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT The benefits in the Benefits to learners section are self-evident. As well, the whole article was written by an actual linguist with degrees in the field; this article is the definitive source for information on the language. It is the source, so-to-speak. That said, I agree that the way the benefits section is written is not encyclopædic. I will revise it to emphasize how these are the claimed/intended benefits of learning the language. /swέna/ 💬 16:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT I have finished rewriting the section. @Isaiah, could I beseech you to revisit your review of the article, in light of the above comments and the completed rework of the benefits section? /swέna/ 💬 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Even if not complete, this article is expansive and covers the topic in pretty much any area you ever need to know. I see no mistakes and there are plenty of graphics. As far as I'm concerned it's worthy of GA and it's surprising it isn't already one yet. addison (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

April voting

First of all, apologies for the late start to the voting. The vote will therefore be concluded accordingly on 3 May instead of 1 May. Second, following feedback and consultation regarding the Good Article system, this is likely to be the last time that a Good Article is chosen in this exact way; please check back on 3 May for news!

Voting is now open for April 2021's Good Article! Please vote below, by signing your username ("~~~~") underneath the approved article you think best deserves Good Article status.

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


June nominations

2021 New Virginian general election

Nominator: Sertor (Chat) 20:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A pretty decent election article, no? Sertor (Chat) 20:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT This is a well-written article and deserves GA status. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 10:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE has too many red links for this to be called a good article Chancellor.jaredbarker (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE While it is well-written and contains enough graphics, it has a few stubby sections and some sentences that I feel could be worded a tiny bit better (ex. "Initially commanding a majority over the House of Burgesses under the Free Democratic Party (New Virginia) and a short-lived coalition with the New Virginian Patriotic League, the rise of the newly reformed National Party and the emergence of the Commonwealth Whigs diminished this and produced a hung parliament.") Not to mention there are redlinks in a lot of places. border-style="color:black" addison (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE per addison Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 20:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Naveria (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE per Jared and Addison Tucker I, King of Oskonia OH ComL (let's chat!) 22:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I think that I'm gonna have to agree with Addison here.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  17:07,
  • SUPPORT This is a very good article and it deserves headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by President of Republic of Mexican Brazil (talk • contribs)

Reference re inquiry by Ministry of Justice dated 13 May 2021

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 01:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Vishwamitra

Nominator:  • Oritsu.me  • Let's talk here  • Contribs 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely a well written article exceptionally describing the nation's foreign affairs with every single nation, contains adequate links and references and should definitely be voted in as a GA.

  • SUPPORT Very descriptive and detailed. Isaiah (Chat) 03:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The current longest article on the wiki. When you look at it, you can tell that the author has put a lot of time and effort into it. StefanSNG 06:38 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT YES YES YES YES! Very well written article and extremely detailed. 100% support. Matt talk ☼ 07:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Pog Abrams (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Yes. Just yes. Well detailed, HELLA references and it's had A LOT of time put into it. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 09:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Clearly, the article has been worked on a lot. FULL support from me. Sander Koff (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2021 (GMT+2)
  • SUPPORTA well written article with great description Chancellor.jaredbarker (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Clearly, the article has been worked on a lot full support. User:Grand Duchy of Queensland (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2021 (GMT+7)
  • SUPPORT In full agreement with the others, this is the most detailed on Foreign relations of any micronation on the internet. I am thinking of doing the same format for this article. User:Indradhanush 15:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC+5.5)
  • SUPPORT This is, quite frankly, one of the most comprehensive and detailed articles about a nation's foreign affairs. Worthy of GA status in a real sense. Jayden Dagsa (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 13:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This article is far too long to read or navigate comfortably. I'm sorry but the amount of detail it goes into is completely unnecessary. Have those voting in support actually looked through the whole thing? "Nations unilaterally recognized by Vishwamitra" alone is a list of almost every macronation in the world with a large paragraph saying pretty much the same thing next to each and every one. Under "bilateral relations", the section on Karnia-Ruthenia is longer than the "Main Article" it's ostensibly a summary of. This is just far, far too long going into unnecessary, repetitive detail and could be substantially shortened. Austenasia (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT @Austenasia: I have made some changes on the unilateral recognition section; the individual nations have been all put together as Member states of the UN and I hope this makes sense. Still looking forward for those from you and others.  • Oritsu.me  • Let's talk here  • Contribs 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I'm going to have to agree with Jon here. Sure, the quality is very good however it is far too long and is more of a list than anything.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  15:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Abso-frickin-lutely. Tucker I, King of Oskonia OH ComL (let's chat!) 15:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Great page and very detailed Sir Archie Birch 23:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Per Jonathan border-style="color:black" addison (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT A valid point can be raised for the macronational section- spoke to Dhrub about redoing the macronational section into a "dropbox" (seen in the "Participating National Olympic Committees" section of w:2010 Winter Olympics#Participating National Olympic Committees) in hopes of increasing the readability Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 02:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Per Jonathan Sertor (Chat) 12:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I think this article kind of misses the point between readability and detail. While the opening sections contain helpful information and details of how Vishwamitra does it's foreign policy, the tables with descriptions and long histories thereof (including images in them for crying out loud!) do not aid the article's length or readability. Michal Frederick Nowacki, Grand Duke of Litvania 15:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Veri nic Chris
  • SUPPORT This is a great article, rich in information and well articulated. Sildavian Crown and Government (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC−3)
  • SUPPORT One of the best articles on foreign affairs. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC−3)
  • SUPPORT This is one of the most complete articles in this wiki and the best foreign relations article I've ever seen. Arthur Brum (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE It feels like just a long table.  Cole bairjjf!!1!  bill nye still hasnt replied to me on twitter please reply here bill nye • cole have a life challenge  18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE 3/4ths of it is a long table, wit a LOT of filler. jonas | talk 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Vishwamitra has an excellent presence on this site, with many well developed and frequently updated articles, this is no different. -Emperor Vincent I of Arthuria
  • SUPPORT Naveria (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE long and impressive but lists shouldn't qualify for GA. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I like this article because it understands why this country can do with foreign relations Ezri A. 16:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As per Jonathan. It fails on the first two criteria given for good articles. It's highly repetitive, near-impossible to navigate and read (some cells contain 300+ word paragraphs), and goes into far too much detail. An article's quality isn't directly proportional to its word count. In particular, the content in the 'notes' cells would be far better presented in short bullet points or similar. AnthonyClark (talk)
    • REJECTED MiB (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove GA Status from Kingdom of Burdette

Nominator: Sertor (Chat) 20:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Problematic issues raised during the initial GA discussion remain unfixed. The article as a whole requires a copyedit, for which the relevant template was removed in an edit war. Several sections such as the Constitutional convention and the First elections are rather poor. Whilst this certainly isn't a poor article, it certainly isn't befitting of good article status.

Sough2020

Nominator:  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me • Look at what I've done.  10:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I recently nominated this article a few months ago however it unfortunately didn't stand up well to the final vote.

  • SUPPORT It's clear that this article has had a lot of effort put into it. I would go as far as to say this is the best article about a micronational convention on this site. Sections have been well-expanded and the article has sufficient references. This article deserves GA status. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 04:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORTThis article is about as good as these type of arcticles can get Chancellor.jaredbarker (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Emperor Anthony I (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Addison Dillon

Nominator: border-style="color:black" addison (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about this one; worth a shot.

    • REJECTED Not sure why nobody took a look at this one :S Try again next month? Austenasia (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove GA Status from New Eiffel Main Route 1

Nominator: Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 20:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Feels too stubby to be honest Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 20:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORTI wonder how this even got good article status Chancellor.jaredbarker (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Tbf it does fulfill all the criteria. Certainly in regards to being well-written, worse articles have been approved. It's not a stub, either; that's where an article's too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject and is capable of expansion, and I don't think that's the case here. Unless we're saying that some topics simply can't have GA articles written on them (and I'd actually agree with that, but I don't think a geographical feature is one of the those topics), how would you suggest the article be improved to make it GA-standard? It's a garden path; what more is there to write? Austenasia (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Per Jonathan Jayden Dagsa (talk • contribs • uploads) 23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I don't why why being stubby would mean being unworthy of GA status. It is a well constructed article. Arthur Brum (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: Emperor Anthony I (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Republic of Matthewopia

Nominator: Matt talk ☼ 00:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Renominating after some improvements, also looking for feedback for how this could be improved. Matt talk ☼ 00:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Principality of Posaf

Nominator: Andrew (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The article was featured on the home page in honour of Nicholas Randouler, however I feel the quality of the article is good enough to be considered a "good article". Andrew (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Federal Union of Wegmat

Nominator:  Cole bairjjf!!1!  bill nye still hasnt replied to me on twitter please reply here bill nye • cole have a life challenge  18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove GA Status from Kingdom of Ebenthal

Nominator: jonas | talk 17:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty convinced most of the article is false. I will give a quick rundown on why, but I recommend you read through this. One of the old images featured an American Exit Sign. Remember that Ebenthal is located in Brazil. When another user mentioned it, the author of the article had changed the image to something else. Doesn't help that he cleared that section of the talk page.

  • OPPOSE Ebenthal's article is one of the best examples of a well-written article and also one of the few to achieve good article status despite being written by an user of whose English is not the first language. I would request @WeaponizingArchitecture: to simply not contribute highly in criticizing other's works and efforts, but to contribute highly to improve your works which lacks efforts. Oritsu.me  • Let's talk here  • Contribs
  • OPPOSE Again, this matter when ONE guy accused the article of being fake was extensively debated in the discord server after a conflict, it got the attention of three administrators and mods, and it was solved, until you resolved, for whatever reason (which doesn't seems to be an act of good faiht, if one ask me) to dig in the the article's excluded comments (which were excluded following months the matter was settled, for being purposelesly there; If I would hide something, I wouldn't delete it literally 8 months after the matter was solved, would I? Out of nowhere?). I mean, with what purpose dig in if not find hypothetical reasons to mess with the article? I won't discuss the whole RESOLVED affair with that ONE wrong image which was changed precisely for correction and accuracy AGAIN and after DISCUSSION involving administrators Zed and Luxor you are not aware (because it does not concern you) and simply making accusations without knowing the full facts. Honestly, this is getting really tiresome. Based on such accusation, shall I pin articles as dubious when they have no sources or as little as three, four sources? For God's sake... live your own life and leave my micronation alone. Arthur Brum (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Despite the matter being resolved, it's interesting to note the particular judgment of some people and the resources they employ to try to harm other people, even under the guise of improving the site, which the nominator himself doesn't do, as seen in articles that the nominator contributed, as an example, the Co-operative Republic of Wendatia. The criteria that would eliminate the article under analysis would certainly also disqualify the nominator's article; this, of course, if the article was reasonable enough to dispute the Good Article label. The best thing would be, in the first place, to discard this childish attempt to harm other people efforts. Second, should be abolished this opportunity for anyone, without criteria, to decide what suits the site in terms of standard and excellence. It's ok to have a right to indicate articles to be Good Articles, but the decision should be made by minimally qualified people. This privilege MicroWiki has given its users has been used regretfully by some individuals. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC-3)
  • OPPOSE Ebenthal's article is one of the best articles on the wiki, the best of its own government's knowledge, and in no way should it lose its good article status which has been achieved by its merit of a very well written, articulate and totally truthful article. Sildavian Crown and Government (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC-3)
    • COMMENT @Jaydenfromcanada: Also the photos don't have any metadata. Not to mention that File:Centro_RJ_5.jpg looks pretty photoshopped (The artifaction around the tree and said tree's lighting is pretty unrealistic.) Not to mention that even if someone took the photos for him, they would STILL have metadata. However the pictures do not. jonas | talk 21:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
      • COMMENT Please take time to find images present in the article to counterparts that may not be in Brazil. So far you have been nitpicking and hencewhy you gotten so much opposes. The text relating to the images is downtown Rio and I don't know about you but that image looks like downtown Rio. Stop nitpicking or else I will start ignoring this case. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 23:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT im gonna be honest, this isn't helping your case either, if all of you have the same excuse of "you're just jealous". Hell, i wasn't even the one who discovered this. That was another user. I think it's just obvious if you actually look at it. And yes, it is a pretty impressive article. But a long article does not excuse it from being dubious. jonas | talk 03:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Unless nominator provides examples of dubious photos it seems like the article is fine. For example: photo relating to snow in Novesfora relates to "METEOROLOGIA PREVÊ NEVE PARA ITATIAIA, NA DIVISA DE MINAS COM O RIO. Likewise, seat of Minsitry of Foreign Affairs relates to a very similar but different image by Emanuel Pavia, seen here. The photos accused of being dubious are not present in the article. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 04:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT I also find it suspicious that they changed the image 3 times since then, however the caption has remained the same on 2 of the images. For example:
      "Pedro II College noble room, designated as one of the three usable rooms by the Tribune of Truth, along with the UNESA court room and the UFRJ Noble Saloon.[e] These rooms are theorically of free use by alumni. Nonetheless, the Tribune of Truth has never used any of those." was a VERY SIMILAR caption to the previous, with the previous being "Pedro II College conference room, designated as one of the three usable rooms by the Tribune of Truth, along with the UNESA court room and the UFRJ Noble Saloon." It just makes it harder for me to believe the article if they changed the image 3 times and the caption has mostly remained the same for 2 of them. jonas | talk 12:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
      • COMMENT This claim can't be warranted for removal of one's GA since that can be rendered as an opinion, they don't really relate to an article being dubious or not and we would then have to review all the past GAs for changed images with the same subtitles. My vote will not change until actual proof has been tabled to me. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  whats next requiring a license to make toast in your own toaster | 18:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT are you gonna continue writings walls of text saying the same thing jonas | talk 03:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Good enough evidence for what? You are simply ignoring every explanation, you are completelly ignoring the fact that this discussin has already happened before, you are ignoring that this discussion had already been taken to adminship, you are ignoring that there have been a whole talk on this in the Discord server months ago, basing your claim on the deleted talk page which was the beggining for the further discussion which took place at the Discord server, and which was only deleted MONTHS after the matter was solved, because there was no reason to leave it there. And the worse part is that you are cementing your claim to falsity based on a "fake imagem" that is no longer in the article since last year, and, again, ignoring my explanation of why it was there and why it was removed. You are actually ignoring everything to support your narrative, which is clearer now given how you said "the author wiped out", while occulting the facts behind it as I mentioned. Worth notice, you are doing this after, for some reason, give yourself the trouble to check not the article's editing record, but the talk page's editing history/record. I mean, who does this with no purpose? And you stay wanna say that people can't talk of you acting out of jealousy. Why not, when it seems exactly this? Arthur Brum (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT @Jaydenfromcanada: The link to the talk page archive has the evidence to back up my claims. Since that area of the talk page got wiped by the author, along with the images in question being changed, i think it's good enough evidence. jonas | talk 17:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT And even so, Emmanuel Paiva is a known photographer from Rio de Janeiro who takes photo of every street possible since 2005. He took photos even of my house. Also, about the Itatiaia photo, you can see I've made no false claims since on its description it is written that the photo pre-dates Ebenthal's existence as it is from Itatiaia National Park, where part of Ebenthal came to lay claim later: "Rare occurrence of snow in the geographical region where the city of Novesfora is currently located, pre-dating Ebenthali independence and the city's foundation" is what is written. It wasn't anything like "Photo of Ebenthal in 1984". Furthermore, the one wrong photo which had been PREVIOUSLY on the article was added: 1. when I was creating the article, as a matter of illustration as the article was being created and constantly edited. 2. It was removed upon noticed and substituted correctly and have been unchanged since. an you noticed well, Mr. Jonas wants to remove the GA status of the article over a photo that is no longer present at the article for months, even before the article was nominated for GA status. It makes no sense. Arthur Brum (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT https://micronations.wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Ebenthal&diff=prev&oldid=688099 evidence given is sufficient of faking of some images. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Naveria (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Grand Duchy of Queensland (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)(GMT+7)
  • OPPOSE StefanSNG 17:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As explained by above and also that this article clearly reminds of the standard Wikipedia page of Brazil, in homage to its home country. User:Indradhanush 5:10, 15 June 2021
  • OPPOSE Chancellor.jaredbarker (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    • REJECTED Any allegations of dubious or fabricated content should be discussed and proven on the article's talk page before removal of GA status is considered. Austenasia (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Vlasynian Despotate

Nominator: File:Ested I Royal Standard.png Ested Vlasyn (Talk Contributions) 21:30, 05 June 2021 (UTC)

After several improvements done to Vlasynia's page over the course of several months, I think that it is finally ready to become a good article. File:Ested I Royal Standard.png Ested Vlasyn (Talk Contributions) 21:45, 05 June 2021 (UTC)

Theodian language

Nominator: User:Indradhanush 2:30, 14 June 2021

One of the original Good Articles of MicroWiki, lost its status during the MicroWiki- MicroWikia transfer mess. Regarding the article, it is the successor of Þeûdspråxa that got stripped of its GA status after popular opinion. It is one of the highest quality page on language in MicroWiki and can be comparable to language pages in Wikipedia.

  • SUPPORT I forgot to write this before but this is a true gem of an article in MicroWiki. User:Indradhanush
  • SUPPORT Chancellor.jaredbarker (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is a really shocking article. Yes, shocking, for the effort put not only onto this, but to create the language and to display it so well, in so many details in an article top-level. Equals, in some aspects even surpass, articles on languages in English wikipedia. Astonishing. Really deserving GA status. Arthur Brum (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Apart from the minor TODO issue, this should be the model for what articles about languages should look like. Luxor (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT While this article will never truly be complete, it is far and away one of the highest-quality articles on the wiki. It is time to return one of MicroWiki's first Good Articles to its rightful place. (The only reason this article lost GA status in the first place, was because it got mangled during the moves from MicroWikia to Referata to MicroWiki.org.uk. I fixed that mangling many, many years ago; but never reapplied for GA status, out of misplaced perfectionism.) /swέna/ 💬 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Indradhanush for re-nominating this, and thank you to everyone for the kind words. /swέna/ 💬 02:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

June Featured Article voting

July nominations

Logan Ross

Nominator:.. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated this page before however it unfortunately never passed the final vote. Personally I believe that it is of a decent quality and fit for Good Article status. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Emperor Anthony I (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Cole bairjjf!!1!  bill nye still hasnt replied to me on twitter please reply here bill nye • cole have a life challenge  15:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is a pretty good biographical article I feel, the only issues I noticed looking through was that the 163rd reference has an error and I believe that for dates with manual of style if you have the same year mentioned in the same section twice then you only include the year in the first one. Example: On 6 May 2020, Mark lost his shoe. On 7 May he found it." and then you only include the year again if the year has changed, I could be wrong on that but that's what I remember, other than those small things this is pretty good. Strubber (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • APPROVED Austenasia (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: Emperor Anthony I (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT MSTarget (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • REJECTED One vote's not enough, sorry. Austenasia (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles Ross

Nominator: MSTarget (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: I have been working on this page a good couple years up to this point, besides maybe adding a couple more references to other mw articles (so Hardly references at all) and maybe fixing the austenasian infobox at the bottom to put it below references, which I can’t figure out how to do, I think it qualifies for a GA status. As always while I’d like support, all feedback and constructive criticism is welcomed and encouraged. —MSTarget (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • REJECTED No votes?! Remind me next month and I'll make sure there are no issues with it. Austenasia (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ela'r'oech

Nominator: Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: I've been working on it for months in an attempt to help it get to where it is, it's almost reached consensus last time it was submitted. If you have any reasons to oppose the article, list them in your opposition and they should be fixed in the next 24 hours since you had posted it. I am constantly working on this article when I find ways to improve it, especially when others give me reason to do so. Every time this article is submitted I'm working on it constantly as per your suggestions until the nominations are voted on. If you have complaints with the article, list them in your opposed then please take a look at the article again a good while later, because your issues may be gone. - Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is about the fourth time it's been submitted and honestly I don't know if it's going to achieve GA. Though, it has improved a lot since last time and is an amazing article. After Burdette got removed, I'm not sure that Ela'r'oech would make it this time around, even if I still sort of want it to. Anthony Ramirez 3rd (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE There are still a large amount of issues scattered across the article, and I do not believe this article will be ready for GA status without a compete copyedit. For starters, dates either flick between [month dateth] (eg. May 9th), [month date, year] (eg. April 18th, 2021) or [date month] (eg. 9 May), with the first two being the incorrect format for Good Articles. Secondly, there are still issues with formality, such as "Runnymeden War *DID NOT COME INTO EFFECT* - Was an attempted war" or "had considered attempting to join the Grand Unified Micronational, however it decided they may not have been accepted" - the latter is unnecessary detail which should be omitted.

    Some details such as "Note: Brandon Jacobs is not included as his membership in Parliament was a posthumous award, not considered to be a legal assumption of office. However, Charles Madgett is included as the King does have an Independent spot in Parliament, mainly to act for no internal conflict." should be formatted as an actual note instead of their current formatting. In addition, almost all sections seem rather short (although only a handful constitute as stubs, almost all of them are merely short - on their own this wouldn't be an issue however when almost the entire article has been formatted in such a manner it creates an issue). Another issue relating to the dates are a lack of specific dates - for example, the Military section features "In early October," without a year - if a reader was to take a look at this, they (and myself) would not know when it was specifically - was it a previous date? a future date? when specifically?

    One of the biggest issues that I have noticed whilst reading the article are poorly written sections, such as "are examples of that" in Art. This also reflects on the SPaG issues scattered throughout the article, with one of the most common issues that I've seen on this article, and indeed across MicroWiki, is the random usage of "it's" instead of "its" (eg. "it overhauled it's political system" instead of "Ela'r'oech overhauled its political system"). Finally some sections should either be expanded (such as Art), or completely omitted (such as Structure Rating System or Media Rating System) - I feel like sections such as Structure Rating System should be omitted from a main article and included in its own, high-quality article instead.

    I must finally add that there is absolutely no reason why this article cannot reach Good Article status - the fact that it has been submitted 4 times indicates that the authors are fully committed to improving this article, and is respectable to say the least. However, there are lots of issues that need to be ironed out before it can reach Good Article status, especially including a copyedit. If the nominees wish for some help to improve this article, then I would be happy to provide assistance. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 15:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Federal Union of Wegmat

Nominator: Cole bairjjf!!1!  bill nye still hasnt replied to me on twitter please reply here bill nye • cole have a life challenge  15:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of Northwood-Oregon

Nominator: Strubber (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this is a good fit for good article status, this is my first time nominating an article so I appreciate any feedback,. Strubber (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT A very nice article throughout - ample references, images, infographics and a generally well written article. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 16:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT A very well detailed article, written keeping in mind of every small details related to the nation. It may be advised that for the section on foreign relations, either a table be made or a separate article on "Foreign relations of the Kingdom of Northwood-Oregon". Otherwise it's just fantastic.. love it and love the nation, and the peopl associated. Oritsu.me  • Let's talk here  • Contribs
    • COMMENT Thanks! For the foreign relations section I am not planning on letting it get any longer than it is now and instead making a dedicated page for it and thinning the main page to only include important and notable relations. The formatting for it on the page I believe looks good currently, but definitely won't if the current formatting it maintained as the list continues to expand. Strubber (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • APPROVED Austenasia (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

July Featured Article voting


August

Archduchy of Egeria

Nominator: Peter Simon Malček
  • OPPOSE While highly detailed, I have found countless grammatical mistakes, such as a lack of capitalisation, as well as violations of the Manual of Style, such as incorrect date formatting, and the flag at the start of the page which needn't be there. In addition, there are several redlinks which need to be fixed. With these issues corrected, I'd be more than happy to support this for GA status. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 01:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT @Australis: Thank you for expressing your opinion. By now I have created pages or redirection for red links. Also fixed the date format and removed the flag at start of article. Hope you recosinder once I fix rest. Peter Simon Malček
  • OPPOSE as per daniel Chancellor.jaredbarker (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Personally, I find this article good enough for the nomination process. The mistakes are relatively minor and can be fixed until then and the very few red links can be removed in a matter of minutes as well. Overall, I find the article well written and informative and visually engaging. Luxor (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Luxor exposed well, and I limit myself to agree with his position and support the nomination. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC-3)
  • OPPOSE Although it is a lovely page, there are quite a few issues that have already been sorted out. If the issues can be fixed then I see no reason why this cannot be a GA. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 12:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT @Aenopia: What would those issues be? Matt talk ☼ 00:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT For starters, the website link is placed in the centre of the introduction and strangely enough has a reference which is literally just the website link. The use of references throughout the article seems to be incorrect, such as reference#4 on the Ohřevian National Television section. The website link could be moved to the infobox using "|notes =". Some parts are worded awkwardly, such as "It was choosen because of the origion name of river that flows through country and was named by it". The date format used is also incorrect, with sections featuring "27th of April 2021" when they should instead be "27 April 2021". I also noticed that some words in the Governance section are highlighted in bold - this also seems to occur in sections throughout the article such as National Symbols.

Finally I must add that I am and will be more than willing to help you to correct these issues if you wish. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 11:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    • COMMENT @Aenopia: Thank you for your comment and offer, I appreciate it. I have by now fixed the date format so it should be 27 April 2021 etc. I also handled the Name section. There is no more ref to website and it is not in description section anymore. Peter Simon Malček
    • REJECTED Austenasia (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: Emperor Anthony I (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This has been on the nominations for a few months now and has received relatively little interest. Overall pretty well detailed for an article of its kind, but there are still some issues with grammar, and some sentences go on for too long. They'd benefit from being broken up into smaller sentences. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 01:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Hamilton

Nominator: • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 04:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for a long time, and although it's still a work in progress, I believe it is worthy of Good Article status. If not, please provide constructive feedback for how to improve this article.

  • SUPPORT loads of description for a page about a micronationalist! Chancellor.jaredbarker (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Don't get me wrong, it looks like the start of a great article, but it really should be up to date. Right in the first paragraph, it mentions that you are a moderator and a patroller. You are neither of these, and patrollers don't even exist anymore. Other than that, I personally like images on an article on the right-hand side of the page. Matt talk ☼ 23:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • COMMENT You clearly haven't read it properly then. "formerly serving as a Moderator on MicroWiki@Discord, and as a Patroller on MicroWiki." • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 00:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well written article. Oritsu.me  • Let's talk here  • Contribs 05:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Very detailed for a page about an individual. Tyler Mullins (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Foreign affairs of Aenopia

Nominator: .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 22:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is an article that I have spent a while on by ensuring that it is a decent article. Originally I was going to have it as its own article about Aenopia's position within the MW community, however I decided to merge it with the pre-existing Foreign affairs page. Overall, I feel like it's a decent page - it's got a decent amount of references, images, links, infographics, etc. I have compressed some parts which may be a difficult rad, such as the foreign affairs and list of sessions attended by Aenopia in the CA, into smaller portions and added collapsible tabs where applicable. Although I feel like some sections will require improvement, especially the foreign affairs and NADU sections, I still feel as if it's reached a quality worthy of GA status.

  • SUPPORT This is a great looking and thorough page that I believe would be worthy of GA status, only thing I could think of would be adding some more applicable categories, I don't have much of any other criticism for it. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 02:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is one of the best foreign affairs articles I've seen on MicroWiki. This definitely needs to be awarded GA status, and possibly Featured Article. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 04:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Well written article, deserves GA status. 05:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is a very well-written article. Tyler Mullins (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I am unsure if we want to establish a convention of allowing a part of text in a box where it really does not seem to serve any apparent purpose apart from visually distinguishing it (but not in the case of other lists on the article). Specifically in the sections "Sister cities" and "Organisations". Personally, I also think that a gallery should always be preceded by text (or in this case, the Multiple image template at the start of the article body). I do not think these are criteria for rejection, just that by approving a submission as a good article we are establishing some conventions people will usually consult during their edit process, and I am not sure if these two practices are the best to adopt. Luxor (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Timonoucitiland

Nominator: Eshaan I 07:55, 6 August 2021 (EDT)

The official name Empire of Sanarati Republics has been completely disbanded. Timonoucitiland is the official name, without prefixes or suffixes. Should some tables be removed or are they fine?

  • OPPOSE Sections are far too short, too many red links and a lack of images and references. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 14:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE as above. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 06:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE There are too many red links, the references are not cited in standard bibliographic format. Some of the sections are really short, such as politics and government, culture and media, and I would definitely like to see more in history. Matt talk ☼ 00:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Varuna Sriraya of Purvanchal

Nominator: Oritsu.me  • Let's talk here  • Contribs

It has been a while, I have been writing this article and I feel that it fits with the criteria of a GA. Looking forward to hearing more on the nomination.

  • SUPPORT This is a great article, well written and detailed, making it a complete and very informative article and a great candidate for GA status. Secretaria de Imprensa Sildava (talk) 12:56, 08 August 2021 (UTC-3)
  • SUPPORT A detailed article which fits all the criteria required for GA status. StefanSNG 16:44, 08 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT A very detailed article. Full support from me. Sander Koff (talk) 20:11, 08 August 2021 (UTC+3)
  • SUPPORT Detailed, well-wrriten, visually interesting. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk) 14:21, 08 August 2021 (UTC-3)
  • SUPPORT A well written article, this piece contains all required criteria. From the visuals to the most minute detail, this article is certainly well worth all consideration. A.E. Lara KCOA GCKP MAO
  • SUPPORT Well-written and detailed, this article deserves GA. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 04:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is one of MW's best articles, with vast and detailed content properly allocated. It is well-written, it presents all relevant informations. It deserves GA status easily. Arthur Brum (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This is an incredibly thorough and well-written article. Tyler Mullins (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Only 2 references, goes into too much detail and throughout the article it just refers to Dhrub as he or him.  Cole bairjjf!!1!  bill nye still hasnt replied to me on twitter please reply here bill nye • cole have a life challenge  19:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT There may be only two references, however they use standard bibliographic form. I have seen many Good Articles that have been accepted that use no references. Dhrub used references where they are needed. Matt talk ☼ 00:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The writing was interesting and appreciated in his good articles. Grand Duchy of Queensland (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC+7)
  • SUPPORT It's up to date, well written and comprehensive. I support this. User:KingHarrison 2021-08-10 18:18 UTC.
  • SUPPORT Seems fine for GA. /swέna/ 💬 18:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Excellent article. Matt talk ☼ 00:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I have nothing else to say. Brilliant and detailed article. User:Indradhanush

2021 Georgienstinian presidential election

Nominator: Alexandre Olivier

This has been a year-long project for Georgienstine, we believe the article is detailed enough to make it here. If you vote Support, thank you so, so much in advance!

  • SUPPORT A very good article. Matt talk ☼ 22:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Some sections are very stubby, whilst the duplication of the exact same infoboxes gets repetitive very quickly. Some parts of the article feel as if they should be merged into one large section, such as the rounds and nominees. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 11:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Christina I of Cycoldia

Nominator: 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔)
  • OPPOSE This article has the potential to be a good article. However, there is the slightly stubby micronational career section that could be much longer. I'm sure that the section could be expanded as you have done much more during your career. There are also some minor grammar and wording errors that should be fixed. Matt talk ☼ 22:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Most of the article is taken up by images of awards and the list of titles, whilst the micronational career seems to be lacking - take a look at the infobox and you can clearly see that there is a wealth of untapped information that could go here. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 11:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

August Featured Article voting

Please cast a vote for the Good Article approved this month which you think would look best as a Featured Article on the Main Page. The GA with the highest number of votes (a tie will be broken by the admins) will be featured on the Main Page for the first two weeks of September 2021, and go on a list to hopefully be featured again some point in the future.

The approved GAs this month are:

September (none approved)

Federal Union of Wegmat

Nominator:  Prime Minister Cole Baird  My Talk Page • My contributations  18:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Good article, might need a few tweaks but overall good. Devinpurcell (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Fairly decent. Some sections should possibly be expanded or merged, as they are quite short. A good complement of images breaks up the text to make reading easier. Most sections are well detailed. Work on fixing some grammar issues, though. Otherwise, I support this. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 03:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This article needs slight changes. Other then that I absolutely support this page. His Imperial Majesty, Elias Richnot, Emperor of Forestria •
  • OPPPOSE Each support vote so far has mentioned that the article needs "tweaks" or "changes", and unfortunately that's the case. In the opening paragraphs alone there are several formatting and punctuation errors, and scrolling down it seems such problems - using "it's" instead of "its", placing the reference box before punctuation, and what seem to be errors in capitalization - are present throughout the article. Not a bad article by any means, but these need to be fixed. Austenasia (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose While indeed a very detailed article, as Austenasia and others have pointed out, the formatting of the article definitely needs some work. Once the much needed amendments have been implemented, I look forward lending my vote to help Wegmet achieve "good article status". Andrew (talk)

Penn Federal Republic

The article Penn Federal Republic is my nomination. Hours of work have gone into this article, and any and all critiques are appreciated. Signed: Devinpurcell (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC) President of the Penn Federal Republic, Devin Purcell

  • OPPOSE The main reason I am opposing this is due to the frequent use of bold text throughout the article. Bold text should only be used to highlight the title of the article in the first sentence. However, you should avoid using bold to add emphasis to the article.
There are no non-flag images or graphics throughout the article, which could be used to enhance or clarify the content. If you are going to have a resources section, don't organise it using referencing tags, and if you are going to do references you should reference them using a consistent referencing style. This has the potential to become a good article in the future, just it needs some work before it gets there. Matt talk ☼ 00:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • REVISION Thank you for your feedback, I adjusted the article and reduced bold text and added images. Thanks User:Matt. Devinpurcell (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Okay, I'm here with my second OPPOSE comment and I'm not sure I am allowed to do this. Anyway, there are multiple stubby sections that require expanding, such as History and Culture. The Micronational Recognition table is incomplete. Matt talk ☼ 01:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ela'r'oech

Nominator: Ela'r'oech Charles The article has been being submitted somewhat for months this year and the year before. It has had work on it continuously and with very few surges of inactivity since August 2020. I am still working on it as well. Opening it to be judged and voted upon yet again. My goal really isn't to get GA at this point, it's more or less just a way to get feedback for me but I don't see that as a bad thing. If I get Good Article along the way, then good. Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT Looks nice overall, didn't read every word but it looks nice. GA worthy. Devinpurcell (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Ela'r'oech is a great article and has been for quite a while. Definitely GA Worthy. Anthony Ramirez 3rd (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Many of the issues still remain since the last time this was nominated, especially the fact that a majority of sections are stubs. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 22:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE What Logan said. These issues have to be taken into consideration before it can be nominated for Good Article. Matt talk ☼ 00:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • REVISION I've expanded some of the sections and merged another. The issues have been taken into consideration and solved as far as I am aware. Please inform me of any other problems so you can change your votes. Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The History section has too many short sections. Merge them into larger periods of time. The Geography section is quite short. What is the foreign policy of Ela'r'oech? Your foreign relations section is just a list of recognised nations, some of which have dissolved long ago, such as Naveria. Some parts don't really belog on a main article, such as media classifications. Also, the "Part of a series on Charles Madgett" doesn't really belong on this article. Several smaller issues have also been mentioned by other users. Best of luck in your attempt to get GA, I believe you'll achieve it soon. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 03:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • REVISION I've reformed many sections and subsections, notably the new "Foreign Policy" subsection has replaced the "Foreign Relations" subsection and the "Elarian Eras" subsections has gone down from 7 to 5. I have also removed the "Part of a series on Charles Madgett" module. The rating systems have been removed and will possibly be added to an article dedicated to Ela'r'oech's Culture, which has had a growth of it's own with a bigger first paragraph. The entire "Economy" section's subsections have been merged into the simple Economy section alone. The Geography section has also expanded. Please inform me of any other problems so you can change your votes. Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Saspearian Declaration of Independence

Nominator: Emperor Anthony I (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE The article is very short and relatively disorganized with low-quality images. Devinpurcell (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT @Devinpurcell: The article is well expanded upon and I think the article is also well structured. I don't believe that the quality of the images affects the requirements for a Good Article. - Emperor Anthony I
  • OPPOSE I wrote oppose last month, for the following reason: "This has been on the nominations for a few months now and has received relatively little interest. Overall pretty well detailed for an article of its kind, but there are still some issues with grammar, and some sentences go on for too long. They'd benefit from being broken up into smaller sentences." Since then, the nominator has not even edited the page in line with suggestions. No edits have been made to this page since APRIL 2021. Stop nominating a page to get it to GA without putting in the work to make it better. It's shameful, and it's an insult to everyone who actually puts hours and hours of work into pages to nominate them here. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 03:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT @Australis: I've made a few changes, and I believe this article is just barely worthy of a Good Article. Feel free to discuss this further. border-style="color:black" addison (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The article, along with the other criticisms presented, has grammatical issues and confusing sentences "Thus, the document a unilateral declaration of independence." There are also sections that are written vaguely and without specifics, this is most notably in the Document section which says things like "At around noon CST the same day," and "It was likely a few minutes after" and other vague statements not relating to time like "Saspearian likely had some internal and external activity" and "most of the founding fathers" who are not been specified in the document. Information is also presented in confusing ways, such as in the document section which seems to imply that the document was finished on three separate occasions, before Anthony got to school ("It was likely a few minutes after the creation of the document that Anthony had to arrive at his then middle school.") at the school lunch table, ("he presented several people with the document, with most of the founding fathers signing the declaration during this time.") and then once get got home after school ("Around 5-7 PM CST, Anthony came to what is now known as Unueco, Saspearian... The final touches were added to the declaration.). The idea of this article being just good enough shouldn't be the standard for if an article get's good article status, especially if the article hasn't been given the care to get it to that point. If it is felt that not much more can be added, and that's why it keeps being renominated in its current state, I would suggest adding information about the legacy of the document and criticisms to extend and expand upon the article.𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 12:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT

@Strubber: I've made some changes to the article and I hope that my recent edits on the page resolved these issues. Emperor Anthony I (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Oscar I, Emperor-King of Karnia-Ruthenia

Nominator: Matt talk ☼ 03:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC) I stumbled across this article today. This is not my article and it is quite old, but I believe it will be a good canidiate.

  • SUPPORT A well-detailed article, however, I think the Portrayals in literature section should be expanded or merged with another part of the article. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 03:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This article is rife with grammatical errors. Even just reading the second paragraph of the "King of the Ruthenians" section I was able to find numerous issues such as "His reign was essential to make Ruthenia, even young, a thriving micronation" and "and banning totalitarian doctrines in Ruthenian territory, like Fascism and Communism, which was an ardent opponent." These are present throughout the article and should be fixed. The introduction section should also be expanded, which is common in other personal articles that have reached good article status. The entire "Reign after the Compromise" also doesn't mention Oscar by name at all, which would be nice to specify what "his" is being referred to post section break. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 12:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Federated States of Gapla

Nominator: Wyatt400 (President of the Federated States of Gapla) 16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I have worked on this article for a long time, and has substantially been updated since the last nomination. Would love constructive feedback, is a lengthy but well-written article (in my personal opinion). Wyatt400 (President of the Federated States of Gapla) 16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE Many parts of this article only exist to lengthen it. Several sections, such as the elections section, should be in its own article. I normally like tables, but I feel like this article overuses them to make the article seem longer. Some sections also seem a bit short. • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 03:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Bartonia

Nominator: Jak123 talk ☼ 09:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE Almost entirely filled with stubs, no references, some sections should either have their own page or be grouped together better such as rankings, incorrect date formatting and very few pictures. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 15:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above, also has a number of grammatical errors that make the article pretty hard to read. border-style="color:black" addison (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexander I, Basileus of Cimbrun

Nominator: ImperatorofOrini 10:48, 27 September 2021 (CST)

This article, alongside many others, has been worked on extensively. I believe this article about myself, though brief, is well-written and informative enough to warrant Good Article status. I request constructive criticism so that I may add onto this article even if it gets accepted.

  • OPPOSE Stub article, the writer does not appear to be a native English speaker/writer, so a native English speaker must revise this article, which I will assist with. Otherwise, it is a stub and there is only one image, which is low quality at that. Devinpurcell (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

November

2021 Georgienstinian presidential election

Nominator: Alexandre Olivier, Majority Leader of the National Congress of Georgienstine

This page was made in the past year as the Presidential Election was happening. With the election over, in my opinion, the page is detailed enough to be a Good Article. Thanks!

  • OPPOSE Not much has changed since it was last nominated 2 months ago. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 21:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I Personally see it as a well done article of good quality. MSTarget (talk)
  • SUPPORT Personally, I see one or two little things to change, as the size of images and their position in the text for example, but in general seems to me a good article. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk)
  • OPPOSE Not necessarily a bad article by any means, but I can see quite a bit which should be fixed before it's GA-worthy. The article doesn't need to be broken down into so many small sub-sections (some of which are only a sentence or two long), and some parts about past events seem to be written in present tense. Also, do make sure that references at the end of a sentence go after the full stop.

Winterspell

Previous Nominator: Chandrachur Basu. Current Nominator: King Petrus I
  • SUPPORT It's a great article. Matt talk ☼ 01:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Activly improved over the years, I like where it is now. MSTarget (talk)
  • SUPPORT this article is extremely informative and easy to read. I feel like I belong to Winterspell having read the article. (Ameristralia talk) 09:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Informative, a good amount of images. Perhaps is a good idea to padronize the size of images, but is a nice article anyway. Karno-Ruthenian Government (talk)
  • SUPPORT Austenasia (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

North Atlantic Diplomatic Union

Nominator: .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 20:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ela'r'oech

Nominator: Charles
  • SUPPORT Because of course guys we already know I'd vote on this. Great article. Anthony Ramirez 3rd (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT It is a good article and also a functioning state. It also fits the Standard for MWiki Good Articles. Mtonna257 20:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE The stuck record is here to point out that almost none of the issues that I pointed out the last time this was nominated have been fixed. For more info on these, pleas check back to previous nominations. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • REVISION The History section was revised for era "groups," of which there are two. There's no real stubs other than those era sections though as far as I'm aware or would count. Ela'r'oech Charles (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article has been meticulously reviewed and edited for years, and deserves GA status, for it has achieved what this site considers greatness. .User:Andrew I of Pontunia
  • SUPPORT Charles has clearly worked very hard on this page and it deserves GA. The sections are instresting to read and I can easily find information for Ela'r'oech there. One small issue with the page is that some sections are too long. User:TheMilesWiki
  • SUPPORT Charles and Bryce have spent countless nights restless, leaning over their computers to fix and edit this article. However there are various errors that I would deem minor. Fix those and it'll be a solid 10/10. Christoph Billung
  • OPPOSE Yes, this article still has the issues it had last time it was nominated. They really need to be fixed before it is acheives the title, no matter how minor they are. I apperciate the effort that has gone into making this article, but a mit more time to fix the minor issues will be worth it. Matt talk ☼ 22:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Not bad --MSTarget (talk)
  • SUPPORT It looks quite good, though would suggest a bit more copy editing work on it, and a lot of stuff on the dispute I think could use some other terms rather than how it is phrased at the moment, though otherwise it is a quite long article. --𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 10:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE As above; hasn't fixed previous issues pointed out on previous nominations. At first glance date formatting isn't to standard in introduction.
    • REJECTED Please remember that a simple majority of votes isn't what we take into account when deciding these. "They worked hard" and "Not bad" aren't really of the same weight as "problems previously noted haven't been fixed". Even some of the supports are pointing out problems. Austenasia (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Raphistan

Nominator: MSTarget (talk)

Revoke GA status from Federated Republics of A1

Nominator: • Daniel Hamilton • Enquiries • My Work 23:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article has way too many short sections to be a Good Article these days. I recommend that GA status be revoked.

Penn Federal Republic

Nominator: User:Devinpurcell ([[User talk:Devinpurcell])

My second month requesting good article status for the Penn Federal Republic page. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please leave me a comment on my talkpage. Thank you! Devinpurcell (User talk:Devinpurcell) 13:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

    • REJECTED I'm not sure why nobody voted! Austenasia (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

December voting (1st - for articles nominated in November)

Sorry voting is so late this month! Nominations and voting for GAs will continue above concurrently.

Please cast a vote for the Good Article approved at the start of December which you think would look best as a Featured Article on the Main Page. The GA with the highest number of votes (a tie will be broken by the admins) will be featured on the Main Page for the last two weeks of December 2021, and go on a list to hopefully be featured again some point in the future.

The GAs approved at the start of December were:

December

David Brooke, Lord Mayor of The Sovereign Municipality of Ameristralia

Nominator: User:Ameristralia (User talk:Ameristralia) 14:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I look forward to the feedback and constructive criticism from the community. Thank you for your consideration.

  • SUPPORT Really nice Devinpurcell (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Matt talk ☼ 00:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT There are a few things that could do with improving. Some sections need expanding, 'Mr Brooke' should ideally be changed to simply be 'Brooke' imo whilst more images are needed. However, this is nonetheless worthy of GA status. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 15:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Liahonia.gov (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Good looking article, no major issues I can notice with it, especially after the changes mentioned previousy were added to the page 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 23:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

2018 Adammic national election

Nominator: ADAMVS PRIMVS IMPERATOR 19:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT A great article. Pictures, references, formatting, spelling, grammar; no problems at all! Austenasia (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Very nice article, appealing to look at and read. Only thing I noticed was a couple red links, I assume the Adammic times one would be filled as time goes on, but "data privacy scandal" one in the aftermath section might be able to be removed unless its going to be revisited and filled. That would be my only recommendation though 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 15:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Penn Federal Republic

Nominator: Devinpurcell (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Spent a lot of time on this article, proposed it last month but nobody voted :( , anyway if you have any feedback let me know! Devinpurcell (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE I like the article. It outlines very well about the nation; however, it is missing most of the substance in sections. There is not much information to delve into and learn. I would like to learn more about PFR. Ameristralia (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This article is coming along nicely but I don't think there is enough content in it yet to justify good article status. The structure is well laid out, but a lot more needs to be added to it. There are a couple problems I can note other than length, id remove the complete URL links from the references as it makes the section look cluttered and hard to navigate. The leading paragraph should also be expanded up, and there are some images which are just links (Like a flag in the micronational recognition table). This article will reach good article status, but it currently just seems to be suffering from not having enough to add to it. Just remember not to compromise on what you add and ensure its all quality and it will definitely have my support if it keeps going the direction it has been! 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 17:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, it is greatly appreciated Strubber Devinpurcell (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Abrams I of Ikonia

Nominator: Abrams (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This article leaves a lot to be desired upon in terms of elaborating on the subject's micronational career. The article is very appealing and nice to look at, but I would like to see that aspect expanded upon before it is noted as a good article. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 17:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Maybe the ideal was a little longer article, but is well edited and written. 𝄞 Karno-Ruthenian Government, talk - 15:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC-3)
  • SUPPORT I have read through the article many times and find it satisfactory to say it should be eligible to be a good article. This article has most, if not all of the qualities of a good article. I hope my time is well spent. Andrew Brotherton, User:Amogus|Talk]] - 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The "reign" section could stand to be expanded a bit moving forward, but otherwise a very good article. Austenasia (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Carson I of Northwood-Oregon

Nominator: 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 12:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article reads very well and is well organized by involvement in various micronations and communities. There are also a lot of pictures which adds a lot to the content. The Offices and distinctions section at the end is also extremely detailed and easy to navigate. MJM13 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article is structured nicely, has a wealth of information, and has few (if any) grammatical or stylistic errors. I see no reason why this article shouldn't be given Good Article status. Karlsbourg (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Maria I of Sildavia

Nominator: User:Indradhanush (talk) 3:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • 'OPPOSE' The content of the article is good, however there is a lack of citations in the article. Otherwise, good.
  • SUPPORT The previous comment on more citations would be good, but just in the sense to make this already good article. Karno-Ruthenian Government, talk - 12:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC-3)

Republic of Roscamistan

Nominator: User:Amogus (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

December voting

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

The approved GAs this month are:

Retrieved from "https://micronations.wiki/index.php?title=MicroWiki:Good_articles/Nominations/Archive_12&oldid=1765707"