Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations/archive1

Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations

 * Nominator(s):  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 04:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If I had a dime for everytime I had an FAC about a book entitled Micronations, I would have exactly one dime. I hope this is not too short. I have exhausted the RS sources I could find.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 04:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The following sources need page numbers for the fact, not just the paper
 * de Castro 2022
 * Foucher-Dufoix & Dufoix 2012
 * Sargent 2006

I have strong questions about BLDGBLOG as a source

Mixing books in both Secondary sources and Bibliography is odd

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oversight on my part—done. Sargent 2006 only has the one page. As for BLDGBLOG, I am not a fan of it but as it is an interview with one of the authors it should be okay for what it is being used for.. it would be a net negative IMO if the whole section had to be removed.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 13:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not committing to a review yet, but looking at BLDGBLOG's article, it's by an experienced journalist and seems to have a good reputation (the latter I chased up myself, because the article isn't spectacular, but can confirm multiple positive perspectives in RSes). Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Vat
While I'm fine with the use of BLDGBLOG, I'm not sure overall if this article is ready for FAC, or necessarily FACable. Comparing to Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty, there's a noticeable gap.


 * The lead is decidedly short; both paragraphs are more like half-paragraphs. There's fairly little about either the content or the background, and no mention at all of the reception.
 * The reception is markedly shorter than MtSfS (already a short FA), and its organization is jumbled in the same way I commented on extensively at that FAC. Despite being only two paragraphs long, it's fairly difficult to follow due to its structure of mixing up various names and quotes with one another.
 * There are some unusual organizational choices (e.g. the isolated Lonely Planet sentence at the end of Context), and the article as a whole feels perhaps-unavoidably underwritten. The synopsis is very short. Some descriptions are difficult to follow (e.g. -- why "Australian journalist" and "freelance journalist"?).

Given the length of the article and the degree to which the sources have been mined, these issues are quite structural/foundational. I'm landing at a weak oppose at the moment, but 'weak' is a meaningful modifier here; I could perhaps be convinced to strike it if other opinions feel otherwise and the article makes progress. Vaticidalprophet 01:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can find and address the other points at the same time as the research venturing.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * What is the value of the flag icons?


 * File:Micro_cover.jpg has an incomplete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Added alt text and FUR. As for the flag icons, I think they help to illustrate the entries which are otherwise just boring lists and perhaps it makes sense to include them given the context of the section.. they might be fascinating to readers as many of the flags are quite unique and will almost certainly not be known to anyone. I would not do this for countries but for something of this nature I thought eh.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that they almost certainly will not be known to anyone, how do they meet MOS:DECOR? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I suppose they do not! Removed.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Harrias
I will limit myself to a prose review on this, so my comments do not reflect the quality of the sources used. Generally speaking, the article is well-written and a suitable scope. The article is certainly on the shorter side, but it broadly appears to be sufficient for the subject, with a couple of caveats, listed below. That's it from me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead could do with expanding slightly to summarise the content of the article. Specifically, I would recommend adding a bit on the structure of the book, in terms of having the three sections for the different 'classifications' of Micronations.
 * I would add more context about Lonely Planet as a publisher, to give the reader an understanding that they are a well-known and respected publisher of travel guidebooks, as I think that is quite an important factor in the format of this book.
 * This makes it sound like Sellars was doing the pitching, causing confusion in the second-half of the sentence.
 * I know you provide wikilinks, but I wonder if it would be useful to provide brief explanations of each other these things in the article? It may not, particularly if it would get too involved or lengthy.
 * Could you provide English translations for the French books titles?
 * "child" rather than "kid", please.
 * Broadly speaking, I'm not keen on the use of dashes in place of commas except where it provides additional clarity in complex sentences that also include commas, but I'm not so bothered as to object on these grounds if you leave it as is.
 * What does this mean? Is every single concept or subject of the book illustrated?
 * Provide some context here; without clicking on the link, I don't know who he is, or why he is relevant to the article/book.
 * You mention that later publications change the title to Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Self-Proclaimed Nations, is that the only change? Does it also have 160 pages and cover exactly the same content, etc?
 * Personally I think "consider" would be better word than "equate" here. Probably just a personal preference thing.
 * Try to avoid repeating "which includes" for all three sections, as it is a bit repetitive. Maybe "which features" / "featuring", "which details" / "detailing" etc. I said I wouldn't cover sourcing, but the P3, P4 and P5 references should cover the content of that section as well as the title.
 * This needs another pair of commas around "in The American Conservative", other it makes it sounds like Needham wrote for both The Australian and The American Conservative.
 * This feels like an odd start to a paragraph, I think these two paragraphs would be better merged into one, as there isn't a natural break point, and it all covers the same thematic content.
 * This should be "there are", not "there is".

Oppose from Airship
Like Vaticidalprophet above, I am unable to satisfy myself that this article could ever exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Not only is is short, at only 917 words, but it gives the impression of being artificially stuffed to appear longer. The context section of this article seems generally unnecessary; I wouldn't consider it a WP:MAJORASPECT of the article. Then there is the lengthy list of featured micronations, which would seem to be most of List of micronations, as you would surely expect from a micronations gazetteer, right? Finally, the critical reception section includes a quip and a remark that the gazetter might be useful if one wished to use it for its purpose ... ??? Put it this way—I wouldn't like to see it as TFA, unlike Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty (which I note will be there in a couple of weeks). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair, I reckon I can copyedit and renominate eventually, but I'll withdraw this article for FA status for now.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 11:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)