Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/How to Rule Your Own Country: The Weird and Wonderful World of Micronations/1

How to Rule Your Own Country: The Weird and Wonderful World of Micronations

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/How_to_Rule_Your_Own_Country:_The_Weird_and_Wonderful_World_of_Micronations/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Article improved to sufficient level, after thorough review by and others.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This article was reviewed by Jack4576, who has an ongoing AN/I thread about not understanding basic Wikipedia policy, civility and bludgeoning, and reviewed in 20 minutes without any suggestions for improvement. I'm not confident that this is a GA level, as a lot of the article is sourced from the book itself, and in my opinion, the prose could be improved. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 22:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand this is not a place for GANs, but if I was to copyedit this article to a theoretical GA status would its status perhaps be allowed to remain? Or, because of the nature of its passing would its status have to be stripped regardless of quality? I apologise in advance for being unfamiliar with the GA reassessment process, but the last sentence of your above message implies the latter.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 23:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say the the prose is the main issue. It's in a pretty good state, but I think some things could be improved. I also am somewhat concerned about sourcing, as a lot of the page is sourced from the book, and I'm not certain about some of the sources. Because of a few different issues and the dubious review, I would say that it should go through the whole GAR process, which means it will keep its status for now, but it may be removed if changes aren't made. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 23:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For some reason, there's no "official" procedure for quickpassed articles like this. But I think there's agreement that the best case scenario in situations like this is if someone is willing to go in and fix any issues so it can keep its GA status. After all, that's what improves the encyclopedia. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I will defer most to other more experienced GA reviewers, a couple of brief drive-by comments:
 * The summary of the book is long. Technically, a non-fiction book isn't governed by MOS:FICTION and MOS:FILM, which generally state the maximum length should be 700 words. Still, the summary is way too long and should be condensed.
 * E.g., the summary repeats the number of pages, how many chapters the book has, the inclusion of referencing etc..., while it might be useful, I think it violates 3b of the GA criteria, if these are removed readers could still obtain the same amount of context without needing these specific sections.
 * Also, the summary for the ninth chapter is very long compared to that of other chapters, occupying three paragraphs. Is devoting this amount due weight and satisfying summary style? I.e., if the reviews focus on the final chapter it might make sense that this is long, but I think this could be simplified for better compliance with 3b.
 * Nitpicks:
 * While saying that a book/film/game received "positive reviews" is fine if other RS or aggregators say so, some editors might consider the statement of receiving "generally positive" and "positive reviews" here violates WP:SYNTH (I personally do this frequently, and maybe wrongly, for stub/start/C-class articles, but for GAs it's best to have a source for the claim or remove it for now.
 * Very minor nitpick on criteria 1a), there does not seem to be commas preceding "which" for many instances in the content section, e.g., Chapter four is about the Republic of Minerva which built an artificial island in the Minerva Reefs 1972 by importing sand, Next, the authors write about the Republic of Molossia, a satirical benevolent dictatorship run by Kevin Baugh which was created for comedic value. There should be commas as these are nonrestrictive clauses.
 * Otherwise my main issue is that the length of the content section could be construed as violating criteria 3b, that out of the way, IMO this is a solid article satisfying or close to satisfying other criteria, still, I'd like the community decide.  VickKiang  (talk)  04:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping so that they can see feedback: JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 09:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I removed the positive reviews sentences and shortened the content summary by 400 words among other content changes. How does the article look now?  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 05:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While the summary is still on the long side at slightly longer than 800 words it's not too bad IMO, and all of my other brief concerns have been addressed, so thanks for making the article significantly better. I will have a look at prose of the new content section tomorrow.  VickKiang  (talk)  06:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, I think otherwise the article looks good. I still have a few very minor nitpicks possibly with regards to criteria 1a, but either way I think this should be kept. A few minor notes:
 * Simon Caterson, writing for the The Sydney Morning Herald's weekly newsletter The Booklist- the is repeated twice here.
 * its subsequent history including an attempt takeover- shouldn't the correct grammar here be attempted takeover?
 * Spotchecks:
 * Ref 4 is fine
 * Ref 5 also supports the claims
 * I can't access ref 2, but the material here is quite uncontroversial (mainly just a few quotes) and I am willing to assume that this is accurate.
 * Ref 10 is fine as well.
 *  VickKiang  (talk)  21:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely outside of international waters should be in international waters, no? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Typographical error on my part—fixed.  ツ LunaEatsTuna  (💬)— 02:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)