Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2023 [1].

Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty

[edit]
Nominator(s): ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a book about an academic analysis about micronations. Since I think most editors will need some context—basically, a book is a physical (or digital) artefact consisting of organised pages containing written content that provides a cohesive and often creative expression of ideas, information, narratives or concepts. The article is short, but there have been shorter FAs and, comparing this to other book FAs via Petscan, it seems worthy of nomination IMO. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 05:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

Digging that FAC intro. I'll pull up a chair; given it's short, I should be back with comments soon. Vaticidalprophet 18:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
Miscellaneous
[edit]
  • I wonder if there's anywhere in the article to fit additional images -- as it stands, this would have to be an imageless TFA. Are there pictures of relevant-to-the-book micronations? Alternatively, the co-author George Williams (lawyer) has an (awkward but extant) image in his article.
  • Unfortunately not really; numerous different micronations are each mentioned and only briefly. I'll ask Hobbs on Twitter if he could possibly upload a portrait of himself than I'll use a multiple image template for the two authors. Not sure if that really helps the problem since I believe TFA usually only has one image, though.
  • I am unenthusiastic about the Google Books external link. It's within authorial discretion, but I wonder why this instead of a link to the publisher, or anything else (e.g. Internet Archive if they have it).
  • The publisher's website is cited for the precise publication date, and the book is not available on the Internet Archive. Honestly, I just chose Google Books as a generic book database website (like IMDb for films), assuming Amazon is not really an appropriate external link… perhaps I could use the WorldCat external link template instead, given that this book is physically published and held in a number of libraries?
Lead
[edit]
  • Is very short. You have the space for a roughly two-paragraph lead in this article. I'd recommend splitting the summary of the book and its publication/reception as separate paragraphs, and adding a short overview of the book's contents to the first. This makes the whole article look more developed, and mitigates the 'short for an FA' effect.
  • Expanded. Thoughts?
Context and publication
[edit]
  • Is there any clarification on why there are disproportionately many micronations by Australians? As it stands, this sentence fragment sounds odd. In particular, it's confusing to state without clarification that Australia has a disproportionate number of micronations compared to other countries (emphasis added) -- even knowing that micronations aren't legally recognized, the whiplash between 'self-proclaimed countries' and 'included wholly within another country' is a bit weird. If additional exploration of the phenomenon exists, it'd be viable to spin this off as a second paragraph and give a little elaboration on how it inspired the book.
  • Another reviewer pointed out that this is not really relevant and I agree; removed.
  • an expertise in international law is an awkward phrasing.
  • Changed to "specialise" instead.
  • Usually 'Indigenous' as in 'Indigenous Australian' is capitalized.
  • Added.
  • Good idea! I have added both Hobbs and Williams' university positions.
  • It was published by Cambridge University Press as an ebook on 23 December 2021 and hardcover and paperback in January 2022 is a run-on sentence.
  • Sorry, I could not figure out how this is a run-on sentence?
    • You have a couple different ideas here being connected by 'and's without really stopping to breathe. It was published by Cambridge University Press as an ebook on 23 December 2021, and in hardcover and paperback formats in January 2022 flows a little less abruptly.
      • Ah, I see now! Fixed, hopefully.

More to come. Vaticidalprophet 06:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to all for now. I appreciate the review and compliment! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Content
[edit]
  • Any clarity on why Casley is described as preparing for war?
  • Added.
  • Is the definition given of micronations a direct quote or a paraphrase?
  • It is a paraphrase and summary of their previous ideas. Across the three pages they first say what a micronation is not than give a definition for it.
  • micronations and other ethnic independence movements is a touch abrupt -- micronations have repeatedly been contrasted from ethnic independence movements. Is this missing some context?
  • Removed.

Will touch the Reception section soon, as it's the longest and a little quote-heavy. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections might be worth reading. Vaticidalprophet 10:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and aftermath
[edit]
  • Do we have any context on why the named individuals are people we would care about, past that they are book reviewers? For instance, are any of them clarified as having expertise on the subject, or have job titles worth mentioning?
  • Shima piped to Southern Cross University is a bit too much of an easter egg.
  • This whole section is honestly a little confused. The first paragraph jumps between the opinions of two different reviewers in a way that seems like it's meant to juxtapose, but actually just makes things hard to follow. The whole section is extremely quote-heavy when some of those quoted might be paraphrasable. There are some very weak prose spots (Conversely, Flether noted that the intended audience for the book is "clearly scholarly" despite the publisher's branding that the book was intended for both academics and the general audience because in certain places "the content is challenging"). I'm...not yet opposing, but I'd like a FAC prose expert to take a look at this before I make any confident decisions or further statements. I'd oppose if the prose were consistently like it is in this section, but the rest of the article is stronger, and given the whole thing is pretty short it's reasonably likely this could be copyedited within the course of a FAC. Still, I think this needs more, experienced eyes on it.

Vaticidalprophet 06:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vaticidalprophet: Thank you for your patience—how does that look now? I expanded upon the expertise of Fletcher and Corbett; re: Vicente Bicudo de Castro, he has written several academic articles on micronations, many for Shima, though I am not sure how to incorporate that into the sentence first mentioning him without it sounding too long. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The section is greatly improved, for sure. I'm leaning much closer to support, but from a perspective of "what the third support signals to coords", I still think this might need somewhat more reviewer attention than it's had -- it's otherwise had fairly short reviews so far. Regarding de Castro, it seems to me the best way to fit in more about him would be to say less about Shima. (Southern Cross University is fairly far from the kind of prestige where mentioning a journal's association with it will make it sound better...) Vaticidalprophet 04:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LunaEatsTuna, any response to this? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of the university and just made some minor adjustments to the text, mostly to improve flow. Also, I forgot to say this here but Hobbs did kindly upload a photograph of himself to Commons so I added a multiple image template of Hobbs and Williams to help illustrate this article better. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still caught off-guard by the heavy repetition of names in quick succession (e.g. Corbett and de Castro praised the author's detailed descriptions of various micronations rather than focusing solely on their claims to legitimately; Corbett wrote that this brought upon a welcomed "light-heartedness". Conversely, Fletcher thought that Hobbs and Williams could have better explored the legal means by which micronations attempt to assert their legitimacy, as the opening to the second paragraph). Is there no way to paraphrase this further? That's the main thing holding me back from a support at the moment -- otherwise the section is greatly improved, but this disrupts readability and requires keeping track of many individuals. Vaticidalprophet 00:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point; perhaps it looks better now? I hope this is what you had in mind. ^^ ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 01:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Almost there, just two more points...
  • Can we contextualize who Strauss is in-text a little rather than just linking? (especially given he doesn't seem to have an academic background)
  • I don't think "added" is right for Fletcher added that Hobbs and Williams did an admirable job, as it's a subjective claim.
Will be happy to support once both these are resolved. Sorry about the wait! Vaticidalprophet 05:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; how does it look now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 06:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Vaticidalprophet 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Hi there, comments below. Apologies if I duplicate anything from Vaticidalprophet above; at the time I'm starting this, their review is not up yet.

  • Recommend adding "the" before "Australian lawyers..." in the first sentence to avoid a false title
  • Interesting; fixed!
  • "academic perspective, is one of few works" → missing word
  • Nice catch. Fixed.
  • "one of the earliest published books" → "earliest-published"
  • Fixed.
  • What makes FN 2 (World Atlas from World Facts) reliable?
  • WorldAtlas is known for its extensive factchecking. In this instance, the author Benjamin Sawe has a BA in Economics and Statistics and has published several articles regarding countries and separatism (which is related to micronationalism).
  • "achieve international recognition; and their activities" → don't use a semicolon followed by "and", either change to a comma or drop "and"
  • Fixed.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Context and publication" seems out of place
  • Removed. Another reviewer also pointed out that it is not relevant.
  • "authored by Australian lawyers and legal academics" → same false title issue here
  • Fixed.
  • "is one of few works on micronational movements and one of the earliest published books to focus largely on the legal aspects of micronations" → worded identically to the lead, I would recommend switching this up (the next sentence is also the same)
  • Rephrased. Thoughts?
  • "The first chapter, "Prince Leonard Prepares for War" → per MOS:LINKINNAME, "Prince Leonard" should not be linked here
  • Fixed.
  • I'm honestly not sure what the MOS says about content summaries of nonfiction books (MOS:PLOT), though the way the summary in this article is worded I'd imagine a secondary source or two would be helpful
  • I ran into this same question with a GAN about an essay I was reviewing. The nominator pointed out that indeed the policy on this is not clear; but I agreed with their point that (in their opinion) summary sections should generally be fine as they are a neutral analysis of the text at face value whereas analysis sections with deeper study and individual interpretations would need citations. What do you think though?
  • "Hobbs gave an online seminar at the Australia National University's College of Law" → This may seem very picky and pedantic, but was Hobbs physically at the College of Law or was the seminar just hosted by the College of Law?

That's all for now, I'll give it another readthrough in a bit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just took another look and I'm happy to give this a support. Your response to the PLOT issue seems very reasonable (especially considering I had no idea what the conventional wisdom on that was) and I'm happy with everything else. Well done! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

+1 on the intro. I'll comment shortly, if I let it slide for over a week, ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence beginning "It received positive reviews..." might be better off split, as right now there's not a distinct connection between the positive reviews and the second book.
  • Done.
  • Also, the second half of that sentence could be trimmed a bit. Currently you've got some passive voice and a bit of redundancy.
  • Does it look better now?
  • Yes, much smoother flow
  • Repeat phrasing - "mimic acts of sovereignty" and "mimic a sovereign state" within two sentences of each other
  • Changed second instance to "simulate states".
  • "Prior to the book's publication, Hobbs had written about Indigenous sovereignty and Indigenous people's aspirations in Australia in 2020.[12]" Interesting, but is it relevant? Indigenous topics don't come up again. Does he tie his work about Indigenous topics to his work in micronations somewhere? Can we do that in this article?
  • Yeah, now it makes sense.
  • Again in the next section, you have "mimic acts of sovereignty" and "mimic sovereign states" in successive paragraphs
  • As above, changed second instance to "simulate states".
  • "others that commit crimes...are dealt with in court as citizens" the phrasing here is off, I think. Micronations don't commit crimes, the people running them do. You can't really treat a putative political entity as a citizen - Tinyfakeistan isn't getting arrested and fined, John Smith who created it and laundered money in it is.
  • Completely right! Rephrased.
  • Looks good
  • Since there's no wikilink, what is Shima? Journal, website, magazine?
  • It is a journal; does "… writing for the journal Shima" work?
  • Yup
  • The length and amount of quotes in the reception section could be trimmed. A paraphrased summary is generally better, with quotes reserved for punchy bits.
  • For example, the following passage: De Castro further praised the book for being written in a "lively and accessible style, avoiding losing itself in technicalities and legal terminology", as well offering a definition of micronation that "narrows the subject matter and avoids conflations".[9] Conversely, Flether noted that the intended audience for the book "is clearly scholarly, despite the publisher's blurb that the intended reader includes the general audience" because "the content is challenging".[13]
  • Compare: De Castro further praised the book's accessible prose, which offered a clear definition of micronation and avoided "technicalities and legal terminology". Conversely, Flether felt that the content was too "challenging" for the general reader, and was more suitable for scholars.
  • In the first version, the reader has to do a lot more work parsing the reviewer's thoughts, but in the second version, we've summed it up for them. I would recommend going over the section and trying to do this where possible.
  • Fascinating; thanks for pointing this out! Rephrased some areas. How does it look now?
  • Looks good and is much easier to read.
  • "On 15 August 2022, Hobbs gave..." this paragraph isn't reception. You may want to edit the header for the section ("Reception and legacy" maybe)
  • Changed to "Reception and aftermath" like I believe we do for films.

That's me! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I appreciate the review! I have now replied to all of your comments. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I'm a support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CT55555

[edit]

I'm new to FAC, these are amateur comments, not expert review:

  1. Is "real country" a value judgement? Possibly vague? Maybe say "sovereign state" as I think that is what is meant. I recognise my comment may be WP:OR.
  2. Please capitalize "indigenous".
  3. Should it say "postage stamps" rather than "stamps" because the later could mean passport stamps?
  4. Should the chapter titles be in Italic? (genuine question, I am uncertain).
  5. "micronations he had not previously seen in other work" should be "micronations that he had not previously seen in other work" in my opinion

Other than these minor points, it's a great little article. I don't think the length is a problem, as it covers the topic sufficiently. CT55555(talk) 03:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: Fixed all. Re: the italics—From the style guides I consulted it seems not. Titles of short works, like poems, articles or chapters, are usually put in quotation marks instead of italics. Glad the length of the article is okay. Also, I greatly appreciate your review! Many thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CT55555, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, spotcheck only upon request. Source formatting seems OK but some are lacking bylines when they should. Sources seem reliable for their jobs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, would I be correct in assuming that you would like the bylines adding before passing this source review? LunaEats Tuna, if Jo-Jo confirms this, could you add them and then ping them? Thanks both. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry to ask but which ones are you referring to specifically? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily the cites to "Micronations and the search for sovereignty", if only for consistency's sake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in out of my section to say I don't think it's quite clear what you're asking for here. What "bylines" are missing? Do you mean the sources are missing information in some way, or do you mean that parts of the article are not referenced? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the authors of ref 20 if that is what you meant. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that at times "Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty" itself is cited - for consistency with all other citations, I'd put the authors in for these citations too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks! Added to refs 17 and 18. Is that good now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kaiser matias

[edit]

I'll look this over shortly and add my comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It notes that the book is "one of a few works on micronations". Has there been any others published, especially in an academic context, that can be noted here? Is there an academic history on the subject of micornations? If so it may be worth considering a brief mention here. A few are mentioned in the reception section (in the context of a review), but could be noted in a different context earlier.
  • "The chapter's title refers to Leonard Casley, Prince of the Principality of Hutt River micronation, who declared, then undeclared, war on Australia as he believed a state undefeated in war must be recognised." I feel this should be cited, as it's a rather interesting perspective to have.
  • Indeed, both paragraphs of the "Context" section has no citation, aside from the notes for the chapters in the book.
  • Curious if any micronation leaders commented on the book (in a way that could be utilized here). Would be interesting to see their reaction, though I suspect they either aren't aware, or aren't covered by a reliable source.

As a former micornation enthusiast, the book is really interesting, and to see the topic covered in such a formal way is neat. I don't have many comments here, aside from a few queries, and will be happy to support once the above are addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi @Kaiser matias: thanks for the review! I have added some academic background in § Context and publication (I hope it is not overboard). As for § Content, the lack of citations is because the summary is taken from the book itself, and it should generally be fine IMO as such sections are a neutral analysis of the text at face value (I think Wikipedia lacks a policy on this, but compare WP:PLOT which is for fiction). I could indeed cite some sources as there are a few which summarise the chapters of the book, however they ultimately lack some information (including what I think are key points in the work). I'll add them on request, though, as Wikipedia has no policy on this. There is no RS on micronational leaders commenting on this work, although Hobbs and Williams' follow-up book does have two. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, and good job. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that, I meant to strike "Comments" from my heading and write "Support", but only did the first part it seems. I am happy to support, and have fixed that now. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • The book concerns the definition of statehood, the place of micronations within international law, people's motivations for declaring micronations, the micronational community and the ways by which micronations mimic sovereign states. - I know this an article about micronations, but you use that word four times in this sentence alone. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • their activities are almost always trivial enough to be ignored rather than challenged by the established nations whose territory they claim. - I don't think we can make that claim in Wikipedia's voice. If it's a comment by someone, that should be said, or if we talk about how established nations do act, rather than this rather floaty definition of how they should act. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see what you mean. So, one of the things that generally makes a micronation a micronation is that they are ignored; hence, the sovereign states they claim do not see them as separatist nor secessionist movements (which are not micronations). This is indeed stated in most RS about micronations so I think it is worth noting in this way. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but in prose, we are saying that micronations should be ignored. The info is fine, but it needs a tweak to not read like we are telling people that they are unimportant Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I get it now! Hm, how does that look? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is one of a few works on micronations and one of the earliest-published books to focus largely on their status in regards to the law. - it came out two years ago (less than), have we had an influx of books about this subject since then? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, ref 16 says "As micropatrology (the study of micronationalism) is a relatively new field, and largely neglected in terms of serious scholarly research […]". This is reiterated in this book actually, but of course I could not cite the book itself here. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • If you look at some other articles, it seems that the work= parameter is broken at the moment. I can honestly remove it from ref 15 in the meantime as it is not super relevant, though I am not sure how to work around cite dictionary which heavily relies on said parameter. I could temporarily convert it to cite web in the meantime though I would have to remember to change it back once this issue is resolved. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review; it is much appreciated! I have made some changes and left my comments above. I'll review some of your GANs later in the week once I have more free time. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 21:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Cite 1: Hobbs and Williams should be shown as the authors, not as part of the title of the work.
  • The titles of articles should be standardised as either all in upper or all in lower case. How they appear in their originals is irrelevant.
  • Cite 3: micronation should start with an upper-case M. It also needs a date. (Which is 2023.)
  • Is Moreau a PhD thesis? If so, the citation should say so. (|type=PhD thesis) PhDs are not usually acceptable at FAC. What makes Moreau's thesis a high quality reliable source?
  • Cite 18: what does the quote signify, and why is part of it in all caps?
  • Cite 18 again: delete "type=Hardback".
  • Cite 11: what does "date=n.d." mean?

There may be more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for now. The quotation (which I have now made lowercase) is for the date for which the hardback edition was published; "n.d." means "no date" and I have seen it used in some FAs for citations with no dates, such as web pages, but I'll remove it here; lastly, regarding Moreau, I did not know that PhDs are frequently not allowed at FA, but I understand them to be a subject matter expert as they did publish some academic articles about micronations to a number of what appear to be peer-review journals prior to this. If you want I am fine with removing it and finding an alternative citation, however. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with the explanation about the PhD.
  • My apologies: the template guidance does state "For no date, or "undated", use |date=n.d." Sorry 'bout that.
  • For the date published, one usually uses "|date=January 2022".

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I forgot to add date=n.d. to the other citations as well. Fixed the date. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 18:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Micronations_and_the_Search_for_Sovereignty/archive1&oldid=1170749026"