Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class FAQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

Process: A-Class may only be assigned following an A-Class Review. The review is closed by a military history coordinator who determines whether consensus to promote exists. Promotion typically requires that a minimum of three uninvolved editors who each confirm that the article meets all five A-Class criteria.

Frequently asked questions: A-Class review & criteria[edit]

Can anyone review A-Class articles? How much experience do you need?
If you're familiar with B-Class assessment, you'll find the transition to new A-Class reviewing very easy indeed. The A-Class criteria cover the same ground – A1 is a stricter version of B1, A2 is a tighter definition of comprehensive than B2 – and so forth. The key thing is that Milhist A-Class should represent the project's very best work and the reviews should be approached with this in mind.
What is the difference between A-Class and Good Article?
The key difference between A-Class and GA is focus - content vs style. An A-Class article should be complete and comprehensive in terms of content, and one can forgive a few style problems; a GA-article has not necessarily had any review by a subject-expert, and so it might not be complete, but it is often held to higher standards on style issues.
A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
All material likely to be challenged by a reasonable person should be referenced, which probably translates to a density of at least one citation per paragraph. In particular, any figures (for example, casualties or unit strengths) and any direct quotations must be cited to a reliable source. Special arrangements apply to the lead section (see WP:LEADCITE).
A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
The article reflects all major threads of scholarship, reports both sides of a conflict even-handedly, and contains an appropriate amount of context.
At the same time, the article should not become the equivalent of a 900-page personal account of a platoon-by-platoon level of a specific conflict. Be detailed, but concise.
A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
The combination of introduction and table of contents should present a logical overview of the article's contents, and make navigation easier for people would do not wish to read the entire article.
A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
We're looking for professional standards of English, with the emphasis on brevity and clarity. We do not expect 100% MoS-compliance, that can be achieved with a technical copy-edit immediately prior to FAC. However, we do expect articles to handle linking, date formats, referencing and citation, national spelling varieties, and measurements and distances consistently.
A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
This is about balance. The idea here is to ensure that articles are neither solid walls of type nor picture books. An appropriate mid-course is that a shorter article would contain at least two or three images and a longer one up to a dozen.