User:Andrew Gray/A-test
Demonstration of how the "compartmentalised" A-class review might look, following on from a discussion here. All users are entirely fictional characters and bear no resemblance to anyone with similar usernames. Really. The article is picked at random, and the comments below don't really reflect an accurate study of it.
As you can see on a quick glance, A1 & A3 are definitely failed, A2 is passed but only by one user, A4 is a bit up in the air, and A5 is passed by the requisite three people.
- Nominator(s): Omega
| Toolbox |
|---|
This is an A-Class review. For this article to be promoted to A-Class, three reviewers must agree that it passes all five A-Class criteria (FAQ). Please leave comments and opinions below.
This is an article I saw recently, which isn't A-class. I hope it serves as a good example. Omega
A1: Sourcing
[edit]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.
A2: Accuracy
[edit]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.
Not my field, but it all seems okay to me. Anyone else? Delta
A3: Structure
[edit]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 section layout seems a bit weird to me, and the lead's definitely too short. Beta- This would need at least two paragraphs of lede. Delta
A4: Style
[edit]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.
A5: Supporting material
[edit]The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
- Looks good to me. Infobox present and images check out. Alpha
I'm not sure about the image captions. Beta
General remarks
[edit]- I have very strong opinions on this topic, but given that I am a fictional user made up for the purpose of filling a placeholder, I will not go into them. Zeta
- I disagree very strongly, and perhaps tangentially. Eta
- continue at length...
- I really like the article, but I'm not familiar with the topic and I'm not happy saying whether it's comprehensive or not (A2). Alpha
- Thanks. Omega