Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment/A-Class Review
Welcome to WikiProject Australia's A-Class Review (ACR) page, where
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in
featured articlestatus, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.
See theFACwithout the stress that can come from the FAC process.If you know of a Good Article that meets this criteria, you can nominate it below. If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you are encouraged to consult a significant contributor prior to nominating. From time to time, current A-Class or Featured Article status are reviewed to ensure that they are still of high quality. Articles that no longer meet the current criteria may be nominated for demotion using the process below.
How does ACR work?
The WikiProject Australia ACR process is fairly simple.
- An editor nominates an article that he or she feels meets the A-Class criteria.
- The community of editors reviews the article against the A-class criteria listed below.
- The nominator addresses the reviewers' concerns by editing the article accordingly.
- The reviewers then support or oppose promotion of the article based on how the article progresses. Generally, it takes 3 net supports (that is, three more supports than opposes) for an article to pass ACR.
Reciprocal assessment
To avoid duplication of effort, this project has a reciprocal A-Class assessment relationship with other projects that have similar, established, active ACR processes:
WikiProject Tropical cyclones ACR. What this means is that if an article within the scope WikiProject Australia passed an ACR at one of these projects, then it would be accepted as A-Class for WikiProject Australia as well (without needing to be nominated here).A-Class criteria
- A1. The article is consistently referenced with
as appropriate.- 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.
- A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise
lead sectionthat summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.- 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.
- A5. The article contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant.
- 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 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
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 sectionthat 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
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.
Procedure
Initiating a discussion
If you feel the article meets the A-Class criteria, and wish to initiate an A-Class Review:
- Add
|ACR=yesto the end of the {{WikiProject Australia}} banner on the article's talk page, and save the edit.- Click the link in the line that reads "Follow this link and fill out the details in the edit window" to preload the nomination page. Fill in the details and save the nomination page.
- Add the name of this subpage (
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment/A-Class Review/Name of nominated article}}) to the end of the Current discussions section below.- Add a link to the discussion on the announcement page Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements.
- Consider participating in other open discussions to ensure that they are completed in a timely manner.
Participating in discussions
Everyone is welcome to participate in these discussions. The A-Class criteria should be used as a guideline and not as hard and fast rules. The most important part of each A-Class review is the review of the written prose designed to make sure that the content in the article is clear, complete, and formatted consistently with our MOS and other guidelines. We require two or three editors to perform a prose review for each nomination. Each review takes shape in its own way, but typically, editors will sign up to tackle different parts of the review. Regardless of who signs up for what section, all A-Class reviews must have their sources reviewed for reliability and formatting consistency ("source review") and have all images used in the article checked to see if they possess a free license ("image review"). In addition, a percentage of references may be fact checked (typically called "the spotcheck"), though this is only required once per 12 months or by request.
When reviewing, make any comments in a list format so the nominator can reply to each comment in kind. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s> ) rather than removing it. Nominators should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text. After the nominator addressed all the comments and concerns, the reviewer may support or oppose promotion. This is done by saying "Support" in bold and signing their name (~~~~). If you have exceptionally long comments, use the following code to hide your comments after all of your issues have been resolved.
{{Collapse top|Resolved issues from ~~~~}} Your comments here. {{Collapse bottom}}If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection or it is not based on policy, the objection may be ignored.
Suspending a nomination
Nominations that have outstanding comments and that have not been edited by the nominator in 30 days will be suspended and the transclusion of the review removed from this page. A nominator may reactivate a suspended nomination at any time. A suspended nomination will be removed from the candidates list automatically with a consensus to not promote at the earlier of 6 months from the suspension date or 1 year from the nomination date.
Closing a discussion
Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to A-Class, in that all actionable objections must be addressed.
- For promotion: Typically, three more substantial support declarations than oppose declarations ("three net supports") are necessary for promotion, along with an image review, a source review, and if necessary, a source spot check. Any reviewer who declared their support may review images and sources in addition to their prose review.
- For removal from the candidates list: A-Class article candidates that are not promoted will be removed from the candidates list once a candidate has received a net three opposes that cite standards-based objections. Please remember that the process is not entirely a vote, and articles with majority support can still fail if they don't fully meet the criteria.
When consensus is determined, the discussion can be closed. Discussions should not be closed by a participating reviewer except where the reviewer participated only to clarify points of the discussion to determine consensus, or in the case of a stale nomination or the nominator withdraws. Difficult, contentious, or ambiguous closes should be left to experienced editors.
- Remove
|ACR=yesfrom the end of the talk page banner.- If the discussion resulted in a change in the article's quality assessment, then change the assessment as necessary.
- Add {{
hereon how to add the review to the template (see the "WikiProject A-class review" row).- Add
{{subst:archive top|result= state result and sign with ~~~~ }}and{{subst:archive bottom}}to the top and bottom of the discussion subpage, respectively.- Remove {{ACR status}} from the review.
- Move the line
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment/A-Class review/Name of nominated article}}from the list of discussions below to the current archive page.- Remove the article from the announcement page Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements.
- Update the /Statistics page.
Current promotion discussions
Philip Baxter
– This ACR is open and needs reviewers.
Toolbox Philip Baxter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: What can be more Australian than an article about a pommy?
Suspended nominations
Current demotion discussions
Articles which may no longer meet the A-Class criteria may be nominated for review here. A formal notice should be placed on the talk page of the original nominator (at ACR/FAC), and on the WikiProject talk page, to make sure appropriate editors are informed.
To keep the article at A-Class, three net Keep votes are required, but a spotcheck and image review are not necessarily required. To demote the article from A-Class, three net Demote votes are required, and must cite specific criteria or standards in which the article is deficient.
If the article is kept, the article will remain at A-Class. If it is demoted, the article will revert to GA-Class, if it retains that status; if not, the article will revert to B-Class (or lower, if necessary). Note that to demote an article from FA-Class, a review at
FARis required. In that scenario, if the article is kept at FAR, the article will remain at FA-Class; if the article is demoted, it will not retain any A-Class status that it previously had, and will revert to B-Class (or lower, if necessary).After 30 days of no edits to the review page, such a review will be considered inactive. A formal notice should be left on the WikiProject talk page, the original nominator's talk page, and on the talk page of all people who have commented on the review, in order to encourage people to make changes to the article and/or make keep or demote declarations. If no attempts are made to continue working on the article within 7 days, the review will be closed as keep by default.
Archives
Statistics
Statistics for WikiProject Australia's A-Class Review:
A-Class articles Statistic # Successful ACR nominations 2 Former A-Class articles, promoted (to FA) 0 Former A-Class articles, demoted 0 Current A-Class articles (from WP:AUS/ACR) 2
FA placement of A-Class articles Statistic # % (FA noms) % (A-Class) Passed FAC on first attempt 0 0 0 Failed first FAC but eventually passed 0 0 0 Failed FAC and never passed 1 100 50 Never nominated at FAC 1 — 50
