User:Born2flie/review list/doc

Usage

{{subst:User:Born2flie/review list|1a=|1b=|1c=|1d=|2a=|2b=|2c=|3a=|3b=|3c=|4a=|4b=|5a=|5b=|6=}}

or

{{subst:User:Born2flie/review list|overcom=
|1a=|1b=|1c=|1d=|1com=
|2a=|2b=|2c=|2com=
|3a=|3b=|3c=|3com=
|4a=|4b=|4com=
|5a=|5b=|5com=
|6=|6com=
}}

Available arguments are aye, nay, wtf, and ???; some synonyms are also available for these arguments; any other argument or no argument at all gives an undecided mark. Note that the template should be substituted, as the GA guidelines are reviewed from time to time and this template may be changed.

The template also allows comments to be added to the top of the review, and also to each numbered item, using additional parameters

 overcom, 1com, 2com, ... 7com.

See the example below for usage.

Example

{{subst:User:Born2flie/review list
|overcom=This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to Wikipedia article criteria.
|1a=aye|1b=aye|1c=aye|1d=aye|1com=
|2a=nay|2b=???|2c=aye|2com=The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3
|3a=aye|3b=aye|3c=|3com=
|4a=wtf|4b=yes|4com=Is section 3 really neutral?
|5a=aye|5b=|5com=I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid
|6=b|6com=Still B-Class article. Good luck!}}

results in:

Peer review (this checklist is based off of the {{GAList}} example and incorporates some of the Featured article criteria as well)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to Wikipedia article criteria.

1. Prose

   a. well written: b. comprehensive: c. factually accurate: d. summary style:

2. References

   a. use of inline citations: b. reliable sources: c. No original research:

   The sources are not sufficient to cover the controversial material in section 3

3. Style

   a. lead section: b. appropriate structure: c. conforms to WP:MOS:

4. Controversy

   a. neutral point of view: b. stable, with no edit wars:

   Is section 3 really neutral?

5. Graphics

   a. quality: b. image licenses:

   I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph in section 5 is valid

6. Quality:

   Article classification:

   Still B-Class article. Good luck!

See also

• User:Born2flie/review list/check