- B-class review
- It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:
- It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:
- It has a defined structure:
- It is reasonably well-written:
- It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
- It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
 | This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{subst:B-class review}}). |
Usage edit
{{subst:B-class review |1= |2= |3= |4= |5= |6= |7=}}
or, full usage:
{{subst:B-class review
|overcom=
|1=
|1com=
|2=
|2com=
|3=
|3com=
|4=
|4com=
|5=
|5com=
|6=
|6com=
|7=
|7com=
}}
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.
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.
Example edit
{{subst:B-class review
|overcom=This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
|1=aye
|2=aye |2com=What about periodic trends?
|3=aye
|4=wtf |4com=Can this be improved?
|5=nay |5com=This could have way more free images.
|6=aye
|7=nay |7com=Good luck improving the article!
}}
results in:
- B-class review
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
- It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:
- It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:
- What about periodic trends?
- It has a defined structure:
- It is reasonably well-written:
- Can this be improved?
- It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
- This could have way more free images.
- It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Good luck improving the article!
- Pass/Fail:
