Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Assessment/A-Class review

Overview
An A-Class review is a project-intern quality review similar to that of a featured article review or good article review; however it is conducted independently within the remit of a specific project among the project members themselves. It aims to be a rigorous quality assurance that nevertheless is a simple and self-contained process.

Requirements, roles and remits

 * One proposer
 * Two or more reviewers
 * One mediatior

All parties should be registered users, with a good understanding of the FA or GA process. An interest in the WikiProject Bangladesh is highly desirable. Reviewers and the mediator should have not been a significant contributor to the article. The article should not be under review elsewhere.
 * Roles and remits: The Proposer
 * The proposer identifies an article that is suitable for this review process and carefully checks relevant requirements according to these criteria prior to nomination. The proposer may collaborate with the reviewers to improve the article if necessary.


 * Roles and remits: The Reviewers
 * The reviewers should asses independently the article and should then reach an agreement on whether to pass or fail the nomination. They may take on an editing role in collaboration with the proposer during the review process if necessary.


 * Roles and remits: The Mediator
 * The mediator should try to ascertain whether all reviewers have reached an agreement in whether to pass or to fail the A-Class review. The mediator should normally not directly comment on the quality of the article, but comment on the execution of the review process itself. The mediator should not be the final arbiter of the review, but try to ascertain the state of the agreement. The mediator may possibly invoke further opinions in case of a deadlock situation. The mediator should summarise whether or not an agreement was eventually found.

Criteria for A-Class
The criteria for assessment should be that of a featured article, or almost that of a featured article, applied by a project community. Good nominations for review are articles that already have achieved GA status. Only use the criteria as explained here; A-Class reviews have their own procedures, which for this project is outlined below.

How to get started and finished
1. Proposers should add to the WikiProject banner on the talk page of a suitable article, noting the edit in the edit summary with "A-Class=Current". They should then follow the "currently undergoing" link that appears and write up their nomination.

2. Proposers should announce to the project their nomination here and may create a link on the article's talk page to here; they should not canvass potential reviewers or mediators.

3. Potential reviewers and mediators should regularly check this page; if willing they announce their intention to review or mediate nominate article clearly stating their role here on the same page.

4. Once passed or failed, the mediator should replace the  string in the banner with the following:   or , noting the outcome in the edit summary with either "A-Class=Pass" or "A-Class=Fail". The mediator should also freeze the outcome in a Please do not modify it style, giving a short summary how the outcome was reached if this is not apparent, and finally remove the nomination fromthis page.

Either Pass or Fail
If both reviewers agree that the article meets the relevant FA criteria (or almost meets these criteria):
 * Pass


 * Ensure you have provided a detailed review of the article, giving an overview of how you believe it fulfills the A-Class criteria for this project, with suggestions to improve it if you can.


 * Fail

If both reviewers agree that the article does not meets the relevant criteria:


 * If the problem can be resolved, fix it in collaboration with the proposer. Otherwise state which criteria were not met on the article's review page. Please give details of the article's flaws to help other editors improve the article for another review nomination.

If no agreement can be reached the mediator may enlist more reviewers from the project to reach an agreement as to whether to pass or fail it. There should not be a voting system, but a collective agreement that considers all points and views from all relevant positions. Alternatively, if no agreement can be found the mediator should at the point of a sustained incommensurablityannounce the impossibility of a pass and fail by default. It should normally be at the discretion of the mediator to make a reasonable assumption as to whether agreements have been made. The mediator should briefly summarise his or her decision and efforts and include this in the review page.