I understand that you wanted to make this article easy to read, and useful for new/returning players, but I feel that sometimes you didn't really give enough information/analysis for this purpose.
For example, about BR Stax you say,
This is my favorite variant. It’s the most consistent and synergistic.
But you don't explain why. This statement is of little use if readers aren't able to infer your thought process in making this evaluation.
Similarly, you say that Dragon makes an infinite loop, but you don't explain how that loop works. This is, of course, common knowledge for most Vintage players, but might very well not be known by someone new to the format, nor do all players have the requisite knowledge of the rules to look up the oracle text of the cards and figure this out for themselves.
When talking about weaknesses, you focus on specific cards rather than on match-ups, and I'm not sure that this is really the best approach for understanding the problems decks face. I find this approach particularly surprising, since you've frequently stressed the fact that decks should be evaluated in terms of how they interact with other decks in the metagame. If the metagame is so important, don't you think it would be beneficial to tell new players about it? (I realize that this article is about "the metagame," but you present the decks as separate rather than as interacting with one another)
Those things said, I think that this was definitely a valuable article, because gathering most of the commonly played decks together in one place is an excellent resource for newer players. I just think that you could have gone farther with it. Maybe you could write a part two that goes into more depth regarding match-ups?
