Guides/Review

Shortcut:
G/R

This page is for the community review of new guides. This is so the Guides page does not get filled up with nonsensical guides (like it was at one point,) and that there is a minimum standard of quality on the Guides page. Guides which pass this review have a template added to the page ({{GuideReviewed}}) and featured guides will have {{FeaturedGuide}} added to the page. Guides which do not pass a community review will not be added to the Guides page, but may still carry [[Category:Guides]]. This is so that guides that are deemed good and worthy by the community are easily findable by newer players, while less accurate guides can still be found, but aren't presented as prominently.

Guides are reviewed through a voting process. There are three eligible votes:

• Support - to indicate support for the guide's inclusion on the page
• Abstain - to not formally vote, but still offer input on the discussion
• Against - to indicate disapproval for the guide's inclusion on the page

After two weeks, the votes will be tallied.

• A guide which has more than 75% Support will be placed at a "Featured Guides" section at the top of the guides page
• A guide which has more than 50% Support will be placed on the page, in the appropriate section (survivor, zombie, or player killer.)
• A guide which has less than or equal to 50% Support will not be placed on the page
• Guides which don't attract any votes will not be placed on the page

General criteria which should be considered before a guide is included on the page are:

1. Formatting - There must be no obvious formatting errors in the text. The guide must work in all major browsers
2. Accuracy - The guide must be accurate
3. Clarity - The guide must be easy to read, with no obvious spelling or grammar errors.

If you are writing a guide and want feedback before taking it to review, please read the Developing Guides page.

Please note that neutrality and civility are not requirements.

Voting

Please add {{Guidesvoting}} on the guide before nominating it. Please inform the author if they are still active and can easily be found.

Guides:AP Efficiency

Here we go. --Penguinpyro 14:04, 21 April 2011 (BST)

Against

1. Needs much work still.

   Guides shouldn't suggest Extensions as a primary part of the guide. Make a separate section for extensions that improve AP Efficiency.

   Guides shouldn't suggest variant play styles to further primary play styles. Make a section for those and refer to them there.

   Keep in mind most players play as they lay.

   Until some of these things make more sense, it has been linked up, and it actually presents itself in a manner that's easy to follow I'm gonna say it should probably go back to the drawing board. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:25, 21 April 2011 (BST)

2. Cleaning Defiled Graffiti doesn't even cost AP... Kevan goes out of his way to suck Pro-Survivor dick and you guys don't even notice.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 15:07 21 April 2011(UTC)

   And I quote from my guide-" Cleaning bloodstains or defiled graffiti is a last priority - (Currently, cleaning defiled graffiti takes no AP, but that may change in the future) As mentioned above, there is no place for hypochondria in the zombie apocalypse. Removing bloodstains and graffiti defiling is pretty damn useless on the grand scale of things." Congrats, ZL, you've win a prize for reading comp.--Penguinpyro 19:51, 21 April 2011 (BST)

   Yeah I didn't even get that far, because I comprehended much earlier...that this guide blows goats. I see you've already modified your little opening list so...you're welcome.--

   

   | T | BALLS! | 20:13 21 April 2011(UTC)

Recent Nominations

Guides:Managing Encumbrance

Thanks. ~ _{05:38, 26 March 2011}

Support

1. Formatting could use some tweaking- there are too many headers here, which makes the guide a bit intimidating. Other than that, I can find nothing wrong with it- it's thorough, clear and interesting. Great work, Vapor. --Penguinpyro 09:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Not bad. Would agree there may be too many headings - and the idea of 'Base 8, Base 10, etc' was confusing at first and could be made a little clearer. Yes there's a little work that could be done to it but these are small edits for what seems to be a good guide. --Neko 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Thorougly done. Smyg 18:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Nice. I like that you included the section on Zombies as well. Probably would have been overlooked by most.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 23:04 26 March 2011(UTC)
5. Had nearly forgotten to vote. So, yeah, another good example of what Developing Guides can accomplish in polishing a guide. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:50, 30 March 2011 (BST)

   I wish I had gotten a bit more feedback on Developing Guides actually. Most of the feedback I've received is either on the guide talk page while I was working on it and here on Guides/Review. I chalk it up to few people with DG on their watchlist. What's the policy of making changes to a guide while it is up on review by the way. I need to make some changes but obviously it could null some votes if I did so. See below and the talk page. I pretty much need to do an overhaul on the section headers. ~ _{14:33, 30 March 2011}

   Minor alterations based on G/R input have often been done (as here or here) and have never led to nullifying. And yeah, DG is sadly a bit underused. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:41, 30 March 2011 (BST)

   I've made adjustments. I suppose they could be considered minor. I didn't change any of the content, just the presentation. Hopefully makes it easier to read. ~ _{18:51, 30 March 2011}

Against

1. Against, for formatting and clarity. It's interesting, well researched, and while it makes some suggestions that I don't agree with (like advising survivors against carrying "just in case" items like a tool box) I mostly like the basic content. Many sections could be merged or substantially simplified, though, and that would make it a lot easier- and more pleasant- to read and understand. I'll leave some specific examples on the guide's talk page. --FT 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for providing such thorough input. I will be implementing some of your suggestions. ~ _{20:43, 26 March 2011}

2. The tables are confusing and get redundant quickly. There's a mention that base encumberence should be no more than 22%, but no explanation of why, and no mention of what might be said base encumberance, which is a pretty big gap for an encumberance guide. It feels like it's still being written.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 01:56, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Abstain

With an approval rate of ~71%, this guide has been successfully reviewed. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:37, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Please check the archive for older nominations