Developing Guides

Developing Guides

This section is for presenting and reviewing guides which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• If you decide not to take your Guide to review, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter. You may move the discussion to your guide's talk page if you wish to preserve a record of the discussion.

Adding a new Guide

Post all guides in the following format, changing only the text in red to reflect your Guide's name;

==[[Page Under Development]]==
--~~~~
===Comments===

Cycling Guides

• Guides with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.

• Any Guide posted on Guides/Review Should be removed from this page, any comments on this page should be copied onto the Guides talk page.

Please add new guides to the top of the list

---

Guides:An In Depth Guide to Forming Groups

Take a look at it and speak your mind, please. All criticism, corrections or advice are appreciated. Hopefully it won't bore too many of you unconscious. :P --Penguinpyro 07:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Alright, first off, drop the "full disclosure" section. You're playing down your credibility right out of the gate, which isn't a good thing. You want the opener to be a hook, make readers think, "hey, this guy knows what he's doing!"

Instead of talking about how you could be biased, play up your group experience as a resume; say, "I lead this large group, so I'm more qualified to speak about this than master sgt. Xxxj0e$hmo3xxX over there." If you're comfortable with it, you could even try to work anecdotes of your experiences in throughout the text as a framing device; it shows that certain "tactics" are more than just ideas, but actual result-givers.

So far as the content goes, it seems alright, although I confess it's an ungodly hour over here so I can't be motivated to give an overly close reading. However, while content is good, the style seems a little bland- the entire thing is essentially an oversized list. While this is does a fine job at making each of your points stand out, overusing it makes it quite a chore to read; that's not including the fact that each of the sections seems to use a different formatting. Given the size of a lot of your bullets, you may want to consider folding them into paragraphs; that way, you can cut down on page length (especially if you combine similar bullets) and adopt a more natural tone, which should increase flow and readability- just make sure you don't go tot he other extreme and write a wall of text!

For your bullet points, I'd do two things. First, pick a formatting and stick with it. use EITHER * or # and be sure to bold the main point. Second, cut the commentary down to a line or two for each; when people read a bullet, they expect a brief explanation- read the bolded idea statement, then a quick summary of what that statement means. If you're going on for three or four lines, you should stop and ask yourself, "will people actually read all this?" If it's getting long enough that you have to think about it, then you might want to cut down the commentary, split it into several bullets, or turn the bullet into a paragraph.

That's all I have for now. Hopefully I'm still lucid enough this early in the morning that that all made sense. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 07:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a few quick notes from me as I read through the text:

• Exiting. Make that Exit, plox - I had to read it three times to get that you don't mean Exciting
• Spambots on your forum. Yes, this is pretty damn specific and out of the blue, so get rid of that paragraph or shove it into an appendix or a separate section about managing forums, dammit.
• Hierarchy. I find it odd how many (especially military-themed) groups overdo it, ending up with 24 ranks and 13 squads for their 9 members. Always found the best approach to cut down on ranks and squads as much as possible and keep just as much distinction as needed - which in most cases meant that there is no real hierarchy at all. It has worked for Cobra, South West Anarchists and Big Coffin Hunters for me, and can even work with groups as large as Feral Undead (although by merit and people skills, there will always be members whose voice holds more sway than others).
• Role in Malton. Many Pro Survivors don't define themselves by killing zombies -in fact, many of the better ones avoid to engage zombies whenever possible and prefer to work around them. Just ask The Big Prick, Malton College of Medicine or 404. (For the latter, I have killed more survivors than zombies - which was just one measly GKer at Blackmore 4(04), who absolutely couldn't be dealt with otherwise and who could do a lot of damage by attacking Blackmore's best defense, its running genny.)

-- Spiderzed▋ 09:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds reasonable, so I made those changes or will make those changes. Seems I miss a lot of things when I'm too busy enjoying the sound of my own (writing) voice. Red Hawk, you seem like an expert on writing. Maybe you should write a guide on writing guides. That would be awesome. :P --Penguinpyro 11:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)