Guides/Review

Shortcut:
GR

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 their 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 one week, 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.

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.

Shameless advertising for this discussion Linkthewindow  Talk  14:20, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Starting A New Survivor Group

I'll move it to the correct page name if it passes, I'm really after a peer review process, so feedback please.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:49, 18 September 2009 (BST)

For

1. Wow! I didn't think there were any good articles about starting a group. Great job. Simple, elegant, useful.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:30, 18 September 2009 (BST)
2. Very clear-cut and sensible. I like it. 16:57, 18 September 2009 (BST)
3. On the whole, not bad. A few spelling errors, but not distracting. Bigger issue is SMART. The AR (as I knew the acronym) is either Achievable/Relevant OR Appropriate/Realistic (Note these are two ways of saying the same thing in the opposite order). Basically you are missing something that says "make sure your targets fit in with your overall plan." Good enough for a yea, but could be improved.Flammaster II 01:53, 19 September 2009 (BST)
4. As was mentioned, a few grammatical errors, but otherwise pretty good and rather useful. --Aichon 12:03, 19 September 2009 (BST)
5. Well thought out; you've obviously put a bit of effort into this. As the above two reviewers have pointed out, it has a few too many spelling and punctuation errors, but that's nothing a once-over with spellcheck can't fix. Good job!--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 01:16, 20 September 2009 (BST)
6. Couple of typos, but otherwise gives a set list of instructions that can be very helpful for newbies. I suggest putting up a small section explaining the importance of communication in a group, via radio, graffiti, wiki, forums etc. ~Dr Frank ^{(t) (DF) [P] (Sb)} 07:27, 20 September 2009 (BST)

Against

1. Sorry Ross, this needs a major polish. The concept is fine and your data is sound, apart from a couple of glaring logical errors, but there's no style, no lead-in, it's more a list of concepts than a coherent guide. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:24, 20 September 2009 (BST)

Abstain

Guides:Harmanz

I am resubmitting this and putting it onto Template:Wiki News so it gets proper reception. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:44, 17 September 2009 (BST)

For

Against

1. Meh --WanYao 23:54, 16 August 2009 (BST)

   Note: This vote was the only one placed on the initial submission, and because Wan is on a 30 day requested ban, he can't resubmit a new vote like I would have preferred, so I'm keeping this on in the new tally. No reason why his should be considered illegitimate. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:53, 17 September 2009 (BST)

2. Woefully out of date and requiring a substantial lead in paragraph to make it understandable to the casual or newbie reader. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:51, 17 September 2009 (BST)
3. It's very dificult to read.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:13, 17 September 2009 (BST)
4. I simply don't like it all that much.--Bwii 03:07, 18 September 2009 (BST)
5. It has potential, but need to be expanded on and cleaned up a bit. The name also seems a bit misleading.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 04:00, 18 September 2009 (BST)
6. As above. It's difficult to read and doesn't help out that much. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:04, 18 September 2009 (BST)
7. As above. The title is misleading, it needs an update, and it could use a good powerwash. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:17, 18 September 2009 (BST)
8. If you are a career zombie changing sides, would it not be best to save up the xp and spend them in a big lump sum? Rather than killing zombies to get xp for combat skills? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:20, 18 September 2009 (BST)
9. There seems little if anything here that can't be gleaned from a starting-as-a-survivor guide, in all honesty. 16:54, 18 September 2009 (BST)
10. It seems well-intended but poorly executed. --Aichon 12:06, 19 September 2009 (BST)

Abstain

1. Not unhelpful, but the presentation is not that good, so I can't decide, so no vote. ~Dr Frank ^{(t) (DF) [P] (Sb)} 07:32, 20 September 2009 (BST)

Recent Nominations

Please check the archive for older nominations