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 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.

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

Guides:The Newbie's Guide to Surviving the Apocalypse

Well, this was on here before, but it was a bit out of date, and there were many revisions to be made. I've since made corrections that were suggested and I've updated the material. I have multiple people who have said this guide helped them and I'd like to re submit this updated version --Rohndogg1 01:53, 22 October 2009 (BST)

For

1. Obviously I'm for my own guide. --Rohndogg1 01:53, 22 October 2009 (BST)
2. Granted that necessary changse/fixes as detailed below are upheld. --Private Mark 06:12, 22 October 2009 (BST)
3. Decent enough stuff. A nice read, needs a bit of fixing here and there.--Thadeous Oakley 13:27, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Against

1. Overall, it's shaping up to be a nice beginner's guide. However, there are still a few major problems. The code boxes you're using cause the text to stretch off the page- this makes reading the guide difficult in places, and hurts the aesthetics. I reccomend you replace them with another form of bolding, such as, well, bold-face text ('''Text here'''). Second, the breakdown on skills places too much emphasis on the combat skills, without providing reasoning behind that method. You should outline the other forms of xp grinding, such as healing or DNA scanning, and give reasoning behind why new players should get the skill first (remember that for many scientists and civilians, healing is an equal or better strategy than gunning down zombies). You also do not outline how class choice affects skill costs, nor do you place free running on the go-get list; many veteran players consider this one of, if not the first skills a player should get. Finally, there are still several (minor) grammar and stylistic mistakes which distract from the guide. Make sure to read it out loud, and see if what you wrote makes sense. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a bit hard-to-please, but this is looking like it could be a really great guide; I'm holding it, and you, to that higher standard (think of it as a compliment ;D).--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:14, 22 October 2009 (BST)

   Thanks for the box comment, I didn't even notice it did that. It's because I copied it over from the forum. I just fixed that, so if that's your biggest fault than I'd look at it again now.As for Free Running, I do mention it as important in more than one location. As for healing as a method of leveling, I admit that it's lacking in that department, however I've never really used that method so I'm not an authority on the process. I will admit that I should add a part about skill cost though, that just never crossed my mind. I can make said revisions rather quickly, so it shouldn't be a problem. As for spelling and grammar, again that can be quickly fixed, and also easily overlooked if you aren't searching for it. I appreciate the input --Rohndogg1 03:18, 22 October 2009 (BST)

   The aesthetics are much better now. However, I still feel you should elaborate the skills section; provide reasoning behind why players should follow your model. As for healing, the common process is to: hang around a VSB hospital, and either heal anyone who comes through (announce your willing ness to heal if you don't have diagnosis), or wander the suburb, looking for survivors sleeping outside or in other buildings that likely need healing. Buy diagnosis as soon as possible (then freerunning), and continue building skills. It's slower but safer than guns. You don't need to get into too much detail if you're uncertain, but it warrents mention as a viable alternative to shooting. You're getting there!--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 03:30, 22 October 2009 (BST)

   Thanks, we need more people like you around the wiki community. --Rohndogg1 03:41, 22 October 2009 (BST)

2. It's badly formatted, unclear, has faulty spelling and grammar and has game advice that is just plain wrong. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:17, 22 October 2009 (BST)

   Please elaborate on what is "just plain wrong"--Rohndogg1 03:18, 22 October 2009 (BST)

3. I am marginally against. But let me say it's a great article and really I enjoyed it. My only problem is that there are a TON of guides on the same subject. Unfortunately there have been many many good guides on the same topic and there just isn't a lot of room to say something new at this point. Don't be discouraged, and I hope you put together another guide on a less traveled path.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:03, 22 October 2009 (BST)

#Just nothing that stands out. --WanYao 05:50, 23 October 2009 (BST) changed --WanYao 05:54, 23 October 2009 (BST)

Abstain

1. Some good stuff. But as above, it lacks the comprehensiveness and/or originality of a high end guide. --WanYao 05:54, 23 October 2009 (BST)

Recent Nominations

Please check the archive for older nominations

Tips for a Zombie

More fun from the orphans list. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:31, 8 October 2009 (BST)

For

Against

1. Like in his other guides, the presentation is sub-par and there are many grammatical mistakes (namely the lack of spacing after punctuation). The material is obvious, confusing, and occasionally contradictory- he recommends skipping body building and a flak jacket for Flesh Rot, but cautions against taking Brain Rot (a prerequisite for the above skill).--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 04:06, 9 October 2009 (BST)
2. Can we have a speedy deletion criteria for idiocy in the main space. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:39, 9 October 2009 (BST)

   Yes. But then we'd only have 4 pages on the wiki. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:31, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Abstain

Failed -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:56, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Bounty Hunter's Guide

Orphaned. Worth saving? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:23, 2 October 2009 (BST)

For

1. This is great! The name is a little misleading because it's more of an introduction to becoming a bounty hunter as opposed to a bounty hunter's guide. But still, very nice for what it is.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:09, 2 October 2009 (BST)
2. Provides a good intro into bounty hunting. I think the tactics section could use a little expanding, but other than that it is both unique and well-written enough to warrent a spot on the guides page. Good work!--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 18:54, 2 October 2009 (BST)
3. The end remark about crossing FRL's is true enough. I know my BHer has caught plenty of criminals that way. Criminally Insane 01:34, 4 October 2009 (BST)
4. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:39, 7 October 2009 (BST)

#--Thadeous Oakley 13:36, 22 October 2009 (BST) - Vote added after voting period expired struck. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:56, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Against

1. Close, very close. There's some good material there; it just needs to have its grammar and spelling fixed, and to have some of those paragraphs split up into more convenient chunks. Cyberbob  Talk  10:28, 2 October 2009 (BST)
2. It's poorly written, badly spelt and doesn't actually give a great deal of guidance. It's an extended advert for the DEM, Resens and UDTool. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:28, 5 October 2009 (BST)

Abstain

1. There is some great material there, but it needs to be fleshed out more. If there were one or two players who run bounty hunters willing to contribute to the guide and flesh it out some more I would definitely vote Keep. As is I'm kind of torn. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:33, 3 October 2009 (BST)

Passed for inclusion into survivor section. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:56, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Commando's handbook

For

Against

1. A bunch of really obvious stuff like - carry weapons - and - don't fall asleep outside. Though "once you hit, you must commit" has some redeeming value.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:03, 2 October 2009 (BST)
2. As Giles, a lot of this has been stated in almost every guide. There are a few good parts (the commitment factor definately stands out), but it's just not enough to make it really stand out from other guides. Elaborate your sections a bit and this could become a good guide.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 18:49, 2 October 2009 (BST)
3. Again, really nothing that stands out in this guide enough to make the whole thing worth keeping. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:26, 3 October 2009 (BST)
4. As the rest. It's been said elsewhere, and worded better. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:10, 5 October 2009 (BST)
5. Dumber than a mall. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:29, 5 October 2009 (BST)
6. Retarded guide. --Papa Johnny 17:31, 7 October 2009 (BST)
7. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:39, 7 October 2009 (BST)

Abstain

Failed -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:16, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Guide:Rat's Tips on UD

Orphaned Guide. Worth putting back on the page? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:27, 1 October 2009 (BST)

For

Against

1. It's borderline; most of the survivor tips are good for newer players, but there are a few misleading ones, and overall the guide is confusing to read.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 19:52, 1 October 2009 (BST)
2. I like the short'n'sharp tone but it needs some sprucing up and filling out. Cyberbob  Talk  10:21, 2 October 2009 (BST)
3. This guide advises survivors to never build barricades and zombies to never attack the barricades. Wtf?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:13, 2 October 2009 (BST)
4. Really not much of a guide. More random-tips-I-didn't-feel-like-putting-on-my-user-page. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:42, 3 October 2009 (BST)
5. Were all of these written by the same idiot? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:25, 5 October 2009 (BST)
6. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:39, 7 October 2009 (BST)

Abstain

Failed -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:15, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Guide:Undercover

Orphaned Guide. Worth putting back on the page? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:27, 1 October 2009 (BST)

For

Against

1. Hard to tell at times whether this is a "zombie spy" guide, which is generally looked down on by the community, or a mediocre PKer guide; either way it's not very descriptive or well written.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 19:56, 1 October 2009 (BST)
2. Dumb. Cyberbob  Talk  10:21, 2 October 2009 (BST)
3. Doesn't make a lick of sense. "Try to avoid getting your DNA extracted"... okay.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:16, 2 October 2009 (BST)
4. Do you really need a guide about how to be an effective spy? I'm not a practitioner, but I would think that if you are thinking about being a spy, you probably don't need a guide to tell you the best way to do it. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:47, 3 October 2009 (BST)
5. Oh my. No thank you. 19:58, 3 October 2009 (BST)
6. It's like a death culting guide written by a mall rat. It's also completely wrong. If there's call I'll knock up a an actual guide for newbie death cultists, even though such a thing should be an oxymoron. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:24, 5 October 2009 (BST)
7. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:39, 7 October 2009 (BST)

Abstain

Failed -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:14, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Guide:tips for survivors

Orphaned Guide. Worth putting back on the page? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:27, 1 October 2009 (BST)

For

Against

1. This one has potential; however, like the rest of his guides the material is confusing at best, and at times misleading (the part about not barricading exemplifies both these points). On top of this, the guide is formatted like a talk page and has several severe grammatcal mistakes. If someone could rewrite the list to make it neater and more readable, it could function as a nice, short tip-list.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 20:01, 1 October 2009 (BST)
2. Needs sprucing up but more importantly I think we have more than enough of these already. Rather than having a million guides that all say more or less the same thing we should be working more to expand on the ones we've already got. Cyberbob  Talk  10:21, 2 October 2009 (BST)
3. These guides are fraking awesome lol.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:19, 2 October 2009 (BST)
4. Poorly written and more of a quickly written list than a well-written guide. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:09, 3 October 2009 (BST)
5. Hideous. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:23, 5 October 2009 (BST)
6. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:39, 7 October 2009 (BST)

Abstain

Failed -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:12, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Guides:Tips to survive

Orphaned Guide. Worth putting back on the page? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:27, 1 October 2009 (BST)

For

Against

1. Nearly identical to the above guides; exhibits the same faults and has little new information to add. Fits the A/SD crit 1 better than the guide criteria.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 20:04, 1 October 2009 (BST)
2. As above. Cyberbob  Talk  10:21, 2 October 2009 (BST)
3. WTH? Yeh, as red hawk.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:20, 2 October 2009 (BST)
4. Most certainly a Criterion 1 A/SD that should have been taken care of long ago. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:11, 3 October 2009 (BST)
5. Poor. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:22, 5 October 2009 (BST)
6. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:39, 7 October 2009 (BST)

Abstain

Failed -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:12, 22 October 2009 (BST)