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)

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)

Abstain

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)

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)

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)

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)

Abstain

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)

Abstain

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)

Abstain

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)

Abstain

Recent Nominations

Please check the archive for older nominations

Starting a New Group (Survivor)

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)
7. I like it. It's concise, conveys the necessary information without dragging on. Could it use some polish? Sure. But definitely a guide worth keeping. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:25, 22 September 2009 (BST)
8. Helpful guide, and I'll disagree with Iscariot when he says there's no style. Could use a short lead-in, but other than that, it's nicely done.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:31, 22 September 2009 (BST)
9. Probably the first time a wiki-page has kept me interested enough to read the whole thing. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 18:30, 27 September 2009 (BST)
10. For Can I vote? Thanks to all, I've amended a lot of the spelling, and removed one of the logical gaps Isc brought up. As usual, talk page me if you want other changes. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:03, 2 October 2009 (BST)
11. its gud Cyberbob  Talk  10:21, 2 October 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)
2. Only because I think there should be a quick section on metagaming and a quick run-down of how to contact your group- all you have to do is mention IRC, forum and wiki in once sentence and I'd be satisfied. At the moment it's creating the appearance that there's nothing to a successful group other than having a good in-game appearance. Putting that aside, I would have voted for, but I'm just trying to help evaluate you. Speaking of evaluating, Developing Guides, anyone? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:18, 25 September 2009 (BST)

Abstain

1. The page is very well written and actually provides allot of helpful tips. However, I feel the page falls short in content, there is allot more then can be said about groups in general. I'll vote for if you promise you'll expand it in the future. Becomes what you have, is excellent, I just want more!--Thadeous Oakley 23:18, 22 September 2009 (BST)

Passed with enough of a majority to be featured on the Guides page. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:37, 2 October 2009 (BST)

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)
11. Poor advise under "What Now" for leveling. Title is misleading.Needs to be expanded. Good rough draft to work from but it's missing a lot to be considered a Guide._♥AU10♥Pantomime _{Mistress of Pain}┌∩┐(◕‿◕)┌∩┐18:10, 22 September 2009 (BST)
12. Doesn't make any sense. Confuzed... --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 18:23, 27 September 2009 (BST)
13. not gud Cyberbob  Talk  10:21, 2 October 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)

Failed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:36, 2 October 2009 (BST)