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)

User:Winman1/The seasoned stratagist

My UD game profile http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1602460

A guide for survivors. (I don't really know that much about the wiki so move this to wherever its supposed to be if its not in the right place.) Its best to read the entire guide.

--Winman1 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Where it is right now is quite alright, don't worry. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He should worry, I'm about to vote and take this apart. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For

1. I'm voting for my own guide...obviously--Winman1 02:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
2. It's ok.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 07:48 10 November 2009(BST)

Against

1. Let's begin:

   • "Formatting - There must be no obvious formatting errors in the text. The guide must work in all major browsers. - Someone with other browsers can confirm this, however it does just turn into a mass of endless black and white hypnosis towards the middle.
   • "Accuracy - The guide must be accurate." - It's not. I'll explain later.
   • "Clarity - The guide must be easy to read, with no obvious spelling or grammar errors." - What do the following 'words' have in common? "stratagist", "Meatsheilding", "bu" and "alot". And that's before I get onto the grammar...
   • "since combat is what this game is built around" - No, it isn't. Take off your trenchcoat, grow up and learn something.
   • "zombies are actually the dominating faction" - The stats page disagrees with you.
   • "A few players advocate combat reviving to use against zombies, hoping they will decide to play survivor for an extended period of time. Combat reviving is based around that core idea which rarely works." - This line proves how truly stupid you are, go talk to The Big Prick or 404 and ask them if they combat revive so that zombies 'rediscover their humanity and learn the error of their ways'. It's got nothing to do with it, people should be intelligent enough to understand this before they write guides to try and instruct other players.
   • "Right now the horde seems to be moving southwest" - The horde? The horde? Like singular? We only have one?
   • "Binoculars and necrotech scans are your best friends." - No, they aren't.
   • "First, you must secure (secure means light and barricade to a proficient amount ) factories to acquire a decent generator source." - No, needle barns come first, they're the easiest building to defend and allow your group to replace casualties and soak massive amounts of opposition AP.
   • "Go to the zombie group's forum saying "I found this bunch of survivors hiding in (whatever the place is you plan to lure them to.)" - In the meta we have a word for this. That word is cheating. Impersonating someone to deceive is just as bad as impersonation to gain information.
   • "In any outcome zombies will be dazed at their loss, or surprised of survivor coordination, zombies will be slightly more careful when taking any information of survivors fearing it may be another ambush." - Never played as a zombie have you? Didn't think so. I love being told what my side will do by ignorant trenchies.
   • "Groups with these people use the hit and run tactic. " - Groups with these people die and become mrh? cows.
   • "Obviously zombies are watching survivor radio frequencies" - Obviously, not.
   • "Know the zombie, trick the zombie" - Yet you yourself don't 'know the zombie'.

   That's the initial pass at your 'guide'. To say it sucks would be offensive to catholic school girls (who do indeed suck). I wrote this for people like you, or idiots as I tend to call them. The very best thing you can do with your guide that will help survivors, yourself and the quality of this wiki is to go here, place a link to your guide followed by the words "Crit Seven" and then your signature. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

2. As above--Orange Talk 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
3. I am afraid this really is not a very well written guide. First, the grammar is rather hard to follow. There are many run-on sentences and fragments, which, combined with several minor spelling errors, make the guide appear rather unprofessional and difficult to read. Make sure to run your guide through a spell checker for errors, and read it aloud, so you can hear if it makes sense.

   Second, the advice goes against many accepted beliefs. The propaganda section is highly misleading- broadcasting anti-zombie slurs is generally considered spam, while spreading misinformation on opposing forums is considered a rude and underhanded tactic. Both behaviors demonstrate highly unsportsman-like attitudes. Furthermore, the tactics section is confusing to read and shows an incomplete understanding of the game. Luring zombies seldom works in practice, and attacking zombies outside is viewed by the survivor population as pointless, with the exception of gathering XP. The section on reclaiming buildings is also misleading and unclear- zombies inside of a building can drastically reduce the success rate of barricading, and you are vague on when it is appropriate to attack zombies.

   In its current state, this guide is both difficult to read and misleading in its advice. Read up on the wide array of survivor tactics, become knowledgeable in the nuances of the game, and collaborate with other users (Developing Guides) in order to insure high quality and accuracy. Do those and you will greatly increase the quality of the guide.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Rule number one "1. Win All Without Fighting", "luring tactic", and "Knowing the Zombies" seem to contradict each other making the guide confusing, along with the grammar and errors stated above.--Zaphord 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
5. As Iscariot. And thanks for providing the detailed post... saved me the effort of trying to read that whole thing and create one of my own. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
6. As above. Also, the phrase "Right now the horde seems to be moving southwest, so any south westerners should prepare" is rather inaccurate and would quickly become out of date. Chief Seagull 10:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
7. As Red Hawk. I can't support forum spying as a tactic. And I don't think "luring" zombies to your safehouse and then "ambushing" them in real-time would actually work.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
8. As some of Iscariots points which prove this as trenchie garbage. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
9. As above. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Generally bad. Says not to combat revive, then lists the pros of combat reviving as cons. Advocates sinister tactics and generally being a dick.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Developing Guides and I'm here if anyone has any 404 questions they want to ask. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Crap guide with silly ideas and bad tactics. "Monitoring major zombie group's pages and forums care vital to predict zombie movements" is legit: if it's on a public forum, it's fair use in-game. Advising one to impersonate a zombie player on a forum is another thing entirely: it's called cheating. --WanYao 08:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Absolutely no redeeming factor, as was laid about above. --Private Mark 22:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Oh lawdy. 05:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Utter shit. --Papa Moloch 06:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Alright let's see if I have wiki format down yet. This guide violates the one thing that survivors need to do, survive. I'm not going to be redundant with 'unsportsmantlike conduct' or 'trenchcoater' comments. Iscariot rode those to the gates of Hell and back. Remember though that a survivor is meant to survive, staging massive (and suicidal) offensive tactics does no one any favors. The zeds get back up, and you have a few extra teeth marks for your troubles. --St. Faux

Abstain

1. seems ok.--Shut up noob 18:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - Multi-vote struck -- SA 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Nominations

Please check the archive for older nominations

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)

4. More explanation, and further descriptions to the introduction of the game would be useful. The "Cade Levels" section feels cluttered and doesn't follow the same organization as other list(Code boxes). The word "I" and the first person perspectives of the guide gives the reader of uncertainty. A few grammar errors are scattered throughout. The guide contains good information, however, it lacks in grammar and explanation.--Zaphord 19:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Close but no cigar, with <50% support, this guide will not be featured on the Guides page. Failed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)