Guides/Review

Shortcut:
G/R

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 there 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.

Guides:Shelter

Just found it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Against

1. I think this guide's nearly there, it has some good advice but there are also some things I take issue with. Firstly, NT buildings are only a medium profile building? That's bollocks - when a wave moves into a suburb, NT buildings are usually the first to go (in fact some zombie groups specifically target these). Secondly, while there's some good advice on barricading, there's no reference whatsoever to barricade plans - I think this is a glaring omission. Also, this guide was previously up for voting back in August 2009 - it was rejected and hasn't changed since. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 09:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Tidal Tactics

A feral/low-strength horde tactical article, explaining both a mentality and a game plan in detail. A littly wordy and humourous but not so much as to be a challenge. 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Still think that the headers could be made more descriptive and that it would need to be dumbed down. But now it works as a guide as far as my definition goes. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm all for getting this to the guides page, but only after it's been dumbed down for everyone's use. Especially if a newbie finds this guide. It may become difficult for them to understand some of the in-game terms and flowery words. -- †  talk ? f.u. 09:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
3. I liked it! --C Whitty 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Great work, I have no problem with this at all. The language and layout seems fine to me, and the information is pretty sound. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 10:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Against

1. Fix the below and it'll be on par with the other great Tactics. -- LEMON #1 11:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Its just too damn long. Try bulletpoints. The captain loves bulletpoints. ^{Removes Wire Quote.} --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   But people said remove the bulletpoints! 22:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I hate to say this because the content is excellent, but the style/language just absolutely kills reading this guide. I'd really consider dumbing it down\making the tone flow better Mis. Phrases like "a quantum soup of Irish postmodernism" and "Only for the deluded are grand schemes - strategems based on wide co-ordination such as River Tactics or Dam Tactics will invariably fall in the long term" are not what I would usually expect in my internet browser MMO guides. The style makes this somewhat of a slog to get to the information. The first couple of paragraphs are worse than the rest, and the guide overall could use a little "thinning down." Otherwise, I'd vote this in in a heartbeat.-MHSstaff 02:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

   I think it's a great description of the erosion effect a prolonged feral assault has, as in such instances as the Feral Undead Spring Picnic. What I don't really see is a guide, though, apart from the scattered tactics tips in Play by Play. The latter should be the main menu in an actual guide. With actual sub-headers that show up in the TOC - with names that tell straight what those sub-scetions are about. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC) struck by original voter -- Spiderzed▋ 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   See, I don't believe that guides have to be all about point-by-point instructions and tips - it can also be about expounding an idea so that it's understood more than just followed. See the difference between the Zombie Lexicon and the Dictionary, though both are considered guides. As for the comments above and below this, dumbing-down isn't happening. I like colourful writing and I'd rather have it not featured and fun, than bland and featured. 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   It's your work, so you probably know your intended goals with this guide better than the rest of us. That said, I think there are reasons why concerns about the writing style are coming up here, and earlier in Developing Guides. Colourful and aesthetic writing is a wonderful thing, but this is not something that I would call either "easy" or "fun" to read. There are many parts where the writing becomes somewhat tedious and a chore to read, and while I wouldn't call it "pretentious," I think it does move unnecessarily in that direction. All that I ask is that you think about your guide, think about the audience you are trying to reach, and at least consider making this easier to read for the community. You are obviously a good writer, and I bet it would be fairly straightforward for you to edit this so that the content comes across in a more readable fashion.-MHSstaff 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   Still think that the play-by-play section needs to be made more accessible, as that isn't just descriptive, but also helps to turn the understanding of TT into concrete actions - as a guide should.

   You should also have 1-2 sentences at the top that give a clear-cut idea of what TT is about. In fact, it is already in the article, and just needs to be moved up a bit: "the teachings of tidal tactics are simple - prolonged attack, time after time, will wear down any defense, and sap the resolve of the defenders"

   Once those two things have happened, I'll move my vote to Support. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   The bullets in the 'play by play' section have been changed to level four headers which might make it more accessible. Very little actual text has changed except for a few sentences singled out here, but I did bold a line in the opening paragraph to act as a summary of the idea. 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

2. The information is solid - The writing atrocious. MHS nailed it. Layman terms, Mis. Not a science report. --Thadeous Oakley 23:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
3. As above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Nominations

Working for NecroTech

A little something I've been working on - while Guides:Scientist briefly covers all aspects of science-class characters, this one is specifically geared toward NecroTech scientists (with a dash of RP-flavour thrown in for good measure). I'm pretty sure I've covered everything that needs to be covered, and the comments made at Developing Guides have been addressed. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Works for me. Also a good example of what DG can accomplish when people actually p a r t i c i p a t e in it. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Well written, good necronet-centric guide. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 23:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
3. A nice read.--Thadeous Oakley 10:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
4. As above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Ditto. If someone I know makes a scientist character, I'll refer them straight to this guide. -- †  talk ? f.u. 12:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

With 4 votes for it and none against it, this guide will be featured. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, five. 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Cobra/Guide

As I told already on Developing Guides, none of the existing PKer guides has made me happy. They are good at teaching the basic "max your guns and hide in dark buildings" drill, but hardly go beyond that. (Possible exception is only the Siege PKer guide, and let's face it, it's more about death-cultists who use PKing as one of their tools, than about the run-of-the-mill PKer who doesn't necessarily care about whether the zombies win or lose.)

I looked to write up something that is still easy to pick up for beginners, but also teaches some advanced tricks without going to deep into tangents as actions via question marks, or the way that the RG works. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Le fabricant c'est moi. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
2. While the coloring leaves something to be desired, the overall content seems top-notch. Great amount of information, very detailed and easy to read. Nice work, if I may say so and definitely one of the better guides on the subject. However, I suggest removing the Cobra top, and moving the guide to mainspace.--Thadeous Oakley 16:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

   Precedence for guides as group sub-page. And even a featured guide at that. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

   It was just a suggestion sweetheart. If you don't want to, then it's fine. --Thadeous Oakley 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Yes Good Idea!!! - User:Krazymouse 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Yarp, tis a good comprehensive guide. I can't see a reason to say no. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
5. -MHSstaff 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Hail Cobra! This is something we can all get behind! Sage|Carr ^Cobra 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
7. I found it pretty well-done. 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Love it that you admit it's for the lulz, instead of being trenchcoats that decided to shoot survivors too. >_> So many just don't get it. </3 --EasilyDistracted 09:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Love it. Just love it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

With 9 votes for it and none against it, this guide will be featured. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Guide:Dealing with People

My guide. It would be greatly appreciated if input and comments were written as specifically as possible.

Support

1. Author Vote and Nominated (I didn't see any rules against it) --Jon Aiken _{RSZ !} 06:56, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Against

1. Plainly wrong in several regards (Zombie Spies), plainly oversimplifying in others (Death-Cultist section), and also omitting Zerg Hunters. Go to Developing Guides first and iron it out. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:21, 14 October 2010 (BST)

   Plainly wrong in what way? --Jon Aiken _{RSZ !} 15:12, 14 October 2010 (BST)

   Zombie Spies don't work the way that you think that they work. Many hordes don't allow usage of breather intel at all. And even among those with a very liberal stance on death-culting (such as FU), there are no full-time zombie spies who highlight foodzie barns with flares. Oh, and forget especially about death-cultists being spared by their horde. My FU cultist got eaten plenty of times by team mates. And when my team members don't do it, random ferals will do it. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:10, 14 October 2010 (BST)

2. Plainly one-sided - strategy guides are allowed this as they outline a play style for one side and have no reason to consider the other tactically. Overviews like this need to be all-encompassing or they're quite deficient, and frankly I find improper use of the "onoz griefing!" card to be insulting. 15:03, 14 October 2010 (BST)

   What do you mean "onoz griefing?" --Jon Aiken _{RSZ !} 15:12, 14 October 2010 (BST)

   Simply put, the use of the term griefing when it's clearly not the case. 'Griefing' is a deliberate attempt to ruin someone's enjoyment of a game, either for trolling purposes or to force them to quit. The only concrete uses of griefing in this game are targetted zrg nest (bad), text rapists (very bad), and zerg hunters (es muy bueno!). Ganking the odd generator is as valid a tactic as installing said generator in the first place. 15:19, 14 October 2010 (BST)

3. As Mis. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:08, 14 October 2010 (BST)

Abstain

With less than 50% Support, guide has failed to enter the guides page. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check the archive for older nominations