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:Managing Encumbrance

Thanks. ~ _{05:38, 26 March 2011}

Support

1. Formatting could use some tweaking- there are too many headers here, which makes the guide a bit intimidating. Other than that, I can find nothing wrong with it- it's thorough, clear and interesting. Great work, Vapor. --Penguinpyro 09:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Not bad. Would agree there may be too many headings - and the idea of 'Base 8, Base 10, etc' was confusing at first and could be made a little clearer. Yes there's a little work that could be done to it but these are small edits for what seems to be a good guide. --Neko 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Thorougly done. Smyg 18:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Nice. I like that you included the section on Zombies as well. Probably would have been overlooked by most.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 23:04 26 March 2011(UTC)
5. Had nearly forgotten to vote. So, yeah, another good example of what Developing Guides can accomplish in polishing a guide. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:50, 30 March 2011 (BST)

   I wish I had gotten a bit more feedback on Developing Guides actually. Most of the feedback I've received is either on the guide talk page while I was working on it and here on Guides/Review. I chalk it up to few people with DG on their watchlist. What's the policy of making changes to a guide while it is up on review by the way. I need to make some changes but obviously it could null some votes if I did so. See below and the talk page. I pretty much need to do an overhaul on the section headers. ~ _{14:33, 30 March 2011}

   Minor alterations based on G/R input have often been done (as here or here) and have never led to nullifying. And yeah, DG is sadly a bit underused. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:41, 30 March 2011 (BST)

   I've made adjustments. I suppose they could be considered minor. I didn't change any of the content, just the presentation. Hopefully makes it easier to read. ~ _{18:51, 30 March 2011}

Against

1. Against, for formatting and clarity. It's interesting, well researched, and while it makes some suggestions that I don't agree with (like advising survivors against carrying "just in case" items like a tool box) I mostly like the basic content. Many sections could be merged or substantially simplified, though, and that would make it a lot easier- and more pleasant- to read and understand. I'll leave some specific examples on the guide's talk page. --FT 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for providing such thorough input. I will be implementing some of your suggestions. ~ _{20:43, 26 March 2011}

Guides:Guide to Forming Groups Part 2

Cheers. --Penguinpyro 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Loving it. Smyg 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Against

1. The Recruits section is hopelessly smug, except for the "Badass" part, which is more kiss ass than anything. Yeah, call them all bad-asses, but in your mind categorize them as 11 different types of losers. Nice. Most of the Active Defense section is horrendously biased and just wrong on so many levels. Your idea of trenchies I find...interesting. These days I'm finding Trenchy and Survivor to be interchangeable terms. But congrats, I'm sure this one will go over big as well.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 09:20 23 March 2011(UTC)

   Thank you for your input, Mr. Zombie Lord.--Penguinpyro 23:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

   You're welcome. Here's some more input. For a Guide called "Guide to Forming Groups", it sure is short on any information pertaining to anything beyond the "Pro-Survivor" mindset. Maybe re-title: Guide to Forming Standard Generic Paramilitary Pro-Survivor Trenchy Groups. Just a thought.--

   

   | T | BALLS! | 08:56 26 March 2011(UTC)

   SWEET! I've always wanted to form a Standard Generic Paramilitary Pro-Survivor Trenchy Group! Maybe I'll start sprouting katanas from my ass! Awesome!!!!11111111oneoneone --Penguinpyro 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

2. A guide to starting a group is a good idea, but this needs some substantial rewrites. The "Recruits" section should be totally redone, or even scrapped- instead of breaking the player community up into stereotyped categories, and advising a prospective leader on how to treat the different types, it would be better to highlight typical behaviors and advise a prospective leaders on how to address them. But even then, it seems like it might be too large and complex a topic to be covered in a guide- it will ultimately come down to individual social skills, and learning the particular likes and dislikes of your group's members. For example, I tend to cycle between your 'obsessive' and 'ghost' types- and those cycles of my behavior are entirely independent of the demands placed on me by my group. If they throttle my activity when I'm being very active, to try to keep me from "burning out," I just go spend my play time elsewhere- and if the keep poking me when I'm not, it just makes me feel obligated, and while in the short term I do come and do a little more than I would otherwise, it prompts me to consider leaving the group so that they don't have expectations. The best way for a group to hold my interest is to just put up with my sporadic cycles without complaining, and voice appreciation for my participation when I am around.--FT 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

   You make some excellent points, FT. I definitely oversimplified there.--Penguinpyro 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I'm still debating this one... . It is a good followup to part 1, but something keeps bothering me about part 2. When I put a finger on it, I'll change my vote to yes, or offer a revision suggestion. Asheets 16:37, 28 March 2011 (BST)

Recent Nominations

Guides:Guide to Forming Groups

Here you go. --Penguinpyro 03:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. sup3r --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 10:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
2. I like it a lot. Most groups don't even think about half of this stuff. TibbarRm 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
3. It was a long, but informative read and pretty clear on all aspects. I approve of part one at least.       04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
4. I'd think about dropping the Part 1 from the title and just going with your favorite version of "General Guide for Forming Groups" or whatever personally. Long but useful. -MHSstaff 14:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   Would that be possible? Changing the name and all after I've put it up for review?--Penguinpyro 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   Personally, I doubt it matters. You could probably wait until after though. No one is going to give you grief (or should) for making the title something that you are happy with. -MHSstaff 20:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   Yeah for sure, I could do it anytime and fix the links, even during the vote. No one would notice the difference. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

5. As above. The length isn't too much of an issue 'cause it's usually the experienced players who start groups. -- †  talk ? f.u. 14:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   My thoughts were that if players don't have the patience to read at least the better parts, they certainly don't have the patience to make a decent group.--Penguinpyro 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   true, that. -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

6. like it Asheets 19:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Length wasn't an issue at all for me because it covered pretty much everything. Very good read. --Met Fan ^F 23:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
8. You've cleaned up the formatting very nicely. The content seems pretty good as well, so I'd say, "way to go!" ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 04:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
9. I like. I don't like all the swearing and such, but I'm never going to avoid that in anything ever. Now if only someone would write a Death-Cultist/Zombie Group Guide... as if... --Espemon333 02:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Very nice. Me like. Smyg 12:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

Obvious bandwagon is obvious - no one against, and 10 for it for the statisticians. Featured. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check the archive for older nominations