Forum:Fanon Peer Review Team proposal: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Fanon Peer Review Team proposal (edit)

Revision as of 20:26, 30 April 2015

15,813 bytes added , 9 years ago

no edit summary

VisualWikitext

Anonymous user

imported>LostInRiverview

Revision as of 14:12, 23 April 2015 (edit) imported>Imasexysimlover (→‎Discussion) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 20:26, 30 April 2015 (edit) (undo) imported>LostInRiverview No edit summary
(26 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: {{Forumheader\|Community discussions\|archive}} {{Closed\|resolved\|The [[The Sims Wiki:Fanon Peer Review Team\|Fanon Peer Review Team]] was created. '''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 20:26, April 30, 2015 (UTC)}} So recently, I archived [[Forum:Fanon quality discussion\|a discussion about fanon quality]], as it hadn't been commented on in about two months. It's unfortunate, especially since many valid points were raised, and no solution was ever really agreed to. Add to this [[Forum:Featured Content voting issue\|our ongoing discussion of low participation in Fanon Battles and other featured content]], and the demise of Featured Fanon and Featured Fanfic. Taking all this together, it occurred to me that there might be a way to solve — or at least work towards solving — all of these issues. So I have come up with a tentative idea, that<s> I'm calling the "Fanon Development Project" (although this is a working title)</s> we're calling the "Fanon Peer Review Team" ==Fanon ~~Devleopment~~Peer ~~Project~~Review Team== ===What is the Fanon ~~Development~~Peer ~~Project~~Review Team?=== The Fanon ~~Development~~Peer ~~Project~~Review ~~(or '''FDP''' for us cool kids)~~Team would be a group of wiki editors that have a particular interest in developing and improving the Fanon Namespace ('''FN''', for us folks too lazy to type out both words). It would be a volunteer group, with the only requirements for joining being participation in the FN and a desire to improve it. The project itself would be a place for said editors to discuss how to improve the FN, to coordinate their efforts, and to advance the goals and purpose of the ~~FDP~~team. ===What will the ~~FDP~~team do?=== I envision the ~~FDP~~team to fulfill multiple “helper” roles on the FN, while not assuming an authoritative position. Its roles would be, among others: '''Fanon evaluation''': ~~The FDP~~They would, upon request, review and rate works of fanon by authors. ~~The FDP~~They would read and discuss a work and evaluate it, perhaps giving it a score. They would help users improve their writing and, in so doing, work to improve the FN as a whole. '''Outreach and assistance''': ~~The FDP~~They would be the go-to group for new users who are having difficulties setting up or developing their fanon. They would be able to help people improve their writing, clean up their pages and apply the relevant templates and categories. '''Features''': ~~The FDP~~They would assist in managing, promoting and improving Featured Fanon, Featured Fan fiction, and Fanon Battles. We could re-tool Featured Fanon and/or Fan Fiction to use the ~~FDP’s~~team’s fanon evaluations as a metric for nominating or selecting fanon. Additionally, having users nominate their works for evaluation might also be a good way to determine whether those users would be open to having their content participate in Fanon Battles. ===Remaining questions=== Line 38 ⟶ 39: Overall, this seems like a really good idea. It would be a great project for users who participate in the fanon section of the wiki to get to know each other, and it would really bring a new spark of life to the wiki. I like Tim's idea of grading each fanon with a word, instead of a letter. I'm looking forward to seeing what other users have to say about this. ~ [[User:Beds\|<font color="#8A2BE2">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds\|<font color="#66CDAA">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds\|<font color="#66CDAA">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 14:05, April 23, 2015 (UTC) :Regarding the grade system, I venture to say that in effect is no different than the A, B, C and st. I am of the opinion that listing cons/pros/constructive criticism a better approach. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou\|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 19:21, April 23, 2015 (UTC) ::If we do go with a structured grading scale, be it the one outlined or an A, B, C etc scale, there would need to be a guideline for what constitutes each grade. But I do see the point; assigning a simple grade without a detailed rundown of pros and cons might not really serve a purpose. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 19:44, April 23, 2015 (UTC) {{Done\|Support}} Why not? it seems like a pretty good idea. A support from Joe :D, and yes, Tim's idea of grading is awsome!. [[User:Imasexysimlover\| <span style="color:#91b60b; font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow: Silver 0 4px 4px;"> '''Imasexysimlover''' </span>]] [[User_talk:Imasexysimlover\|<span style="color:#91b60b; text-shadow: Silver 0 4px 4px; font-size:11px">''(talk)''</span>]] 14:11, April 23, 2015 (UTC) {{Done\|Support}} That is something I would be willing to participate in. I already try to do ''Outreach and Assistance'' as it were when I notice something, and I would love to see the Fanon Namespace become an active place. -- [[User:Icemandeaf\|Icemandeaf]] ([[User talk:Icemandeaf\|talk]]) 14:29, April 23, 2015 (UTC) It looks like there's already a few volunteers. What does everyone think of the name "Fanon Peer Review Team?" I for one think the name is good, as are the grades that Tim has come up with. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 14:49, April 23, 2015 (UTC) :Agreed. -- [[User:Icemandeaf\|Icemandeaf]] ([[User talk:Icemandeaf\|talk]]) 15:13, April 23, 2015 (UTC) ::Per Icemandeaf. ~ [[User:Beds\|<font color="#8A2BE2">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds\|<font color="#66CDAA">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds\|<font color="#66CDAA">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 16:13, April 23, 2015 (UTC) {{Done\|Support}}In memespeak... Shut up and start this thing now [[User:Mathetesalexandrou\|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 17:39, April 23, 2015 (UTC) Okay, I renamed this page and revised the proposal above to reflect the agreed-upon name. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 19:02, April 23, 2015 (UTC) :I'm glad to see that discussion didn't go entirely to waste. I'm fine with this idea and I'd be happy to help out. {{WHsig\|23:21, April 23, 2015 (UTC)}} Test metabox for rating: {{Metabox \|type = style \|image = Skill_TS4_Writing.png \|size = 20px \|headline = FPRT Reviewed \|text = This fanon article has been reviewed by the [[TSW:FPRT\|Fanon Peer Review Team]] and it has been determined that '''improvement is recommended'''. There are several issues with grammar, spelling, structure, layout and/or appearance, that significantly detract from the quality and enjoyability of the work. The concepts may also not be well developed. The work may generally not be engaging. The author(s) are encouraged to seek further details and/or guidance from the reviewer. <small>Rating given by ―'''[[User:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="green">The</font>]] [[Message Wall:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="blue">Tim</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="lime">Man</font>]]''' <sup>([http://historyfiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Infinite Histories] • [http://galactic-crucibles.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Galactic Crucibles] • [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 The Sims Wiki] • [http://hallows-maleficent.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Hallows Maleficent] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="#006400">Why I'm here in the first place</font>]])'''</sup> 23:29, April 23, 2015 (UTC)</small> \|nocat = }} ―'''[[User:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="green">The</font>]] [[Message Wall:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="blue">Tim</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="lime">Man</font>]]''' <sup>([http://historyfiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Infinite Histories] • [http://galactic-crucibles.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Galactic Crucibles] • [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 The Sims Wiki] • [http://hallows-maleficent.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Hallows Maleficent] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="#006400">Why I'm here in the first place</font>]])'''</sup> 23:29, April 23, 2015 (UTC) :Purely for style reasons, I was thinking of using an orange metabox instead of a blue one. Observe: {{Metabox\|type=style\|image=Skill_TS4_Writing.png\|headline=Request for Peer Review\|text=The author of this fanon article is requesting a Peer Review by the Fanon Peer Review Team. If you are a member of the Peer Review Team, please read over this article and consult with other members of the team to issue a rating.}} Also, on the subject of the categories... Mathetesalexandrou above mentioned that he thinks the ratings ought to be based more on giving pros and cons versus a "grade." I can't really say which approach would be better, but if we do stick to the grading scale, the different grades might need to be adjusted. I'm thinking something like: '''Excellent''' - No grammar or structure issues. Highly detailed and fully fleshed-out concept. Interesting and engaging to read. '''Good''' - Few to no grammar or structure issues, and any issues are minor. Gives significant detail about most concepts. Is interesting and engaging. '''Satisfactory''' - Some grammar or structure issues, though no severe problems. Most concepts are covered in some detail, but some concepts could use further development. Is a good base upon which to develop. '''Improvement recommended''' - Several issues with grammar, spelling, structure, layout and appearance, that significantly detract from the quality and enjoyability of the work. Concepts are not well developed. Work is generally not engaging. This rating may be accompanied by {{t\|Fanon-cleanup}} tags. '''Improvement required''' - Significant problems with grammar, spelling, structure, layout and appearance, to the point where the content itself is difficult or impossible to read or enjoy. Very little detail and concepts are undeveloped. This rating may be accompanied by {{t\|fanon-cleanup}} or in severe cases, {{t\|Fanon-delete}} tags. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 23:48, April 23, 2015 (UTC) :{{Done\|Support}} Don't see any reason to oppose this. I personally do feel that we are in need of finding a way to improve our fanon content. I haven't really got anything else to add to the discussion for the present time. -- '''[[User:C.Syde65\|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65\|<font color="black">talk</font>]] \| [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65\|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 06:19, April 24, 2015 (UTC) ::I suggest we use both a grading system and a reasoning. For example: '''Needs improvement:''' Lacking structure and content; not sure what the page is about. --I am [[User:K6ka\|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka\|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka\|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 13:04, April 24, 2015 (UTC) I've gone ahead and created the template. I'll provide a little run-through about how it works: {{FPRT}} This is the template in its default format. This is what authors would insert into their pages should they wish to have their pages reviewed. Once we have decided what rating to give to the article, we simply input the following: <pre> {{FPRT \|rating = <rating here> \|reason = <reason/rationale here> \|reviewer = ~~~~ }} </pre> ;Example An article has been determined to be of satisfactory quality. I would input the following into the {{t\|FPRT}} template: <pre> {{FPRT \|rating = satisfactory \|reason = Most concepts are covered in detail, although there are a few grammar issues. \|reviewer = ~~~~ }} </pre> Result: {{FPRT \|rating = satisfactory \|reason = Most concepts are covered in detail, although there are a few grammar issues. \|reviewer = ―'''[[User:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="green">The</font>]] [[Message Wall:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="blue">Tim</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="lime">Man</font>]]''' <sup>([http://historyfiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Infinite Histories] • [http://galactic-crucibles.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Galactic Crucibles] • [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 The Sims Wiki] • [http://hallows-maleficent.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Hallows Maleficent] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="#006400">Why I'm here in the first place</font>]])'''</sup> 14:28, April 24, 2015 (UTC) }} The article would also be given a category based on what rating it received. Thoughts? ―'''[[User:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="green">The</font>]] [[Message Wall:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="blue">Tim</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="lime">Man</font>]]''' <sup>([http://historyfiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Infinite Histories] • [http://galactic-crucibles.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Galactic Crucibles] • [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 The Sims Wiki] • [http://hallows-maleficent.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Hallows Maleficent] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="#006400">Why I'm here in the first place</font>]])'''</sup> 14:28, April 24, 2015 (UTC) :{{Not done}} Regarding the template: on the whole, I don't like it. I think the boilerplate text of the "after review" version of the template should be relatively short. The grade descriptions I gave above should be considered as a rubric when setting the rating, but not all elements will apply in all cases. For example, an article may be rated at "satisfactory" simply because it is grammatically incorrect, even if other elements of the article are up to "good" or "excellent" standard. Additionally, I don't know if I favor use of the FPRT acronym; it's something that isn't likely to be well-understood by newcomers. :It's good work, but I think it should go in a different direction. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 19:03, April 24, 2015 (UTC) ::{{Neutral}}'''Comment''': Does it really have to be abbreviated? It's not something I sort of fancy. And as LiR already stated, some newcomers could find it confusing. ~ [[User:Beds\|<font color="purple">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds\|<font color="#66CDAA">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds\|<font color="#66CDAA">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 22:04, April 24, 2015 (UTC) :::In addition to what Beds has said, I also find the template too long, and thus I find it too big. -- '''[[User:C.Syde65\|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65\|<font color="black">talk</font>]] \| [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65\|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 22:29, April 24, 2015 (UTC) I have revised the template according to the feedback. I have added a 'reason' parameter which will allow the reviewer to specify the reason for the rating. Please see the run-through for revised instructions. ―'''[[User:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="green">The</font>]] [[Message Wall:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="blue">Tim</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="lime">Man</font>]]''' <sup>([http://historyfiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Infinite Histories] • [http://galactic-crucibles.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Galactic Crucibles] • [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 The Sims Wiki] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="#006400">Contribs</font>]])'''</sup> 22:45, April 24, 2015 (UTC) I created a template that I feel would work better. It's called {{t\|Peer review}}. Let me demonstrate {{Peer review}} This displays the standard "requesting review" message. Once an FPRT member responds, they complete the template with: {{t\|Peer review\|rating\|reason for rating\|signature}} See below: {{Peer review\|Good\|Article flows well and has an interesting concept. Has some minor grammatical issues.\|'''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 23:39, April 24, 2015 (UTC)}} :{{Done\|Support}} - I agree that this template looks better. ―'''[[User:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="green">The</font>]] [[Message Wall:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="blue">Tim</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="lime">Man</font>]]''' <sup>([http://historyfiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Infinite Histories] • [http://galactic-crucibles.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 Galactic Crucibles] • [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User:WikiBuilder1147 The Sims Wiki] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147\|<font color="#006400">Contribs</font>]])'''</sup> 23:44, April 24, 2015 (UTC) Also, I've created the page for the [[The Sims Wiki:Fanon Peer Review Team\|Fanon Peer Review Team]]! - '''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 23:45, April 24, 2015 (UTC) ==Conclusion== The FPRT has been created. Any further issues regarding it can be discussed on the [[The Sims Wiki talk:Fanon Peer Review Team\|FPRT talk page]], or in a new community discussion thread. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview\|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview\|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 20:26, April 30, 2015 (UTC)