Forum:Fanon Peer Review Team proposal
So recently, I archived 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 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 I'm calling the "Fanon Development Project" (although this is a working title) we're calling the "Fanon Peer Review Team"
Fanon Peer Review Team[edit source]
What is the Fanon Peer Review Team?[edit source]
The Fanon Peer Review 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 team.
What will the team do?[edit source]
I envision the team to fulfill multiple “helper” roles on the FN, while not assuming an authoritative position. Its roles would be, among others:
- Fanon evaluation: They would, upon request, review and rate works of fanon by authors. 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: 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: 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 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[edit source]
As a whole, I don't know how this group would be structured. Speaking specifically to the evaluation portion of this, I think it would be simply a matter of creating a new template to categorize fanon pages that await rating, and then once rated, have the template edited to give the rating and re-categorize it. We might stipulate that the template, once a rating is issued, be relocated to the bottom of the page as a courtesy, just in case the author does not favor the rating. Aside from this, I don't really have any specific ideas. I figure, if the idea is popular and it takes off, that the members of that group will be able to decide how to function. I would hope that the project would be a relatively informal thing, without a leadership hierarchy or unnecessary rules. After all, it's meant to be a volunteer group and not a fanon government.
In any case, that's my idea. I do really need to stress that in order for this to take off, we'd need several users who are engaged in the FN to participate. The idea of the group is to allow the well-known fanon contributors to help the up-and-coming users, to encourage higher-quality contributions, and ultimately improve fanon as a whole.
- LostInRiverview talk • blog • contribs 11:57, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
Discussion[edit source]
I reckon that this is a great idea! It'll really help us to improve the content of the Fanon namespace. Perhaps 'Fanon Peer Review Team' could be a nicer name for this group. I'm all for it! ―The Tim Man (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place) 13:07, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm cool with it. This idea also gave me an idea to have an "Article Review Team" that pretty much does the same thing (giving articles a score, helping them reach featured article status, etc.), but does it on mainspace articles instead of fanon. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 13:25, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
I have an idea for how the grading system could work. We shouldn't use A's, B's, C's, etc., because that could be discouraging for authors should their fanon receive a 'low' grade for whatever reason. Instead, we could use a word or phrase to describe the grade.
- Outstanding
- Excellent
- Good
- Satisfactory
- Some improvement recommended
- Improvement recommended
―The Tim Man (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place) 13:46, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
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. ~ Beds (talk - blog) 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 s**t. I am of the opinion that listing cons/pros/constructive criticism a better approach. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (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. - LostInRiverview talk • blog • contribs 19:44, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
Support Why not? it seems like a pretty good idea. A support from Joe :D, and yes, Tim's idea of grading is awsome!. Imasexysimlover (talk) 14:11, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
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. -- 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. - LostInRiverview talk • blog • contribs 14:49, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 15:13, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
SupportIn memespeak... Shut up and start this thing now MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (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. - LostInRiverview talk • blog • contribs 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. ―ฬђ talk 23:21, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
Test metabox for rating:
―The Tim Man (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place) 23:29, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
- Purely for style reasons, I was thinking of using an orange metabox instead of a blue one. Observe:
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 {{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 {{fanon-cleanup}} or in severe cases, {{Fanon-delete}} tags.
- LostInRiverview talk • blog • contribs 23:48, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
- 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. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 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 k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 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:
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:
{{FPRT
|rating = <rating here>
|reason = <reason/rationale here>
|reviewer = ~~~~
}}
- Example
An article has been determined to be of satisfactory quality. I would input the following into the {{FPRT}} template:
{{FPRT
|rating = satisfactory
|reason = Most concepts are covered in detail, although there are a few grammar issues.
|reviewer = ~~~~
}}
Result:
this article is of satisfactory quality. Most concepts are covered in detail, although there are a few grammar issues. Should they need any assistance, the author(s) may contact any member of the Team.
The article would also be given a category based on what rating it received. Thoughts? ―The Tim Man (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place) 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. - LostInRiverview talk • blog • contribs 19:03, 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. ―The Tim Man (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Contribs) 22:45, April 24, 2015 (UTC)
I created a template that I feel would work better. It's called {{Peer review}}. Let me demonstrate
FPRT members: Please read over this article and discuss it with other members of the team before issuing a rating. Please be sure to include written justifications for the rating you give it. When issuing a rating, change this template to:
{{Peer review|<rating>|<reasons for rating>|<your signature>}}.
This displays the standard "requesting review" message. Once an FPRT member responds, they complete the template with: {{Peer review|<rating>|<reason for rating>|<signature>}}
See below:
Reasons for rating: Article flows well and has an interesting concept. Has some minor grammatical issues.
- Support - I agree that this template looks better. ―The Tim Man (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Contribs) 23:44, April 24, 2015 (UTC)
Also, I've created the page for the Fanon Peer Review Team! - LostInRiverview talk • blog • contribs 23:45, April 24, 2015 (UTC)
Conclusion[edit source]
The FPRT has been created. Any further issues regarding it can be discussed on the FPRT talk page, or in a new community discussion thread. -- LostInRiverview talk • blog • contribs 20:26, April 30, 2015 (UTC)