User:WikiBuilder1147/Sandbox2

Tim's Sandbox!

This is the sandbox for WikiBuilder1147. It serves as a testing page and/or development page for this user. Please do not edit this page unless you are given permission by the user. Thank you.

Looking for something?

If you're looking for something and it's not in this sandbox, I may have placed it in my archives or moved it to one of my other sandboxes.

The Fanon Peer Review Team, sometimes abbreviated to FPRT, is a group of users who regularly write fanon who have agreed to help other authors improve their fanon.

What is the Fanon Peer Review Team?

The Fanon Peer Review Team is a group of wiki editors having a particular interest in developing and improving the Fanon Namespace. It is a volunteer group, with requirements being that members have proficiency in the English language, actively participate in the Fanon Namespace, and have a general desire to improve it

What does the Team do?

While the Team is not limited to the following, members will mainly perform these roles:

• Fanon evaluation: Members, upon request, review and rate works of fanon by authors. They read and discuss a work and evaluate it, giving it a rating (details below). They help users improve their writing and, in so doing, work to improve the Fanon Namespace as a whole.
• Outreach and assistance: The Peer Review Team is the go-to group for new users who are having difficulties setting up or developing their fanon. They are able to help people improve their writing, clean up their pages and apply the relevant templates and categories.
• Features: The team assists in managing, promoting and improving Featured Fanon, Featured Fan fiction, and Fanon Battles.

Rating system

The Peer Review Team's rating system comprises of five different grading levels, as listed below along with a general description.

• 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.
• 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.