115:
Primarily, we have fellow editors that are interested in video games, whereas FAC is filled with an unlimited swath of topics, with editors who may not want to slog through another "confusing" video game article. FAC is a page that is constantly in flux, with articles that languish for too long getting archived and kicked off the page. We had a little burst of three candidate articles booted in the same day in
January, with all of them in various states of completeness. Also, if we start to make it clear that articles our project sends are already in great shape, people will be more willing to take the last step and review them.
135:
percentage of those can revitalize our A-class reviews. We should also work to boost our presence in the FAC process, with anyone who submits an article at FAC attempting to review at least one non-video game article as a way to generate good will from the regulars there. I think when we give each other lots of reviews, our opinions are marginalized. If we do all the internal expert work in our own project, we can leave the final step to those outside the project.
131:. Here we can assemble a list of all the gamer terminology we all take for granted, and work on brief, standardized descriptions for each term. The result will be a go-to list we can check against to ensure we're making ourselves clear to non-gamers in our articles. This would be a bigger and longer-term project that just beefing up the A-class review, and so I'm open to discussion on how to put the idea together to make it the most effective resource possible.
100:
for that article. It has an oppose commenting that it needs a major rewrite to improve the prose. One of the specific items listed for improvement reads "Here the logic is wrong, 'The lack of save points and the general difficulty of the battles were included with the intention of adding a sense of
57:
before being put up for an A-class assessment. The overwhelming consensus was that no, articles could be nominated for A-class independent of their
Knowledge (XXG)-wide status. With that issue settled, we can now turn our attention to another matter: should we even bother with A-class assessments?
61:
Our project currently has 43 A-class articles. Of those, eight were promoted in 2012. Before that, there was a two year drought with essentially no promotions. So the process was more or less dead for the project until last year. But just because we're doing assessments again doesn't mean we're
123:
subpage. Our goal with this new review system should be to get articles to a point that they're FAs in everything but name by the time they've run the gamut. With a strong in-house A-class review process, we would have no time limits, and could go over articles as long as we need to before giving
134:
I believe that with these two new endeavors, we can become a highly respected WikiProject, and boost our reputation for quality work. We already have a couple dozen or so active and strong content creators. I'm not going to name names, but you know who you are. I'm confident that a sizeable
114:
does for their A-class process. Articles that succeed there are viewed as basically FAs without the star yet. We need to put our articles through the wringer here at home, so to speak, so that we can develop a reputation for sending superb articles to FAC. There are a number of advantages.
124:
them the promotion, which would hopefully mean they can breeze through FAC. Our biggest goal in A-class should be to work on article prose quality, and constantly call each other out on using unexplained gamer lingo. This is a common weakness in many of our articles.
66:
in late 2012 and early 2013, and I discovered that video game articles don't get a lot of respect from the FAC regulars, who often say that we're too deeply embedded in our subculture's lingo to be able to write articles the average person can comprehend.
101:
tension.' Absent concepts such as "save points" (whatever these may be) cannot be included." That problematic sentence is still in the article, two years later. I don't mean to single anyone out, as the one A-class review I did for
118:
To this end, I think we should duplicate the MILHIST A-class review process in our own project. This would create an A-class review page for each article, much like the GA and FA subpages, that would be transcluded to the
120:
97:
25:
50:
21:
102:
92:, where it was not promoted. The latter is more like the type of A-class review we should be doing now. Directly below its assessment is a
17:
107:
was pretty brief as well, and clearly insufficient, as that poor article failed FAC five times before finally passing in mid-March.
128:
71:
111:
110:
My point is, we need to work on creating a more robust A-class review system, like the amazing work
93:
83:
63:
127:
Because of this, my second new idea for the project is to create another reference page,
54:
77:
42:
62:
doing them as well as we could or should. I participated in quite a few video game
88:
70:
Compare the A-class reviews from 2012, for articles such as
53:to determine whether or not an article should be a
121:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/A-class review
8:
104:Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Video games
7:
32:
35:Feature: A-class: Is It Worth It?
49:Around the new year, there was
94:"rubber stamp" style promotion
1:
129:WikiProject Video games/Lingo
149:
84:this A-class review
96:from 2012. Check
45:
140:
73:And Yet It Moves
40:
148:
147:
143:
142:
141:
139:
138:
137:
37:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
146:
144:
86:from 2010 for
36:
33:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
145:
136:
132:
130:
125:
122:
116:
113:
108:
106:
105:
99:
98:the third FAC
95:
91:
90:
85:
81:
80:
75:
74:
68:
65:
59:
56:
52:
47:
46:
44:
41:Submitted by
34:
27:
23:
19:
133:
126:
117:
109:
103:
89:Dragon Quest
87:
78:
72:
69:
60:
55:good article
48:
39:
38:
112:WP:MILHIST
22:Newsletter
79:Dr. Mario
43:Torchiest
26:20130403
24: |
20: |
51:an RfC
16:<
76:and
64:FACs
82:to
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.