| abstract
| - I don't really know if this should be policy or guidelines or what, I just started expanding the stub and realized it needed some kind of approval or something from others. Although it can really just be self maintained and doesn't have to be a policy. But I guess a vote or something is in order, if nothing else than to try and get feedback from people. Ralthor 20:01, 26 April 2006 (EDT) Peer review is an excellent method to get a core group of quality articles that have undergone serious editing. Although, I think for an MMO, an extra step above and beyond Wikipedia "peer review" might be nice for game mechanics; perhaps some form of "validated research" to prove certain mechanics work the way people think they do. Or does this exist in some form already...? -- TheMaster42 22:06, 5 May 2006 (EDT) Although I can't vote yes, for some reason...? -- TheMaster42 22:08, 5 May 2006 (EDT) LOL. I don't think this does need a vote. It really only needs publicity. What's a good page to publicise it, do you think? Anyways, to make it voteable, you have to type {{subst:Vote/Talk}} rather than just {{Vote/Talk}}. Go ahead and add that if you do feel that it does in fact need a vote. Other than that, is the {{oldpeerreview}} such a good idea? It doesn't make sense to me. Could you tell me what you had in mind for it? I mean, when you flag something with that, you get a purple banner that doesn't make any sense to a third party who neither asked for the review nor reviewed it. Schmidt 17:40, 18 May 2006 (EDT) I had two purposes for old peer review. One was to officially archive off the peer review so if there was a lively conversation it wouldn't have a talk page that was huge. (The tags would only go on the talk page so the article itself wouldn't have anything). It seemed like a cleaner way of doing that. The second reason was that I expected or hoped that the peer review would be part of some kind of official procedure to creating a featured article. So having it marked as having been peer reviewed would qualify it for whatever next step there was go becoming featured. I suppose it should also put the article into a category as well.--Ralthor 19:35, 18 May 2006 (EDT) Yeah, I see it now, I guess. While we're in the mode of peer review, I'd recommend changing the banner color to something other than purple, unless there's a specific reason you had for it. I can't think of a better color, however. And while I didn't look closely but you seemed to have hinted at it, a link to the peer review discussion would be good. But it sounds as if you already have it in there. I'm too lazy right now to check on that. Schmidt 20:07, 18 May 2006 (EDT) I'm color blind, so I either copied the template and color from something else or randomly chose it, either way there is no real reason for the color of banner. Feel free to change it to whatever you feel best suits it.--Ralthor 21:32, 19 May 2006 (EDT) Well don't I feel dumb right now. Alright, I will but I can't think of a particularly suitable color. Maybe someone else can. Schmidt 14:53, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)