STAR ARMY

A community for military sci-fi & space opera roleplaying

User Tools

Site Tools


guide:submission_review

Guide for Submission Reviewers

This guide consolidates the submission rules and old review guide (on the forums) into an easy checklist. The idea is to speed up and standardize the review process and to show submitters the exact issues their submission has.

General Guidelines

Identify the creation for what it is. Leave your preconceptions about person's previous submissions behind; try to view each submission independently. If you have an opinion or bias towards the person making the submission, the nation the submission is for, or that type of submission in general-keep it to yourself and off the technology forum.

Try to find something positive to say, provide encouragement. If the submission has flaws, they surely should be mentioned-but try to start off with something positive about the submission. It brings validity to the points you will make later. If there are flaws, and you point them out-try to encourage the person to go back to the drawing board-rather than leaving them feeling rejected. Don't be insulting, providing nonconstructive critique; it makes the person submitting the creation feel bad and takes away from the validity of your suggestions.

Identify any problems, if any, in a respectful manner. Give specifics, identify what areas of the submission require improvement, expansion or other type of edit. Don't point out flaws without offering some kind of suggestion of how the person can either fix the flaw, or rework the submission to make it fit more into the setting. If you're willing to critique something, be prepared to step up and help the creator of the submission.

As Wes has pointed out: “We are all in this together.” We are a community, and its up to us as members of this community to build it and each other up by turning the tech forum from a place to have something torn apart, to a place where we help each other build and create things for the setting we can improve the community as a whole.

Checklist

As a reviewer, you may post copy of this checklist in your review of the submission.

This review is for: (WRITE IN ANSWER) with URL (WRITE IN ANSWER)

The submitted article is/has…
[ ] A very high level of overall quality
[ ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[ ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)
[ ] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[ ] In the proper format/template
[ ] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[ ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[ ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[ ] No red and/or broken links
[ ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[ ] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not…
[ ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[ ] Obtusely redundant
[ ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[ ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[ ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[ ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[ ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[ ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[ ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[ ] Lacking Detail
[ ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has…
[ ] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[ ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[ ] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[ ] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.

To the submitter: Is this a refit or overhaul of a previous article? If yes, provide a link and a list of changes.

I intend to finish this review by: (WRITE IN DATE)

Code Version

The following is a code version of the above list with some modification to make it look better with all forum formating items included:

[size=125]This review is for: [/size][size=140][url= place submission URL here ] Place submission title here [/url][/size]

[b]The submitted article is/has…[/b]
[ ] A very high level of overall quality
[ ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[ ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[ ] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[ ] In the proper format/template
[ ] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[ ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[ ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[ ] No red and/or broken links
[ ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[ ] Reasonably neutral point of view

[b]The submitted article is/does not…[/b]
[ ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[ ] Obtusely redundant
[ ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[ ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[ ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[ ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[ ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[ ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[ ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[ ] Lacking Detail
[ ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

[b]The article has…[/b]
[ ] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[ ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[ ] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[ ] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.


[b][size=125][color=#00FF00]Summary[/color][/size][/b]
[b]Note here if any serious issues are present. These are the issues that will hold up approval.[/b]
[color=#FF0000]**[b] Short description of the issue.  If a longer explanation is needed, put it in Notes. [/b][/color]

[b]Status:[/b] [size=125] [color=#FF0000]Not Approved[/color] , [color=#FFFF00]Pending[/color] , or [color=#00FF00]Approved.[/color] [/size]

[b][size=125][color=#00FF00]Notes[/color][/size][/b]
This field is for any extra description needed for the issues stated above or (as the name suggests) and additional notes you wish to state in the record regarding the item. 

[b][size=140]I intend to finish this review by: (WRITE IN DATE) [/size][/b]

Color Guide

The following color codes are used in the above:

  • Red: #FF0000
  • Yellow: #FFFF00
  • Green: #00FF00

Updates

If during the course of forum discussion, the submitter clarifies additional details or makes changes to the function or other parts of the submission, the submitter must add those notes and edit those changes into the article.

Rule Compliance

Also, make sure the article complies with the following rules.

guide/submission_review.txt · Last modified: 2017/01/06 20:35 by Wes