User talk:Resident Mario

Re: "Few contributors"

I also personally disagree with the multiple editors clause, but I think it's there for a reason — namely, to prevent unreviewed articles which might have regional terminology, a overly first-personal writing style, etc. I would personally like it better if a single list was used for everything, as such:

• Complete and comprehensive (Six points)
  • Three points for having enough content that the average player would be able to reproduce the page's instructions or do what was described
  • Three points for not leaving out any important points
• Wiki style (Four points)
  • Required templates (max two points)
    • {{av}} template included (0.5 points)
    • All key-presses encoded with {{k}} (0.5 points)
    • All temperatures (reasonably) encoded with {{ct}} (0.5 points)
    • 0.5 points if all of the following:
      • For creatures, stones, metals, etc., a {{gamedata}} template
      • For bugged pages, a {{buggy}} template
      • Appropriate {{minorspoilers}}, etc., templates
  • Naming (max one point)
    • All headings (incl. main) follow Rule N (0.5 points)
    • All terms follow Rule G (0.5 points)
  • Rules (max one point)
    • Class A violation (automatic 0 points): Rule R, Rule T, Rule Y
    • Class B violation (deduct 0.5 points per violation until 0): Rule I, Rule W
• Prose style (Three points)
  • One point for no spelling errors or mistakes (allow for some regional variation within Rule G)
  • One point for a bit of grammar errors or mistakes (allow for some regional variation, allow some humour)
  • One point for appropriate punctuation (no doubles, not comma-heavy, etc.)
• Accuracy (Three points)
  • Two points for no incorrect information, one point for a bit of incorrect information
  • One point for no unverified or suspect information, 0.5 points for a bit of unverified or suspect information
• Aesthetics (Three points)
  • A point given if the page is decent
  • Another point given if the page is amazing
  • Last point given if the page has at least one related picture or image
• Significance (Two points)
  • One point for the page having 5+ links from other content pages
  • Another point for the page having recognition on another Dwarf Fortress related forum, blog, etc. (i.e., not just made up)
• Links (Two points)
  • A point given for a complete lack of red links
  • Another point given for an appropriate number of links, especially to important related topics
• Categorization (One point)
  • No points if the page has no content-related categories
  • Otherwise:
    • 0.5 points given if the page has no inappropriate categories
    • 0.5 points given if the page has most or all appropriate categories

And the rating scale simply based on that:

• Tattered: p < 5
• Fine: 5 ≤ p < 17
• Exceptional: 17 ≤ p < 23
• Masterwork: 23 ≤ p

This covers the unreviewed with prose style. --Dree12 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You certainly thought this through! I don't think I could ever hold myself to something so meticulous. Resident Mario 03:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Relationship

What's wrong with the {{av}}? I see no problem at the moment. --Dree12 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Rating script

I've been working on a replacement rating script (which is still under development, but I'm looking for some feedback to make it more wiki-ready). I thought you might be interested in testing it, since you've been rating a few articles recently. You can enable it if you're interested by importing User:Lethosor/rater.js (see this page for instructions). I'm open to suggestions, so let me know what you think! --Lethosor (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, thanks for expanding a lot of articles recently, especially the beekeeping and thoughts pages. Nice work! --Lethosor (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)