Writer, Article: 0-99

  • Bitcoinalchemist, Have the ets sided with china: 70 (40, 10, 10, 10, 0) This piece was headed with a big label *fiction*, which I think was fortunate because the writing was so dry it was a little hard to tell. :) It's written like a newspaper article, and the subjects and their connections (various interlinking conspiracy theories) are treated very seriously. Interesting approach, though didn't grab my attention.
  • Bloodstone, My thoughts about the book blink by malcomb gladwell: 75 (30, 20, 10, 10, 5, 0) Kind of short, but interesting and with a couple of links for the reader to refer to the original work. No real wiki formatting.
  • Boelens, Book review the fault in our stars: 60 (30, 5, 10, 10, 5, 0) Very thorough synopsis, though the writing drags. A token effort at citation, but no specific details like publisher, publication year, etc, and no links. Some sound internal formatting, but no wiki formatting.
  • Eeharris, Reno court of inquiry day17: 88 (30, 28, 10, 10, 10, 0) Very interesting bit of obscure history that's cool to see digitized. Fantastic wiki formatting for the subject. A general question that I will send to other admins: Should transcriptions go under original or collated as far as earnings are concerned? Token deduction for references because they exist in the larger context of a multi-part work, but I think they should be repeated one each page.
  • Icoin, Devcoin android: 30 (20, 10, 0, 0, 0, 0) Potentially useful (I didn't test it so I can't say if it works). Hard to read because of lack of wiki formatting and poor standard formatting. There's also some texting shorthand like 'u' scattered throughout, and missing punctuation. Links are referenced (such as 'you can find this here') but with no actual links.
  • Max2838, How to prevent fear from destroying your company: 69 (30, 0, 10, 10, 10, 9) Short but well-organized and formatted. No links, even from the suggestion to buy the book. Appreciate the cover picture.
  • Metazilla, Metazillas lucid dream journal: 60 (30, 10, 5, 10, 5, 0) Interesting subject, but rambling presentation. One nice internal link, but all the other links went nowhere. Switches back and forth between tenses some. Token wiki formatting.
  • Netbin, Natural weight loss benefits: 69 (30, 0, 10, 10, 10, 9) Very thorough, great formatting, great pictures, no links and no references. In my opinion, those last two are essential for an article providing health and medicinal herb information.
  • Novacadian, Smf incoming email capability: 90 (30, 30, 10, 10, 10, 0)Thorough and well above my head, but the good organization and formatting makes it seem sound to me. Two solid links, not sure if more references would be useful. Pictures would also be useful for a tutorial. Thorough wiki formatting very helfpul for readability.
  • Python, Amanita muscaria: 0 Short on content for an article about using a hallucinogenic mushroom. Nice wiki formatting and organization, but there's no content to bear it up, so I'm giving the article overall a 0. The titles to a couple of related books mentioned, but *no links or other references.* Anything written about ingesting medicinal or recreational plants/mushrooms/whatever, I expect academic level references, including medical references. Article was not finished, and though there was a note about adding more, the last revision is from April 2013.
  • Surgreen, Journeys hopefully never forgotten - the fiend !: 90 (60, 10, 10, 10, 0)Very well written memoir style piece, with a very engaging voice. Reads well even without establishing context (which would still be nice), or if it's a part of a larger work.
  • Tayfun73, A tourist's guide to regional australia - part 4: 74 (20, 15, 10, 10, 10, 9) Covers a lot of ground and is well formatted, but each section has relatively little content and seems rather generic. The safety disclaimers at the end are a nice touch. Nice links in the disclaimer section, but I'd like to see more in the main body of the text.


I use the Devtome Default Writers Rating System for my ratings. There is a NEW rubric, which weights links and references much higher. Any questions, just leave me a message on my talk page.

For Non-Fiction:

   30 for the content, how interesting or useful the article is.
   30 for links and references
   10 for grammar and readability
   10 for spelling
   10 for formatting
   9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image

For fiction:

   60 for the content, how interesting or original the book is.
   10 for grammar and readability
   10 for spelling
   10 for formatting
   9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image

QR Code
QR Code rating_giftculturewriting_33 (generated for current page)