User blog comment:Silver-Haired Seireitou/RPCQ Exam Starts... Soon!/@comment-18812574-20140308050647

I didn't want to keep spamming your talk page, and I know the talk page on the exam article is reserved for assessments, so, here are my thoughts on the exam article page itself:

Just so you know, I re-read the entire exam page, and to revise my earlier statements, here are the specific areas I personally found to be problematic. (And these probably just need to be clarified, I think.)

 “it must meet the following criteria: Possess degree of power and scope of abilities meeting that of precisely or below that of a canon Fourth Seat officer in the Gotei 13.”

 Why can’t we create a character on a higher level of this? Or is this a typo, and did you mean “possess a degree of power at least at the level of a [canon] fourth seat.” Because, if I recall correctly, that’s what you were saying. “That it’s for any character with powers above fourth seat.” (Anything below would not need to be assessed, in other words.)

 “The character cannot possess a level of "Master" or above in any form of skill. While not outright a requirement, you should be sure to make the character have no greater than one or two areas of skills reaching "Expert" class.”

 These two rules here go with my first point on the power level. If someone did create a “captain level character” and submitted it, and if the character was a “master in kido,” they would be automatically disqualified. I see a problem with this. Why so inhibitory? Perhaps you should change it so that there is a two skill area limit on the “masters,” and don’t mention the “expert,” since that moniker has sort of lost its meaning now anyway. (Although perhaps a handy article should be put together that explains what each level means, unless there already is one, in which case maybe a link should be provided.)

 “Cannot be directly related to a canon or filler character whatsoever.”

 Uh… I don’t mean to be blunt here, but frankly: why? I am sick of seeing “Kuchiki number 27” as well, but fanon does sort of lend itself to create interesting fillers for familial gaps. I know that, personally, since my own fanon I’m working on is a “sequel,” there were going to be a lot of expanded relationships. This rule seems to be a contradiction of “fanon freedom,” in other words.

 “For Shinigami characters, they cannot possess Bankai. (but this also means you can't have a Human who gained a Zanpakuto and has Bankai, nor a Quincy who stole a Bankai. No Bankai.)”

 This is another why section. I’ve read a lot of your comments in other areas, and it seems that this is a personal preference of yours. Considering almost every major canon character has bankai and all. It doesn’t make much sense (going off the point I made on #1) and it would also, by association, exclude all Resurreccion, Vollstandig, and maybe even Fullbring. This is extremely limiting, in my view, and seems to be going a bit too far.

 More notes:

 1. 1.   Do we need to keep re-submitting an article every time we edit it? That would be extremely complicated and time-intensive.

 2. 2.   This is going to be implemented for EVERY BFF article, which is a HUGE project. Just saying, the scope seems a little… well, daunting to me. How do you plan to keep everything under tabs?

 3. 3.   I don’t personally agree with the idea of adding a gigantic appearance section. While one-dimensional characters should be avoided, it is the revelation of personality in the events of a story, and not a spiffy paragraph, that’s really going to define whether or not we hit that mark or not. I actually prefer articles whose personality sections are a bit more succinct. Just saying. Since it seems to be preference based, I don’t know if it should be used as a “rule.”

<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0level1lfo1">

<p class="MsoNormal"> Basically, from my first comment here, I’m just suggesting that you revise this a bit so that it’s clearer on what exactly really needs to be approved here. (Requirements for the pages that need to be approved and the conditions that allow an article to NOT be approved seem to blend together right now. And if that really is the case I might have been misinterpreting everything and you can ignore half of this.)

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:14.0pt;line-height:22.0pt;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:14.0pt;line-height:22.0pt;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">PS

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:14.0pt;line-height:22.0pt;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> “Until you receive the seal of completion,”

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.0pt;line-height:22.0pt;mso-pagination: none;tab-stops:11.0pt.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> “Have only the STANDARD property template” '''

'''

<p class="MsoNormal">On an aesthetic level, have you considered revising these two templates? I would find them incredibly distracting pasted at the top of every article on here. I actually had a really neat idea for a “seal of approval” template, (it would be less red though, ;) ) But of course, I’m not in charge here.