WHO are DECK ARTICLES written for?

[jjkkl]

I went 3-1 at states before dropping out, taking down 1 luxchomp, 1 something-gar, and 1 (pretty bad) Donphan Prime deck in the process with a joke deck. Should I write about that? Obviously not.

Do I still do it anyways? Of course.

The thing is there's no consistency in the deck formats, and there's too much left up to the subjectivity of the people who are supposedly filtering out the minor problems in the deck submissions section. A couple people thought that me mentioning 'this is a fun deck' was more important and more prescient to point out in my Winrar Starforce article than the fact that Core Flash hits powers and bodies, and now I can't change it without pissing somebody off since I'm not supposed to change it. WAT

If you have a more stringent guideline of things that have to be followed, not this incessant toe-stepping we're seeing, then we'll get better articles, period. 'But jjkkl', you may posit, in the most nonsensical and pretentious tone, 'don't we do that now? What if it doesn't work?'

It will work, and no, we haven't been doing it. I don't see the same consistency between something like this:

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140625 (don't overinflate your ego now)

compared to something like this:

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118689 (no offense, but seriously, what?)

You want to have articles that are worth something? Install a set of minimums - quantifiable, higher, quality-focused minimums (hint: having writers bold words and hyperlink images isn't a minimum, it's like asking an essayist to put note his sources and cite his works - it's just common sense) - and enforce them. None of this 'per article reviewer differs' garbage. You have a dedicated group to sit down, read it, and then mark it. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, and tell them that, and tell them why.

Heck, use a checklist if you have to, don't rely on 'gut' instincts, because that's exactly what I'm seeing right now. I'm not saying write only on supar srs dekkz or about asinine subjects about Champion Chad here won a billion battle roads and thus should be idolised, no - I'm saying if someone submits an article, then they need to follow the guidelines you put down, and if they don't, then you either tell them to re-submit it or you give them the door. None of the 'please put your name on here' stuff. No, you need to make them aggregate, like:

Name:
Date Submitted:
Date Published:
Relevant Format:
Writer's Metagame:

Stuff like that. Make them follow everything - the format, the information - to the dot. Do you seriously think if in a newspaper Betty Whatsherface wants to put gold borders and banners on her article, they'll let her? If someone has a good idea and wants to add something, sure. Note the word 'add', not change. Add. Making a rainbow title or adding in a billion pictures for techs isn't adding something - it's changing something, and for the worst. So set these standards, make it stringent, and enforce them for once.

Only then can the gym's articles move from being a singularity of mediocrity and into something quality.

 

[MrMeches]

jjkkl, nice comments.. however let me give some insight:

Any business has to keep something 'up front' to keep discussion going. If something sits stagnant over a long period of time.. people become disinterested and then it provides a possible 'insight' to the negligence of what could be inside.

I agree that sometimes articles can be passed through on novelty..... see poinko's Zubat CotD write up... but it also provides some entertainment value.

The PokeGym should not be considered the DECK Gym for Competitive Players only. The PokeGym is a site for EVERYONE in the Community to come too... Collectors, Players, Hobbyists, Parents to see what the Game is about. So some articles need to be entertainment for those Younger audiences and the language needs to encompass 5-75.

Just trying to give some insight from behind the curtain. Numerous articles are submitted, and some are marginal, some are outstanding, and some are lacking. However, keeping things flowing are necessary for any business.

I can understand that some are more prolific at writing, but does that mean we dismiss those members submissions that have a voice and need to be heard? To me, it is equivalent to Judging Juniors and Masters.... different philosophies for each age group and each article submitted. This is one of the reasons it was requested for people to include Age Group and also Deck Style: Fun, Competitive, Concept.

Please note that I included Concept as sometimes 'Hype' Decks, if well written, can provide some insight to possible cards!

Articles are about the entertainment value... and that is how they should be viewed in my opinion. Some do provide helping notes, some provide insightful ideas, some provide great Competitive strategies.. but ALL provide entertainment and discussion!

 

[Rogue Archetype]

Well R_A, as the former Editor.... let me focus on a specific line you used that I can't help but take offense too:

Then... you read it out of context.

There's no way you can be offended by that if you read what comes before and after it.

FOR THE REST OF YOU ....

O.K. People. You can't run in here and say "YOU ALL NEED TO JUST MAKE GUIDELINES AND STUFF!" and call yourself an intellectual. You haven't even scratched the surface of the issue with comments that allude to that.

The MINDSET of the writer is what's in question here.

Frankly, I question how many of these people who write the articles are concerned with actually providing insight and employ a willingness to truly give the reader a thorough understanding of how to use the deck.

I wasn't trying to really "go there," but it gets a little annoying when people derail the intentions of what I've posted with a "y'all need to do ya darn jobs then!" type of post. It's not about that. It's about the people approaching their writings with a willingness to do THEIR jobs!

In audio mastering, we have an old saying "Garbage in, Garbage out."
When someone submits poorly recorded music, we could only process it so much and make it not-as-bad. When someone submits a clean mix, then the possibilities were endless. We could expand the stereo range, balance a variety of frequences, warm up the overall sound, and even make the track hot without peaking out limits.

Anyway, if you get a slew of articles that use the same approach (because they've probably just copycated the others), then you can't REWRITE it. You simply choose the best of the evils and "send it to press."

In other words, you can only edit and suggest based on WHAT YOU"RE GIVEN!

If NOONE really cares to take the time to walk the reader through the deck's strategy and mechanics, then you take the article that, at least, has some good structure and is easy to read.

My question remains: WHO ARE THESE ARTICLES FOR?

What do websites (ANY of them) attempt to accomplish with front page deck articles?

When you look at a magazine cover, you see a headline that is "breaking news" about a person or a topic. You read further with an expectation of getting "the scoop" on the topic. That is, you READ FOR DETAILS THAT MAY BE ENLIGHTENING.

Specificity is a beautiful thing. A lack thereof, however, can be a waste of everyone's time.

Please go back and re-read my original post. I think I said what I intended to say up there.
There's no need for anybody to view it as "toe-stepping" or offensive. It's just an observation that I put up for discussion.

It is my hope that someone tries to take the "sit here and let me explain this deck to you so you can play it" approach.

BUT.. maybe it shouldn't have that approach at all! That's what I don't know. Maybe I have it twisted?

Hence, the discussion and the absence of accusation... :thumb:

 

[baby mario]

But RA, does it really matter WHY someone writes an article?

If someone produces a great article, giving experienced players great tips and beginners solid insights into what makes a good list, does it even matter if they wrote it for e-fame?

If someone writes with the very best intentions to help out younger/new players but ends up writing a shoddy article full of errors that shows a poor understanding of the metagame, then they may well be hurting the people they are trying to help.

THAT's why the Gym needs updated guidelines and minimum standards imo. It's the best way of making sure that beneficial articles get on the front page, regardless of the motives of the writers.

It's like with your music analogy. Isn't it better to TELL people to give you a clean mix, instead of just sitting there and hoping they work it out for themselves?

 

[Rogue Archetype]

Yep. I'm gonna get some sleep and think more betterer

Great point though BM

 

[Prime]

But RA, does it really matter WHY someone writes an article?

YES..... okay, for an actual response.

If someone produces a great article, giving experienced players great tips and beginners solid insights into what makes a good list, does it even matter if they wrote it for e-fame?

I think the logic here is that anyone writing an article for the 'e-fame' of it, won't bring those qualities to the article.

And that logic makes sense.

While we are on the topic of music, I'll use an analogy. When I think of a music artist that (in my opinion) is only doing it for the fame, I think of Kei$ha. I feel like her songs are just sloppy and she relies too heavily on auto-tuning to match a tone.

In her case, she may have some hits, but her hits will NEVER have as much impact or be as meaningful as a hit from an artist that is really giving it their all. You may argue that Kei$ha's song are making her money, that she (may be) earning awards, but that doesn't mean her songs are good. It just means people like it.

Just because people like some articles, doesn't mean the articles serve a purpose.

I think R_A hit it on the head again when he said:

Frankly, I question how many of these people who write the articles are concerned with actually providing insight and employ a willingness to truly give the reader a thorough understanding of how to use the deck.

I feel most writers assume a higher level of experience from their readers, thus, much like in the examples R_A gave in his opening post, they spend very little time explaining, 'the obvious' (uxie, bebe, other staples).

I'm not saying the majority of those on the 'Gym don't understand the articles, I'm just saying that many writers don't go to long lengths to make sure their articles are understandable to any level of player.

The 'l33t' writing for the 'l33t'.

If someone writes with the very best intentions to help out younger/new players but ends up writing a shoddy article full of errors that shows a poor understanding of the metagame, then they may well be hurting the people they are trying to help.

Shoddy article, regardless of intentions, is not going to be published.

But I do think you're looking it from only 2 shades. It's not either the deck article is great or it is shoddy, there are a ton of grays and plenty of different scenarios.

There's a very good chance that someone with the very best intentions is going to write a very good article. Usually, it's the people with those intentions that do the better job, because they are willing to spend the extra time. Guy over there that just wants the 'e-fame' for the article isn't going to spend as much time writing it. He just wants his name next to the article so he can gloat to his friends.

It's like with your music analogy. Isn't it better to TELL people to give you a clean mix, instead of just sitting there and hoping they work it out for themselves?

You can tell people whatever you want. They are still going to give you rough mixes, or shoddy articles. Piling on restrictions and guidelines are just going to turn people away from even starting down the process of creating something.

You go to the pool each summer. One year, you notice they've added a new Rules board on the fence near the pool. On the board, it says:

• No running
• No skipping
• No briskly walking
• No eating while in the pool
• No talking while in the pool
• No tossing around toys while in the pool
• No jeans allowed in the pool
• No non-swimming shorts allowed in the pool
• No plastic-coated swimming shorts allowed in the pool
• No red colored clothing allowed in the pool
• No loose shirts allowed in the pool

You wonder why they've added all these new restrictions, and the pool guard tells you:

"It's because we're trying to preserve the quality of swimming at our pool."

:/

 

[MrMeches]

Let me add as well, many articles are provided with Bones to work from. An editor can only provide so much before it becomes the editor's Article. Additionally, the creative process is difficult to grasp. That is why some use ghost writers.

The main suggestion I gave everyone was to have someone else read it and get opinions then submit the article. Most of the Great Articles in the past few years have been collaborative efforts. These Articles are 5 star articles and have been staples for many to reference.

Also, I have always directed writers to certain articles already there for direction. The problem I see is too many have come to the thought process of 'well, the reader should already know this' and not take the responsibility of 'the writer should explain themselves more clearly'. This very comment halted a lot of submissions from lack of response.

I will agree that many articles all around seem to be geared more towards let's throw it up quick mentality to be NEW instead of let's develop this a bit more.

Bottom line... you can only work with what is submitted... which for many sites is very little. It is unfortunate, but many feel that if they write articles, they will give away their secrets. I solicited many top tier players and asked for a skeleton list or even just a strategy article with no list, and in the year plus, I got 3.

It really does come back to the fact that many feel they are better than the game and not realize they are actually a PART of the game. You may be better at the end of the day with a winning record, but it was the testing and suggestions from your friends and competitors that got you to that point. This is something other people feel is why they do not HAVE to give back, because THEY did the work and why should "I" share my success. It is unfortunate, but it is reality. Trade secrets I can understand, but providing some solid general knowledge helps the game evolve!

 

[baby mario]

YES..... okay, for an actual response.



I think the logic here is that anyone writing an article for the 'e-fame' of it, won't bring those qualities to the article.

And that logic makes sense.

Not necessarily.

Someone who wants the e-fame is arguably FORCED to write at least decently. Not much cred in writing something that gets demoted to DH&S after being crucified on the front page is there?

It can be argued both ways.

While we are on the topic of music, I'll use an analogy. When I think of a music artist that (in my opinion) is only doing it for the fame, I think of Kei$ha. I feel like her songs are just sloppy and she relies too heavily on auto-tuning to match a tone.

In her case, she may have some hits, but her hits will NEVER have as much impact or be as meaningful as a hit from an artist that is really giving it their all. You may argue that Kei$ha's song are making her money, that she (may be) earning awards, but that doesn't mean her songs are good. It just means people like it.

Depends how you measure 'impact'. I'm not a fan of KeiSha, but isn't her impact on the world greater than some guy giving his all for music, producing stuff that no-one wants to hear?

Just because people like some articles, doesn't mean the articles serve a purpose.

They entertain and give enjoyment to the people who like them. That's a purpose, no?

I think R_A hit it on the head again when he said:

I feel most writers assume a higher level of experience from their readers, thus, much like in the examples R_A gave in his opening post, they spend very little time explaining, 'the obvious' (uxie, bebe, other staples).

I'm not saying the majority of those on the 'Gym don't understand the articles, I'm just saying that many writers don't go to long lengths to make sure their articles are understandable to any level of player.

The 'l33t' writing for the 'l33t'.

This is probably true. Would guidelines help with this?

Shoddy article, regardless of intentions, is not going to be published.

I won't give examples because I don't want to be mean, but imo, that is not true.

But I do think you're looking it from only 2 shades. It's not either the deck article is great or it is shoddy, there are a ton of grays and plenty of different scenarios.

I know, I was making the point that it is the outcome, not the intentions that matter.

You can tell people whatever you want. They are still going to give you rough mixes, or shoddy articles. Piling on restrictions and guidelines are just going to turn people away from even starting down the process of creating something.

You go to the pool each summer. One year, you notice they've added a new Rules board on the fence near the pool. On the board, it says:

• No running
• No skipping
• No briskly walking
• No eating while in the pool
• No talking while in the pool
• No tossing around toys while in the pool
• No jeans allowed in the pool
• No non-swimming shorts allowed in the pool
• No plastic-coated swimming shorts allowed in the pool
• No red colored clothing allowed in the pool
• No loose shirts allowed in the pool

You wonder why they've added all these new restrictions, and the pool guard tells you:

"It's because we're trying to preserve the quality of swimming at our pool."

:/

Honestly don't see the point here. Not talking about guidelines for superficial stuff like 'red-coloured clothing'. No-one is saying you should have guidelines that say 'no red text' are they? Do you really believe that you can't have submission guidelines without a bunch of picky, stupid restrictions?

Turn it around.

What's wrong with a swimming pool that has a notice saying 'no glass objects', 'no nudity', 'no fighting', 'no pissing in the pool' etc?

 

[Rogue Archetype]

Let me add as well, many articles are provided with Bones to work from. An editor can only provide so much before it becomes the editor's Article. Additionally, the creative process is difficult to grasp. That is why some use ghost writers.

The main suggestion I gave everyone was to have someone else read it and get opinions then submit the article. Most of the Great Articles in the past few years have been collaborative efforts. These Articles are 5 star articles and have been staples for many to reference.

Also, I have always directed writers to certain articles already there for direction. The problem I see is too many have come to the thought process of 'well, the reader should already know this' and not take the responsibility of 'the writer should explain themselves more clearly'. This very comment halted a lot of submissions from lack of response.

I will agree that many articles all around seem to be geared more towards let's throw it up quick mentality to be NEW instead of let's develop this a bit more.

Bottom line... you can only work with what is submitted... which for many sites is very little. It is unfortunate, but many feel that if they write articles, they will give away their secrets. I solicited many top tier players and asked for a skeleton list or even just a strategy article with no list, and in the year plus, I got 3.

It really does come back to the fact that many feel they are better than the game and not realize they are actually a PART of the game. You may be better at the end of the day with a winning record, but it was the testing and suggestions from your friends and competitors that got you to that point. This is something other people feel is why they do not HAVE to give back, because THEY did the work and why should "I" share my success. It is unfortunate, but it is reality. Trade secrets I can understand, but providing some solid general knowledge helps the game evolve!

Now... THAT'S insight.

This is what I was trying to say in my last post but just didn't haven't in me to articulate :redface:

Well said Danny. I hope your post is read by thousands to give perspective to anyone who wishes to write articles in the future.

 

[bullados]

I'll agree with Fish, and add a little bit from my short stint on the Front Page...

Article submissions didn't come in very often, maybe one or two a week. Unfortunately, the quality of the articles varied greatly, and almost no article was Front Page worthy on the first pass through. Some times, though, I would go a couple of months without having something go up front, so I'd have to take something that IMO wasn't quite up to standard and move it forward just to make sure that something up there gets updated.

I'd comment on almost every article that I got through, noting parts where the rules on the card interactions weren't quite right and correcting spelling and grammar as much as possible. I always suggested ways that the article could be improved. Not every author would listen. Not only that, but the back-end made it difficult-to-impossible to see with a glance which articles have been edited and when the edits happened.

The truly great articles that I posted had extremely patient authors with humility and were willing to let their articles get broken down, beat up, and rebuilt again so that they included the best information possible. I always cite the Torterra/Sceptile article as a kind of golden standard at least in part because of the lengthy and incredibly productive editing session that one went through.

I always tried to keep an eye out for the newer or younger player when editing an article. Where shorthand or colloquial language appeared (such as TecH), I asked the authors to define the terms in the article, even if it was just a short blurb. I liked long paragraphs, even though I know they're not particularly internet-friendly, because they gave a ton of information. I was always telling the authors to think of alternate support cards to the ones suggested in the deck and explain why those weren't needed. In the Torterra article listed above, there's a pretty extensive discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of each Torterra line card, and it's pretty well discussed why each of the cards was chosen.

The biggest thing, IMO, is that, in general, authors for this site don't like to be edited. They believe that their initial draft (or the first one that sees the Gym) is plenty sufficient for the purposes of this site. There were plenty of times where I'd comment on an article and the author simply wouldn't respond or change anything. Or where they'd change something and (strangely) make the entire article worse. I'll admit that, at times, my advice could have been a little obtuse or poorly worded. But there were plenty of times when stuff just didn't get changed, and good (but not great) articles ended up wasting away because of rulings mistakes or general shallowness of the article.

 

[Prime]

Depends how you measure 'impact'. I'm not a fan of KeiSha, but isn't her impact on the world greater than some guy giving his all for music, producing stuff that no-one wants to hear?

I'd argue this because of some famous people that became famous on sites like YouTube. Like the group, "Auto-Tune the News". I am 100% confident that they will make or am making a larger impact on the world than Kei$ha.

Again, why do you use the example of someone 'giving his all' but making something 'no-one wants'? You keep falling back to black or white. Regardless of the purpose of the content, if the content is poor, nobody will care. But those who really put their all into something [DEL]will[/DEL] should always make a bigger impact.

I won't give examples because I don't want to be mean, but imo, that is not true.

Again, shades of gray. Don't you think there were some articles that were never published? Perhaps the articles you think of as "shody" are better than some of the other articles that didn't 'see play'.

Honestly don't see the point here. Not talking about guidelines for superficial stuff like 'red-coloured clothing'. No-one is saying you should have guidelines that say 'no red text' are they? Do you really believe that you can't have submission guidelines without a bunch of picky, stupid restrictions?

Then do it. Come up with a rough draft of guidelines. You're making it sound like it's really easy. You've read enough of the articles, jot down some guidelines.

 

[nnaann]

Previous post.

I don't understand why any constructive criticism is taken with offence, and a 'well you do better' attitude. Everyone knows that a lot of articles aren't up to scratch, and that the whole process with them needs reviewing.

I agree with Baby Mario that the guidelines need reviewing, but it's not our job to make sure that the correct ones are in place. I don't think you realise how valuable the feedback is that you're getting from members here, stopping them from posting their opinions in the future isn't going to help.

 

[Benzo]

Keep in mind that personality is one thing that gives an article some feel of ownership to the words they type. Taking the time to type up an article, even if your not a pro will still be at the mercy of a critic.
It is one thing to type up an article about one's personal experiance on something, and another to type up an article for others to SEE what your saying without personality getting in the way.

People type how they speak, and type what they understand regardless of someone else interpretation.
Thats where an issue is when it comes to submitted articles.

Updated guidlines, a minimum level of proffesionalism in the typing/word requirment- maybe having a mod who does take the time to do some one/one to assist the person submitting the article to "clean it up".

Sure, have a rule that say's "no running" and your sure to find a person who says " I was speed walking"......

 

[Prime]

Updated guidlines, a minimum level of proffesionalism in the typing/word requirment- maybe having a mod who does take the time to do some one/one to assist the person submitting the article to "clean it up".

You know that's a big slap in the face of the previous mods who were article front page editors (like Bullados and Da'Fish).

These people DID do one-on-one's with the writers to try to improve the articles. They did a lot more than that, although none of it ever gets any attention or the praise it deserves. It's always 'needing work' and should always be done 'by someone else who can get the job done'.

That's why I always say, "do it yourself," because it never seems like enough for the members who don't have to do anything but click on a link and start reading.

:nonono:

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

Then... you read it out of context.

There's no way you can be offended by that if you read what comes before and after it.

You know, if you had said something offended me and then you said this back to me ... well I would just be more offended RA.

On your OT back when I wrote my Duskonir/Giscor FP bit three years ago (amazing that the deck is still mostly in format) I was asked to do major edits so many times that I almost gave up. Nearly all the edits were aimed at making it more friendly towards new players. It was super painful to explain everything in full detail ... so much so that it really killed my desire to write for the Gym for a long time.

I know that editing is different now. However I consider what happened to me to be a risk if you really start trying to make things new-player accessable. You will see fewer FP submissions.

My honest opinion is that things aren't bad now. I like the way FP stuff happens better today than I did 3 years ago.

 

[Benzo]

@prime: See how simple it is to critisize or misunderstand what someone says? Maybe having a different aproach in responding to my post with a question as to get a better clarification as too what I am saying.

To better clarify what I said: Maybe ("maybe" is a tricky word, which is easy for anyone to misunderstand it's use ) having a mod who works one/one with article submiters can make for better quality written articles. I should have also included a question after saying that, so I will add that in now: IS there a resource like that here on the 'gym for people to get this kind of help?

Taking it at face value on your statement of "none of it ever gets any attention or the praise it deserves"- Every day at work, does your boss thank and praise you for what you do? EVERY day?

Prolly not- ( unless your self employeed).

My statement was a suggestion, not a slap in the face, and, like when a person submits an article- it might not be some worthy of being printed on the cover of a major city newspaper, but it is a contribution from a member who ( for what ever the reason ) feels/wants to be a part of something. If people notice the level of quality deminishing on a site, they speak up. But those who speak up need to understand that the site is offering to many, and not focusing on the few.

 

[Jaeger]

The reason we don't get high quality articles is because there is no incentive for good players to write articles, I'm sorry but we all know its true. I am 38-5 with Luxchomp this season and I would like to think I have a pretty good grasp of the deck, how to play it, and the meta. So why I not writing an article? Because it would be a lot of time and effort when I don't gain anything by it. I know it sounds cold but I have spent alot of time and effort testing the deck all season, talking with other top players, and find a list I like. I don't feel like I should give away the fruits of all my hard work for free expecially when it will put me at a disadvantage. This is why you get a bunch of average players who are looking for Internet Fame writing articles.

For Example
Pokegym has an article from a guy who copied Con's Sablock deck (refused to give him credit) and than wrote a subpar article on it. But Con wasn't going to gain anything by writing an article so we settled.
SixP: has an article by a guy who read the report of the guy who got 2nd at the European Cup and than tried to decifer his list by pulling details from the report.
We all know their is a lot more examples I won't go on though.

 

[EeveeLover]

To better clarify what I said: Maybe ("maybe" is a tricky word, which is easy for anyone to misunderstand it's use ) having a mod who works one/one with article submiters can make for better quality written articles. I should have also included a question after saying that, so I will add that in now: IS there a resource like that here on the 'gym for people to get this kind of help?

Actually, every article that is submitted is reviewed by at least one Staff member, if not 2 or 3.

Articles that are submitted do not just get tossed to the FP without any review. Even if there are cases that seems to be what happened.

Bullados, Da' Fish, Lucario EX, Pokepop, myself, and others from long ago have always worked with the writer to get the best possible articles out on the FP.

While, at times, we have missed the mark, for the most part the articles have been well written and a good example of the wirters desire to put their deck out there for all to see.

Would we (the Gym) love to see more articles written by the World Champs, National Champs and other Top Tier players? Heck yes, we would, but as it was pointed out - there is nothing in it for them. We don't pay for articles, we also don't charge for the site. The income that comes in from the ads pay for the server and software. Nothing more.

I know this will ruffle some feathers, but if members aren't willing to contribute, they really don't have much right to complain about the end result.

 

[Jaeger]

I know this will ruffle some feathers, but if members aren't willing to contribute, they really don't have much right to complain about the end result.

I'll agree with to be honest, but on the same note if Pokegym isn't will to be more selective on the articles that go up than they shouldn't claim the front page articles are anything more than the deck help section with a few lines of text.

 

[bullados]

Jay, I don't know how it works now, but when I was working the Front Page, I liked to have the articles permeate for at least a week, if not two, with multiple rewrite sessions until I felt that they contained the most complete and correct information that they possibly could. Again, that Torterra article I referenced in my earlier post probably went through a month of rewrites and additions to become as fantastic of an article as it became.

That being said, sometimes stuff seeps through the cracks. I'm not perfect, nor would I guess is any other FPE that the Gym has ever had. I did let a couple of articles slip through that I wish I could have had back. My only excuse for those articles was that I had to juggle work, school, and my local leagues (amongst other things) as well as my FPE duties, and it can wear a little bit.

As far as Vandy's post, I completely own up to that. I was trying to create a Front Page section that was accessible to as many users as possible. I apologize if that made the editing process more painful than you felt it needed to be, but I believe that it was necessary to create a better article. Please make sure to stay in contact with whatever FPEs are handling your articles and converse with them regarding the edits they feel you should make. More often than not, if you explain yourself without becoming confrontational, they'll work with you in the editing process to create the article that you want to write.