Board Thread:Administration/@comment-4832646-20140401205802/@comment-5643552-20140422213617

Alright. This is a good start, but it still has a lot of issues. I'm not seeing much improvement from the first draft and the "updated" version. Here's a rundown of what I feel should be fixed/improved in the final draft:
 * There is no lead section.
 * This reads too much like a ruleset and not enough like a set of general guidelines. We need to make it clear that the things listed on the QS page only apply if they actually detract from the story. What makes a story can break another, so to speak.
 * The whole way this is laid out kind of irks me, to be honest. First of all, you need to at least explain what the quality standards are before diving into what you can and can't do in a story. Start broad and, once again, don't write it as if you were writing a list of rules. Maybe start with a section topic like "what makes a story 'good'", make a list of the general things we look for in a story under it (plot, pacing, storytelling, character development, word choice, et cetera) and explain how each can enhance or diminish a story's quality.
 * I like that you're incorporating advice blogs into the QS page, but I hate the way you're doing it here. It would be a lot more practical to just link to them if you ask me.
 * I don't think Poetry, "Micropastas", "Original characters" or Diary/Journal should be standalone sections. Partly because you can just link to advice blogs on them, but mostly because I think it would be more appropriate to just blacklist or partially blacklist them. Put them under a new section for material that is restricted, but not quite forbidden. (I also think we should revise the spinoff rules at some point, by the way.)
 * The FAQ could use some work. And possibly its own subpage.