User blog comment:NOBODY/Failure...absolute time-wasting failure/@comment-3060206-20120402072819

I think the project would have worked better if it depended more on the users finding the articles to revise themselves, now that I take a better look at the page itself. Pages get updated regularly, and change due to the number of users editing. Therefore it becomes a major pain to write down everything necessary to complete a job, which is what you discovered in the process of doing this.

What might have worked better is providing examples. Showing a few revisions of articles that you see as "acceptable" and "not acceptable" will give users a good idea of what to look for when they see articles on this Wiki. It will train users to know the differences between good articles and not-so-good articles, and how to fix them. That way they can be more independant and self-sufficient instead of being dependant on a checklist, persay.

I hope I don't sound like, quote Grammar Cat, "my mom". Think of it more as a...suggestion.