Brickipedia:Review Quality Moderators/Requests

This page is for any requests to become a member of the Review Quality Moderators. To prevent excessive nominations, there is an edit and time requirement for the user to be eligible to make a request. The user must have made at least 100 mainspace edits, and have been on the wiki for at least 1 month. If the request is unsuccessful, the user will be unable to lodge a request until two months after the date the request concluded. For a request to pass, there must be at least a +3 vote count and a 60 percent positive vote percentage. A requester may withdraw their request at any time throughout the process, but will be unable to lodge a request until two months after the date of withdrawal if the overall vote score is less than zero.

How to make a request To make a request, use the following syntax: =={{u|(your username)}}, Requested ~~~~~== '''Request comments:''' (any comments here) ===Support=== ===Oppose=== ===Comments=== After one week, an admin who is also a RQM member will close the request and notify you of the result. An archive of past requests can be seen here. Please note, only members of the Review Quality Moderators are permitted to vote.

Soupperson1, Requested 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request comments:I review sets weekly, I'm the only user who does that. All my 2014 reviews are high in standard. Plus I have a ton of ideas for reviews, and I should probally be on this team to say them. I have a good idea what a good review is too, I know quality when I see it :P Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Comments

• Well, rating don't work in the review namespace, and it's possible the group will be scrapped anyway since it's totally useless now, but anyway, I guess that's besides the point :) Personally I'm neutral- don't get me wrong, it's really great to see you writing all these reviews and on the whole they're pretty good. But the RQM is about looking at reviews from a critical standpoint, and I'm seeing fairly significant number of spelling mistakes in your reviews (enough for me to notice it when I'm just skimming through), and images don't appear to be integrated too well, so if you don't check for these things in your own reviews, I'm not sure how you'd go checking them in other people's. NovaHawk (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you for the constructive criticism, I will be more careful from now on and fix my spellings in previous reviews. The Review Quailty Moderators is our review team as well, which I have several ideas for, if I get elected. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

LSCStealthNinja, Requested 16:27, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Request comments: I've made 8 reviews, all are long and detailed. I think I should be a Review Quality Moderator because I'm one of the few people who are still active in the Review namespace. I would like to moderate user's reviews and decided if they are Acceptable or not. I'm already a Custom Quality Moderator, so I am used to this and know how it should be done.

Support

1. Sure why not. But you really should review more often. :) --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:28, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
2. Your reviews look good. User:Captain Jag/sig1 21:27, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Yeah, I've been trying to write more reviews, I recently wrote a review on 30163 Thor and the Cosmic Cube. User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig 16:31, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
• So um... yeah. I'm guessing no one really votes here. :P --User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig 22:43, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
• I'd support but I can't. :P ~ CJC 22:48, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
• *cough* --User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig 23:19, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
  • From the below, I'd guess that this won't be closed until at least May. ~ CJC 08:21, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

Jeyo, Requested 03:25, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Request comments: While it's true that I've as of yet made only one review, I've read several more and I'm sure I have grasped what makes one acceptable and/or unacceptable. I'm also a member of the CQM and QCG, so I'm not exactly new to properly formatting articles. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 03:25, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. I'd like to see some more reviews for an absolute 100% support, but I'm sure you know what you're doing and can easily handle these rights :) NovaHawk 04:37, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
2. User:Captain Jag/sig1 03:37, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Neutral. Per NBS, except I don't feel like it is a reason to support. Berrybrick 02:16, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
• Per BB. --User:CzechMate/czech 02:41, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Klagoer, Requested 22:24, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Beening one of the more active users in Reviews and having a featured review. I also have read most reviews and I think I have determined a fair review from a bad one. I am also a member of the QCG so I think that also adds more expierence.

Support

1. Definitely :) NovaHawk 22:26, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

   # Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 23:03, December 30, 2012 (UTC) (Must be a member of the RQM to vote)

2. User:Captain Jag/sig1 03:37, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Neutral. Berrybrick 02:15, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
• User hasn't been super active, so neutral. --User:CzechMate/czech 02:42, December 31, 2012 (UTC)