RE: Calling all reviewers
2024-12-17, 3:04 (This post was last modified: 2024-12-17, 3:05 by Peter Blomberg.)
2024-12-17, 3:04 (This post was last modified: 2024-12-17, 3:05 by Peter Blomberg.)
How do I know if I'm able to perform a sufficient quality review?
Although the original post was about mobilizing long-time part authors for review tasks, there may be others like me who have created parts, but are unsure if they can do a review of sufficient quality. Based on the feedback I've received, I have put together a small list of items to check for. Some are mentioned in the parts library specifications, but not all. Experienced reviewers may contribute by suggesting/adding more items on the list. Please share best practices!
- check for missing edge lines
- check that non-trivial edge lines follow isecalc
- check for missing surfaces
- check for inverted BFC surfaces
- check for rounding errors (unsuccessful coordination snap)
- check for split triangles or quads (typically associated with mirrored subparts)
- check for bleed-through where hidden edges coincide with a visible surface
- check for missing conditional lines on convex shapes
- check that conditional lines engage at proper angles
- check for missing conditional lines on concave shapes
- check T-junctions
- check point of origin; height (y), position (x-z); do they follow specifications
- check point of origin for subpart(s); desire same as main part unless reason (e.g. point of rotation) not to
- check orientation of part; desire consistency among similar parts, front should be visible, most commonly used physical orientation, follow specifications
- check orientation of subpart(s); desire same as main part
- check color of surfaces and subfiles; should be 16 (also on edge primitives) unless color is fixed
- check color of edge lines and conditional edge lines; should be 24. Beware that color 16 is a common mistake
- check if advanced primitives could be used instead of multiple basic shapes
- check that the part has the right proportions and features of the real physical part
- evaluate if the part can be placed digitally without clashes in the same way as the physical part
- check that modelling decisions follow the strategies taken in existing similar parts
- if the part has a matching part, check that they match also digitally
- check the part name; LDraw naming is slightly different that other websites - follow the specifications
- check the subpart name; subparts must begin with ~ after the 0 and be distinct from the main part and any other subpart
- check the part number; some websites list the wrong number - follow the specifications
- check the subpart number; subparts and 48-primitives should begin with s\ and 48\ respectively
- check if keywords can be added
- check if a category can be assigned; only one category allowed; first word in name is the default category
Although the original post was about mobilizing long-time part authors for review tasks, there may be others like me who have created parts, but are unsure if they can do a review of sufficient quality. Based on the feedback I've received, I have put together a small list of items to check for. Some are mentioned in the parts library specifications, but not all. Experienced reviewers may contribute by suggesting/adding more items on the list. Please share best practices!
- check for missing edge lines
- check that non-trivial edge lines follow isecalc
- check for missing surfaces
- check for inverted BFC surfaces
- check for rounding errors (unsuccessful coordination snap)
- check for split triangles or quads (typically associated with mirrored subparts)
- check for bleed-through where hidden edges coincide with a visible surface
- check for missing conditional lines on convex shapes
- check that conditional lines engage at proper angles
- check for missing conditional lines on concave shapes
- check T-junctions
- check point of origin; height (y), position (x-z); do they follow specifications
- check point of origin for subpart(s); desire same as main part unless reason (e.g. point of rotation) not to
- check orientation of part; desire consistency among similar parts, front should be visible, most commonly used physical orientation, follow specifications
- check orientation of subpart(s); desire same as main part
- check color of surfaces and subfiles; should be 16 (also on edge primitives) unless color is fixed
- check color of edge lines and conditional edge lines; should be 24. Beware that color 16 is a common mistake
- check if advanced primitives could be used instead of multiple basic shapes
- check that the part has the right proportions and features of the real physical part
- evaluate if the part can be placed digitally without clashes in the same way as the physical part
- check that modelling decisions follow the strategies taken in existing similar parts
- if the part has a matching part, check that they match also digitally
- check the part name; LDraw naming is slightly different that other websites - follow the specifications
- check the subpart name; subparts must begin with ~ after the 0 and be distinct from the main part and any other subpart
- check the part number; some websites list the wrong number - follow the specifications
- check the subpart number; subparts and 48-primitives should begin with s\ and 48\ respectively
- check if keywords can be added
- check if a category can be assigned; only one category allowed; first word in name is the default category