This is pretty much just a rundown of the entire approval checklist, what each thing on it means, and where relevant, how to check for something.
Approval Checklist:
Art:
Art Present?: Basically, does the species have a colored image depicting it?
Art clear?: Can you tell what it is and where its limbs are? Is the image crisp and non-blurry? Is the organism unobscured by foreground objects?
This does not mean "is the art good?". Most members are not what some people might call "great artists", and Sagan 4 doesn't strive to be a project filled exclusively with god-tier artwork, especially as it tends to appeal to people who are only just getting into spec/creature design. Basically, the art just needs to be recognizable as what it is trying to depict.
Gen number?: Is there a number in the image, and is it correct to the current generation? (See the pinned compendium in the submission subforum)
All limbs shown?: Are any major body parts cut off or obscured? Ideally, every organism should have whether its limbs are single or paired abundantly clear. Top-down views frequently obscure legs and mouth anatomy, and should not be approved in most cases. (note, it's fine for toes on one foot to be obscured if the opposing foot is visible)
Reasonably Comparable to Ancestor?: Does it at the very least look like a descendant or relative of the ancestor? Eg. if the ancestor is a cat, the species under review should look somewhat like a cat too. Also watch out for major anatomy mistakes, such as extra limb joints or missing features.
Realistic additions?: Are any additions it appears to have reasonable? This doesn't just apply to unjustified reduplication; look out for things like ridiculous over-armoring from an unarmored ancestor, etc.
Name:
Binomial Taxonomic Name?: Does it have a genus and species listed in the submission form? (for a single species entry this would look like Genus species; for a multi-species entry this would be Genus spp.)
Creator?: Is the creator of the species listed in the species form? Usually this is the person who posted it, but there are exceptions, and there have actually been incidents where creator information was lost due to this not being filled in.
Ancestor:
Listed?: Does it say what its ancestor is in the species form?
What changes?: Listing the changes actually serves more to ensure the reviewer read the text of both the submission and its ancestor. Don't just skim, or else you might miss something major.
Do note that sometimes, new information will actually be elaborations, not changes. Elaborations have become more common as standards for description length has gone up, so make sure to watch out for them. Sometimes an elaboration can be unreasonable as well (such as larvae resembling earlier evolutionary stages), and if so, please call it out.
New Genus Needed?: (If yes, list why) - Basically, do these changes result in it probably being a different genus from its ancestor? Is there any specific reason why? (If the entry already has a new genus, you can just say "already done")
Habitat: See biome rules for terminology and what it means.
Type?: List the climate types the species is present in; if it's in more than 3 in Alpha or 2 in Beta, then it will need to be changed.
Flavor?: List the "flavors" of biome (rainforest, scrubland, etc) that the species is present in. If it's in more than 3, then it will need to be changed. (Make sure to check the rules for exceptions).
Connected to Ancestor?: A species range must be either adjacent or overlapping with that of the ancestor. Instructions:
Contiguous?: On the map edit you just made, is the range of the species under review unbroken? (Note that crossing flyways is considered "connected" in Beta and that exceptions may be made for island hopping as long as it's explained)
Wildcard?: If the species' range breaks the habitat rules, is it also declared a wildcard? (Wildcards may break the type/flavor rules as long as it's explained)
Size:
Same as Ancestor?: Is it the exact same size as the ancestor? I actually don't know why this question is here.
Within range?: If the species is not the same size as the ancestor, does it follow the size rules?
Exception?: If the species does not follow the size rules, is it sufficiently justified?
Support:
Same as Ancestor?: Does the species have the same or equivalent support structure listed as its ancestor? (Note, the support slot did not always exist, so some species may have their support listed as unknown; this is okay, but it should be elaborated if possible, and must be elaborated in megafauna.)
Does it Fit Lifestyle?: Obviously, it isn't gonna be sprinting around without any bones in its legs.
Does It Fit Size?: Can its support actually, well, support it at its size? Eg. a creature with an exoskeleton isn't gonna be getting super big.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the support listed differs from the ancestor, is it a realistic change? eg a realistic change might be calcifying an exoskeleton, an unrealistic change might be turning a hydrostatic skeleton into a full mineralized endoskeleton.
Other?: Place for comments about support
Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: Does it eat the exact same stuff as the ancestor? I don't know why this question is here, since the answer is almost universally "no".
Transition Rule?: Basically, does it follow the diet rules? eg. an obligate carnivore cannot evolve directly into an obligate herbivore in one step
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the diet is different from the ancestor's, does the way it differs seem reasonable?
Respiration:
Same as Ancestor?: Is its listed respiration method the same or equivalent to its ancestor's? (Note, the respiration slot did not always exist, so some species may have their respiration listed as unknown; this is okay, but it should be elaborated if possible, and must be elaborated in megafauna.)
Does It Fit Habitat?: Is it capable of breathing where it lives? No gills in montane deserts and no lungs in the abyss, obviously.
Does it Fit Size?: Is the species too big or too small for its respiration method? (Passive respirers can't be megafauna, lungs kinda stop working when you're too small.)
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the respiration differs from its ancestor, is it realistic? (eg. fusing a system of microlungs into a unidirectional lung would be realistic, but gaining a whole lung out of nothing would not be)
Other?: Place for comments about respiration
Thermoregulation:
Same as Ancestor?: Is the thermoregulation listed the same or equivalent to the ancestor's? (Note, the thermoregulation slot did not always exist, so some species may have their thermoregulation listed as unknown; it needs to be elaborated in new species.)
Does It Fit Habitat?: Is it capable of thermoregulating and maintaining its lifestyle in its habitat? eg. basking isn't possible in a cavern, fur is useless compared to blubber in the deep sea, and there probably shouldn't be active ectotherms with high metabolisms on glaciers.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If it differs from the ancestor, is it realistic? Eg. if it evolved into an endotherm, is it eating enough to generate that much eat and is it sufficiently insulated against the elements?
Other?: Place for comments about thermoregulation.
Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?: Is the reproduction listed the same as or equivalent to what the ancestor has listed?
Does It Fit Habitat?: eg. it probably shouldn't be laying frog-like eggs in the sagan 4 equivalent to the sahara.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If it differs, are the changes realistic? eg. an egg-layer shouldn't be evolving directly to vivipary, reproductive organs shouldn't be drastically changing location, and spores cannot just """advance""" into pollen and seeds.
Exception: We allow sexual reproduction to appear out of nowhere in groups that are asexual-only (many flora) or lost sexual reproduction for a dumb reason (cellulosebanes...sigh). If it's regaining sexual reproduction, it should resemble how its more distant ancestors did it. If it's evolving it from scratch, it should be derived from their existing asexual method and be as simple to start with as is reasonable - no new complex organ systems.
Other?: Place for comments about reproduction.
Description:
Length?: Is the description long enough? How would you describe its length?
Capitalized correctly?: Do sentences start with a capital letter? Are species names capitalized consistently? (Some members capitalize them like pokemon names and others keep them lowercase like real animal names;
Replace/Split from ancestor?: Does it declare whether it replaced or split from its ancestor? Does it mention outcompeting any species?
Other?: Place for any additional comments you may have.
Opinion:
Approved
Species should be marked approved if there's nothing wrong with them.
Pending(why)
Here, you can point out where your comments that need to be addressed are located. Highlighting them in a distinct color is also recommended.
Rejected (why):
Species should generally only be rejected if either the creator doesn't make changes, or if fixing it would require so many changes that the end result is unrecognizable as being the same submission. A submission may also be rejected for being made from an extinct ancestor with no modern species that can be used. Mods can also declare a species as rejected under some special circumstances, such as if a submission was made in bad faith.
Approval Checklist:
Art:
Art Present?: Basically, does the species have a colored image depicting it?
Art clear?: Can you tell what it is and where its limbs are? Is the image crisp and non-blurry? Is the organism unobscured by foreground objects?
This does not mean "is the art good?". Most members are not what some people might call "great artists", and Sagan 4 doesn't strive to be a project filled exclusively with god-tier artwork, especially as it tends to appeal to people who are only just getting into spec/creature design. Basically, the art just needs to be recognizable as what it is trying to depict.
Gen number?: Is there a number in the image, and is it correct to the current generation? (See the pinned compendium in the submission subforum)
All limbs shown?: Are any major body parts cut off or obscured? Ideally, every organism should have whether its limbs are single or paired abundantly clear. Top-down views frequently obscure legs and mouth anatomy, and should not be approved in most cases. (note, it's fine for toes on one foot to be obscured if the opposing foot is visible)
Reasonably Comparable to Ancestor?: Does it at the very least look like a descendant or relative of the ancestor? Eg. if the ancestor is a cat, the species under review should look somewhat like a cat too. Also watch out for major anatomy mistakes, such as extra limb joints or missing features.
Realistic additions?: Are any additions it appears to have reasonable? This doesn't just apply to unjustified reduplication; look out for things like ridiculous over-armoring from an unarmored ancestor, etc.
Name:
Binomial Taxonomic Name?: Does it have a genus and species listed in the submission form? (for a single species entry this would look like Genus species; for a multi-species entry this would be Genus spp.)
Creator?: Is the creator of the species listed in the species form? Usually this is the person who posted it, but there are exceptions, and there have actually been incidents where creator information was lost due to this not being filled in.
Ancestor:
Listed?: Does it say what its ancestor is in the species form?
What changes?: Listing the changes actually serves more to ensure the reviewer read the text of both the submission and its ancestor. Don't just skim, or else you might miss something major.
- External?: Changes that occur to the exterior of the organism. Some will be visible in the art, such as color and proportions, while others might be in the text, like fur density.
- Internal?: Changes to organs, changes to bones, changes to reproduction, etc.; these will usually be in the description, but sometimes there are diagrams.
- Behavioral/Mental?: Eg. sociality, parental care
Do note that sometimes, new information will actually be elaborations, not changes. Elaborations have become more common as standards for description length has gone up, so make sure to watch out for them. Sometimes an elaboration can be unreasonable as well (such as larvae resembling earlier evolutionary stages), and if so, please call it out.
New Genus Needed?: (If yes, list why) - Basically, do these changes result in it probably being a different genus from its ancestor? Is there any specific reason why? (If the entry already has a new genus, you can just say "already done")
Habitat: See biome rules for terminology and what it means.
Type?: List the climate types the species is present in; if it's in more than 3 in Alpha or 2 in Beta, then it will need to be changed.
Flavor?: List the "flavors" of biome (rainforest, scrubland, etc) that the species is present in. If it's in more than 3, then it will need to be changed. (Make sure to check the rules for exceptions).
Connected to Ancestor?: A species range must be either adjacent or overlapping with that of the ancestor. Instructions:
- Step 1:Visit the current ecosystem page and download the current map.
- Step 2: Use your browser's find-in-page tool to search for all instances of the submission's ancestor on the ecosystem page. You may write them down, or do this simultaneously with the next step.
- Step 3: Opening the map in your art program of choice, on a new layer, find each biome that the ancestor can be found in and use the paint bucket tool to fill it in, constructing an overall current range of the species.
- Step 4: On a new layer and in a different color, do the same with the habitat listed for the descendant that you are reviewing.
Contiguous?: On the map edit you just made, is the range of the species under review unbroken? (Note that crossing flyways is considered "connected" in Beta and that exceptions may be made for island hopping as long as it's explained)
Wildcard?: If the species' range breaks the habitat rules, is it also declared a wildcard? (Wildcards may break the type/flavor rules as long as it's explained)
Size:
Same as Ancestor?: Is it the exact same size as the ancestor? I actually don't know why this question is here.
Within range?: If the species is not the same size as the ancestor, does it follow the size rules?
Exception?: If the species does not follow the size rules, is it sufficiently justified?
Support:
Same as Ancestor?: Does the species have the same or equivalent support structure listed as its ancestor? (Note, the support slot did not always exist, so some species may have their support listed as unknown; this is okay, but it should be elaborated if possible, and must be elaborated in megafauna.)
Does it Fit Lifestyle?: Obviously, it isn't gonna be sprinting around without any bones in its legs.
Does It Fit Size?: Can its support actually, well, support it at its size? Eg. a creature with an exoskeleton isn't gonna be getting super big.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the support listed differs from the ancestor, is it a realistic change? eg a realistic change might be calcifying an exoskeleton, an unrealistic change might be turning a hydrostatic skeleton into a full mineralized endoskeleton.
Other?: Place for comments about support
Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: Does it eat the exact same stuff as the ancestor? I don't know why this question is here, since the answer is almost universally "no".
Transition Rule?: Basically, does it follow the diet rules? eg. an obligate carnivore cannot evolve directly into an obligate herbivore in one step
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the diet is different from the ancestor's, does the way it differs seem reasonable?
Respiration:
Same as Ancestor?: Is its listed respiration method the same or equivalent to its ancestor's? (Note, the respiration slot did not always exist, so some species may have their respiration listed as unknown; this is okay, but it should be elaborated if possible, and must be elaborated in megafauna.)
Does It Fit Habitat?: Is it capable of breathing where it lives? No gills in montane deserts and no lungs in the abyss, obviously.
Does it Fit Size?: Is the species too big or too small for its respiration method? (Passive respirers can't be megafauna, lungs kinda stop working when you're too small.)
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the respiration differs from its ancestor, is it realistic? (eg. fusing a system of microlungs into a unidirectional lung would be realistic, but gaining a whole lung out of nothing would not be)
Other?: Place for comments about respiration
Thermoregulation:
Same as Ancestor?: Is the thermoregulation listed the same or equivalent to the ancestor's? (Note, the thermoregulation slot did not always exist, so some species may have their thermoregulation listed as unknown; it needs to be elaborated in new species.)
Does It Fit Habitat?: Is it capable of thermoregulating and maintaining its lifestyle in its habitat? eg. basking isn't possible in a cavern, fur is useless compared to blubber in the deep sea, and there probably shouldn't be active ectotherms with high metabolisms on glaciers.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If it differs from the ancestor, is it realistic? Eg. if it evolved into an endotherm, is it eating enough to generate that much eat and is it sufficiently insulated against the elements?
Other?: Place for comments about thermoregulation.
Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?: Is the reproduction listed the same as or equivalent to what the ancestor has listed?
Does It Fit Habitat?: eg. it probably shouldn't be laying frog-like eggs in the sagan 4 equivalent to the sahara.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If it differs, are the changes realistic? eg. an egg-layer shouldn't be evolving directly to vivipary, reproductive organs shouldn't be drastically changing location, and spores cannot just """advance""" into pollen and seeds.
Exception: We allow sexual reproduction to appear out of nowhere in groups that are asexual-only (many flora) or lost sexual reproduction for a dumb reason (cellulosebanes...sigh). If it's regaining sexual reproduction, it should resemble how its more distant ancestors did it. If it's evolving it from scratch, it should be derived from their existing asexual method and be as simple to start with as is reasonable - no new complex organ systems.
Other?: Place for comments about reproduction.
Description:
Length?: Is the description long enough? How would you describe its length?
Capitalized correctly?: Do sentences start with a capital letter? Are species names capitalized consistently? (Some members capitalize them like pokemon names and others keep them lowercase like real animal names;
Replace/Split from ancestor?: Does it declare whether it replaced or split from its ancestor? Does it mention outcompeting any species?
Other?: Place for any additional comments you may have.
Opinion:
Approved
Species should be marked approved if there's nothing wrong with them.
Pending(why)
Here, you can point out where your comments that need to be addressed are located. Highlighting them in a distinct color is also recommended.
Rejected (why):
Species should generally only be rejected if either the creator doesn't make changes, or if fixing it would require so many changes that the end result is unrecognizable as being the same submission. A submission may also be rejected for being made from an extinct ancestor with no modern species that can be used. Mods can also declare a species as rejected under some special circumstances, such as if a submission was made in bad faith.
View Desktop Version | Disable Images in Posts
Powered by Invision Power Board (Jcink) © 2023 IPS, Inc.
Powered by Invision Power Board (Jcink) © 2023 IPS, Inc.