Good emails are made up of the same basic anatomy. Use this cheat sheet of key takeways when creating your own welcome email templates to ensure that all your welcome emails have the structure they need to set you up for success.
This article should be interesting to non-players of WoW. There's nothing wrong with a broad overview of the game's aspects and, indeed, WoW's breadth is incredible. Generally, though, I think most gameplay minutiae is best described when it relates to topics broader than the game itself. For example, I recall seeing a Craigslist ad (it's all over the Web now) titled "An EPIC mount! (warcraft players look inside) - w4m" and offered sex in return for an Epic Flying Mount, something that some people spend years to attain. Some people pay real money for virtual goods; others "outsource" their own playing of the game--something I'd presume they would enjoy doing--at their own financial expense. And then, of course, there is the issue of game addiction, which is a charge leveled at WoW more than any other game that I've seen. There are the obligatory follow-up questions to these observations, particularly: Why? Why do people pay real money for virtual goods? Why would a woman prostitute herself for a couple of bits stored on a server? And so on and so forth. As the most popular MMORPG, World of Warcraft can shed much light on MMORPG metaculture.
We appear to have a proper single editor endorsement for this article. Peter has nominated this version and will wait until July 5, 2010 for additional input and improvement at which time he can update the template as he sees fit. Though he has edited the article, the edits appear to be copy-edits only and do not change meaning in any significant way. If anyone disagrees, feel free to let me know. Other editors may join the approval as well. Meanwhile, do continue to improve the article. D. Matt Innis 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Just to be clear, as a constable, I don't have the luxury of making decisions based on real world expertise. I am bound by CZs rules which let editors make content and style decisions. For me, experts on an article are defined as those editors whose workgroups are in the template. Editors, on the other hand, can make their decision using whatever information they want, including authors with obvious intellect and stature (you know who you are!). Bottom line is, in this case, a copyedit, regardless of how careful it was made, became a content and style issue when an editor wanted it changed. That means that three editors are now needed to approve this articles. Anyone disagree? D. Matt Innis 00:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
This version of the article is nominated using the three editor approval mechanism scheduled for tonight. It has one other editor on board. We'll need a third. I see that there has been an additional content edit to the article since that version in the template. If that version is the one that everyone agrees to, please update the template with the new version and have from all three editors confirm their endorsement by letting me know under this subsection. D. Matt Innis 22:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(undent) The day has come and we have two editors in the template. Chris Key has authored the article so I will remove his name from the first spot and put Peter Schmitt in the primary spot with Chris Key as a supporting editor. Any other editor can add their name at any time. Congratulations gentlemen. D. Matt Innis 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 2b1af7f3a8