In retrospect, I believe made an error in judgement with my 'review' of Getopt::Declare. After seeing tilly's response I realize that I didn't address some fundamental questions that are common to most analytical reviews: description, the good, the bad, etc. Instead, my brain was more in tutorial/quick-start mode than review mode.

Now, I don't think it is show-stopping blunder, and the module is at least introduced and described, but it is not an analytical review by any means. However, heading over to the Tutorials section, I find we don't really have a place for module introductory tutorials. Certainly some tutorials use modules, but it just doesn't quite seem the appropriate place for a bunch of basic module tutorials/introductions (I could be wrong, it has happened before).

So here is my (discussion|meditation): might it be a good idea to organize the module review section categorically into analytical reviews and tutorials (jump starts)? Perhaps using a 'Review' or 'Tutorial' tag in the submission form. I don't envision two pages, or all reviews at the top and tutorials at the bottom, but rather something like: 

   * Some::Module
        Review: by someone
        Review: by someone_else
        Tutorial: by yet_someone_else

   * Some::Other::Module
        Review: by someone
        Tutorial: by some_one
        Tutorial: by Some_one_else

[download]

And make the Module name itself a link to cpan, and each 'Review' tag a link to the actual review. Of course, the tutorial entries could also be cross-linked from the Tutorials section.

Extending this basic idea, it might also be nice if CPAN search engines also provided links to such reviews and tutorials -- so if someone searched for Some::Module they might see: 

    Some::Module blah blah description [documention]
        contained in: Some-Module-2.14 [download/quickinstall]
        Category >> Misc >> Something
        
        PerlMonk Reviews and Tutorials:
            Reviews: [by x], [by y], [by z]
            Tutorials, [by x]

[download]

The above is following the basic format of an entry turned up by this engine -- the 'by x' would link to the review (not the author's homenode). Any engine could add such info and a summary (RSS) of the reviews page could make it that much simpler).

I know Randy Kobes (author/maintainer of the above mentioned search engine) so I can bring this up with him at our next Perl Monger meeting at the end of Feb.

What are other Monk's thoughts about a) reorganizing the reviews section by reviews vs. tutorials, and b) getting these linked from CPAN queries? (I know I'd appreciate quick links to reviews and tutorials when I'm searching CPAN for something).

In reply to On module reviews by danger

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.