141 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
141 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
# MEAP Readiness Checklist
|
|
|
|
Use this checklist to prepare individual chapters for Manning Early Access Program (MEAP) release.
|
|
|
|
## Standalone Chapter Requirements
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Chapter introduction provides context (what came before)
|
|
- [ ] Chapter introduction states learning objectives
|
|
- [ ] Chapter doesn't assume readers read previous unreleased chapters
|
|
- [ ] Chapter conclusion summarizes key points
|
|
- [ ] Chapter can be understood independently
|
|
|
|
## Forward References
|
|
|
|
- [ ] No specific references to unreleased chapters ("See Chapter 8...")
|
|
- [ ] Future content referenced generically ("covered later", "in future chapter")
|
|
- [ ] Placeholders for cross-references clearly marked as [TBD] if necessary
|
|
- [ ] Readers know what content is coming vs. what exists now
|
|
|
|
## Code Repository
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Chapter code available in GitHub repository
|
|
- [ ] Repository link included prominently in chapter
|
|
- [ ] Chapter folder clearly labeled (chapter-05, etc.)
|
|
- [ ] README in chapter folder explains examples
|
|
- [ ] All code for this chapter tested and working
|
|
|
|
## MEAP-Specific Content
|
|
|
|
- [ ] MEAP disclaimer/notice included (if required by Manning)
|
|
- [ ] "What's coming next" section at end of chapter
|
|
- [ ] Preview of future chapters provided
|
|
- [ ] Feedback mechanism explained (forum link, etc.)
|
|
- [ ] Version/status noted (Draft 1, Draft 2, Final, etc.)
|
|
|
|
## Author Voice
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Consistent with other MEAP chapters
|
|
- [ ] Professional and engaging tone
|
|
- [ ] No abrupt tone changes
|
|
- [ ] Personal anecdotes appropriate and relevant
|
|
- [ ] Encouraging to early readers
|
|
|
|
## Content Quality
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Technical accuracy verified
|
|
- [ ] Code examples tested and working
|
|
- [ ] Figures and diagrams finalized (or marked as draft)
|
|
- [ ] No placeholder text left ([TK], [TODO], etc.)
|
|
- [ ] Grammar and spelling checked
|
|
|
|
## Manning Formatting
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Follows Manning style guide
|
|
- [ ] Headings use correct levels (H1, H2, H3)
|
|
- [ ] Code blocks formatted correctly
|
|
- [ ] Callouts (Note, Tip, Warning) used appropriately
|
|
- [ ] Figure captions formatted correctly
|
|
- [ ] Lists formatted consistently
|
|
|
|
## Educational Value
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Chapter teaches something valuable on its own
|
|
- [ ] Exercises included and solutions provided (appendix or separate)
|
|
- [ ] Learning objectives met by end of chapter
|
|
- [ ] Progressive complexity (simple to advanced)
|
|
- [ ] Examples are realistic and practical
|
|
|
|
## Reader Engagement
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Chapter is engaging from the first paragraph
|
|
- [ ] No long, dry sections without examples
|
|
- [ ] Code examples support the narrative
|
|
- [ ] Exercises reinforce learning
|
|
- [ ] Reader feels they accomplished something after reading
|
|
|
|
## Figures and Diagrams
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All figures numbered correctly (Figure 5.1, 5.2, etc.)
|
|
- [ ] Figure captions descriptive
|
|
- [ ] Figures referenced in text before they appear
|
|
- [ ] Diagrams at acceptable resolution (can be draft quality for early MEAP)
|
|
- [ ] Placeholders clearly marked if final diagrams pending
|
|
|
|
## Cross-References
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Internal chapter references work (Section 5.3, etc.)
|
|
- [ ] References to released chapters are accurate
|
|
- [ ] External links tested and working
|
|
- [ ] Code repository links functional
|
|
|
|
## Length and Scope
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Chapter length appropriate (not too short or too long)
|
|
- [ ] Scope matches chapter title and objectives
|
|
- [ ] No scope creep beyond chapter's purpose
|
|
- [ ] Pacing is good (not rushed or too slow)
|
|
|
|
## Feedback Readiness
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Open to constructive criticism from MEAP readers
|
|
- [ ] Plan for incorporating feedback
|
|
- [ ] Clear on what can/can't change based on feedback
|
|
- [ ] Mechanism for tracking and responding to feedback
|
|
|
|
## Technical Review
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Code reviewed by at least one other person
|
|
- [ ] Technical reviewer feedback incorporated
|
|
- [ ] No known errors or bugs
|
|
- [ ] Best practices followed
|
|
|
|
## MEAP Forum/Community
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Author prepared to engage with MEAP readers
|
|
- [ ] Forum link included in chapter
|
|
- [ ] Expectations set for author responsiveness
|
|
- [ ] Community guidelines understood
|
|
|
|
## Version Control
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Chapter version clearly labeled (Draft 1, v0.1, etc.)
|
|
- [ ] Changes from previous MEAP release documented (if update)
|
|
- [ ] Original source files backed up
|
|
- [ ] Submission package clearly labeled
|
|
|
|
## Final Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] One final read-through completed
|
|
- [ ] Fresh eyes reviewed chapter (colleague, friend)
|
|
- [ ] No embarrassing errors or typos in opening paragraphs
|
|
- [ ] Chapter starts strong and ends strong
|
|
- [ ] Ready for early reader scrutiny
|
|
|
|
## Post-Release Plan
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Plan to monitor feedback
|
|
- [ ] Timeline for incorporating feedback
|
|
- [ ] Process for updating MEAP chapters
|
|
- [ ] Communication plan for notifying readers of updates
|