Can anyone check my instructable if it fits the criteria? Personally, I think it's from the uninterested of the item or the it's a Photo instructable. I would want to make a step-by-step one but I don't want to stay on the computer from being busy.

Is anyone willing to give me some advice?

It's I think just too much information for a photo instructable.
Step by step, this would be an awesome project.

See my PM.

Maybe you should post your question here. This checklist is a guideline so unfortunately not all the ibles that meet the criteria are going to be featured. 

Thank you. I was unaware of that clinic up to now. :-)

This one:

Keep in mind that there's an element of "wow, awesome" that is nearly impossible to define, but is clearly visible when you see it. Such ingenuity, creativity, originality, and utility may compensate for slight weaknesses in presentation. The goal of the featuring process is ultimately to identify excellent projects, and help them find an enthusiastic audience on Instructables and beyond.

'Nuff said.

Please explain the rules to become feature about this one.
I think it have "wow, awesome" element.

Thanks, but I couldn't understand your purpose enough. For example I made this video for that Instructable. As you know that's a few hard and take many hours to make. I made that, because I think that can explain my Instructable more, save time and will help people that they don't want to follow steps.
Also I could publish that in a Video Instructable, but I didn't do that, to make my Step by Step more complete.
Sorry, but I can't understand your purpose yet and I think Instructables.com is not a good place to publish projects about Scripting, Computer, and CG. (also that made all of my pictures "low quality", how you want me to send high quality pictures?)

Please explain your comment for me a few more (with fluent grammar, because I can't understand hard grammar sentences.)

_Thanks.

A reminder to take a break is nice, but the whole "sitting is bad for you" debacle was *painfully* dumb. I was embarrassed for whoever wrote that, and sad that they had never gotten the opportunity to be exposed to logic, science, or critical thinking. Sadly, not everyone is fortunate enough to get an education in reasoning, analytical skills, or research.

LR, do you mean places like this, are wrong?

Finding articles on the bad effects of sitting aren't hard, finding ones that claim otherwise is more difficult.  

Some are less "specific" then others.    There are studies being taken on, on the side effects of extended sitting, and how it effects the organs stress wise......

I mean that correlation does not imply causation.

(Also - the first link does not provide any citations from peer-reviewed scientific journals, associated content is not precisely an authority on...anything, and your last link doesn't have anything to do with the fatal effects of sitting.) 

I've no doubt that never going outside and sitting for every hour you're not asleep is detrimental to your health, but that story was beyond hyperbolic and alarmist ("Sitting is killing you"? "It's clear that sitting is killing us"? Give me a break). From the context in the Mashable story from which ed got this silly infographic, its main purpose seemed to be to sell stand-up desks using pseudo-science. It citied media reports that sitting can cause back pain and is associated with such maladies as obesity and diabetes in a sad attempt to prove its relentless refrain "sitting is killing you."

It twisted the evidence into pretzals, citing studies showing that excessive amounts of sitting can be predictive of health problems to literally claim that sitting will - and *does* - kill you. Not the physical inactivity, or the diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, or other health problems of which sedentary lifestyles may be either predictive or contributory, but the simple act of sitting in a chair. This is a patently ridiculous claim. It is like saying that being Russian killed those who died as a result of radiation exposure after Chernobyl. Being Russian (or, if you like, a citizen of Pripyat) was certainly more predictive of dying of radiation-related health consequences than many/most other factors, and could in a sense be said to contribute to their deaths, but only a fool would say that it was being Russian that killed them. More accurately, they died because they were where they were - *because they were not elsewhere.* Almost tautologically, a sedentary lifestyle is harmful because you're not getting exercise (or getting less exercise because being sedentary takes away from time you would otherwise be active) - not because you're sitting. The issue is ratio of exercise to sedentary activity, not that you sit at your job, period.

A facebook comment on the story put it best:

"Breathing has been shown to increase risk of death as well.. People who breathe regularly are 100% more likely to experience death than those who aren't breathing...."

Correlation, people. It doesn't imply causation.

Well, I was unable to "access" the peer reviews on the subject that I had read "about" and heard doctors speak of.

However, understandably if the thread you are talking about was alarmist I understand what you mean.  It was just that reading "just your comment"  helped me misunderstand then.  Because a number of recent studies link organ stress on prolonged sitting.    Just as inactivity is not JUST correlated with, but is the cause of much of the muscle atrophy found in many persons,  so it has been determined that prolonged sitting can cause unhealthy side effects.  

Other things to worry about are DVT or Deep Vein Thrombosis, and  three common areas that are affected by a desk job are the hips, shoulders and head/neck. In a seated position, the front of our hips are in hip flexion. The hip flexor muscles are shortened and tight in this position and will tend to stay short even when we are up walking around....etc.   Actually, any form of stagnation can result in problems, even sleep, if done in a problematic way.

Sure. What I'm saying is that it is entirely inaccurate to say that *sitting* is bad for you - it is an incorrect ratio of activity to inactivity that is associated with all of those things. (Not to mention that so many health problems are largely hereditary, and diet and lifestyle actually factor into them very little...but that's a bit of a tangent...)

But that doesn't make for a nice attention grabbing headline... :)

Of course, sitting is not bad, any more then standing is or eating, but anything can be done in excess. Sorry for my misunderstanding you.

Sorry for spelling out 'one' and then following that with a numeric. Should have proofed better before posting!

A vanishingly-tiny goof.

Indeed, very few left anymore that would have noticed :-)

Its about time this got stickied in plain sight for everyone to see instead of being swept under the rug, so to speak.

_{Please tell me you stickied this...}

I think he means there should be a permanently-visible link to this list somewhere.

Maybe in the grey bar at the top of the page, under the search box, or somewhere in the submission process?

Idea would like this forum topic itself to be easily visible to all users, rather than have it disappear down the "old topics" hole once we stop commenting.

In particular, as he and others have suggested, putting a link to this topic right on the Submit page (for example, in the sidebar where the three types of I'bles are defined), could be really helpful to users.

Exactly my meaning kelsey.

Yes canida, I would really like to see this forum post or something similar but formatted a bit neater and still contain all the same information visible to all users by way of the submit page. perhaps it could be combined with the authoring tips page and be set as a banner there, somewhere on the homepage, and scattered randomly around the website.

Chuckle....yeah, I didn't check either, but just added to the newly started "conversation" .... :-)

I think that is tied in to your levels of midi-chlorians or mitochondria or something.

Maybe "pegged" to be visible easily?

I think it should be stickied to the homepage and on the ible creation page for easy refrence, speaking of which, what happened to the thing that popped up detailing the recommended bits to do and put into an ible before you started it?

Yeah, something like that :-) Oh, I don't know, I thought it came up when you "start" a new ible. Doesn't it anymore?

Some descriptive text is necessary, since not everyone can see pictures, and screen readers are not yet able to provide auido description of photographs.

A paragraph doesn't necessarily mean half a dozen sentences. I think two sentences would be enough to constitute a "paragraph."

    I was thinking the same thing.
One need not "be overly wordy" but still it is good to be clear (and concise) :-)  

Thank you, tis much appreciated !

My first instructable was featured too. XD

I suspect that's right. Consider how many front-page features there are in a given month. They all (by assumption) meet all the featuring criteria. At that point, how do you choose the "best of the best"? The newsletter editor is probably the arbiter of those decisions.

As with the advice for getting featured in the first place, if you are really interested in getting into the newsletter, your best bet is to probably look (critically) at a bunch of the Instructables that have been there, and try to integrate what sorts of things they might have in common, especially in terms of how they're presented, not the specific project.

Good luck!

couldn't you do both..?

It means it's not relevent. If you have a step that has no possible relevent pictures, then that wouldn't apply to that step.

I expect it means that that particular requirement isn't relevant to that particular project. For instance, if no tools are needed to do the project, the "tools list" requirement wouldn't apply.

Probably if you didn't meet one of the requirements.

No, I think that just means the requirement isn't met. It would still apply but you just haven't met it.

...isn't that just what I said...?

Thanks, Canida, for your detailed response; and for Channel-Featuring this Instructable. (FWIW, I've changed the Intro photo to one that is definitely less fuzzy and hopefully more explanatory.)

(Yippeee... my first "Featured"!!!! :) :) :)
_{(And that means I'm eligible for the Gift Exchange now! :)}

Of course all the (non-robotic) Instructables staffers should sleep, and eat, and do their laundry, and every so often go out to play in the sun. I hope my earlier post didn't sound like I was taking you to task at all - I figure that your job must sometimes seem like herding Schrodinger's cats, and I'm very glad that you and the other staffers work so hard at doing it.

I think interest in the subject that an instructable demonstrates shouldn't really count for or against featuring. That's like saying a video clip is bad because not a lot of people watch it, even though the video has mostly positive feedback from people who do watch it.

Yeah I guess so, but I still find it kind of unfair that topics with broader audiences get better chances of being featured, even with the storytelling at all.

PS to add: Thanks for the checklist - it's great as it is, and very helpful. :)