What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

[Approved Submission] S6-RCG

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was asked to downtier from T3 down to T2 not T1. It's a rifle cartridge, not a pistol round.

Grenades: It's not, that was downtiered too. I missed fixing that in the damage listing per caliber configurations, but that's fixed now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep. Big man said that, at the very least.

And that’s what’s been sticking out at me like a sore thumb...the first table in Ammunition isn’t necessary. We could probably even just compile magazine sizes into fire rate. Or since you’re so keen on keeping your tables, put it in with the second table. And do a column with and without the accessories.
 
He said and I quote "or tier 2(rifles)", and the 6mm is a rifle cartridge. It's between a 5.56 and 7.62. So it certainly in the range of rifle tier damage.
 
Wait where did I talk about that in my latest post? I didn’t talk about Tier 1 or 2 ammunitions, I talked about the unnecessary first table.
 
I'm pretty sure Jack is referring to something Wes said, Meta - not something you said.
 
I have removed the damage quick chart since ammo is specified down further in the article. I believe that is the chart you were referring to?
 
You let me know whenever you take on a submission and I'll send mp3 files shouting.

If I ever get my studio mic working
 
Fortuna is here. RIP my SARP contributions for an entire week.

[ ✔️ ] 1. The destination URL should be a page in the appropriate namespace and titled lower_case_with_underscores
[ ✔️ ] 2. The article is in the appropriate format and article template
  1. I still hate the overuse of tables when other methods could have been used to present the munitions, like a whole munitions subarticle or simply reusing other ammo.
[ ✔️ ] 3. The article follows our wiki style guidelines, including: No forced line breaks, text after each section header, etc.
  1. I don't like the new hip trend of "minimalist names" since it removes that little bit of flavor text character. But that's personal preference and if I call people out on it people will whine it's not required and blah blah.
    1. Just call it the Rotary Chain Gun like how Yamatai does it. No harm in saying the full name, man.
[ ✔️ ] 4. The article is easily read and free of errors in spelling and grammar
[ ✔️ ] 5. Links to other wiki articles are present as appropriate
[ ✔️ ] 6. The article fits into the Star Army universe's space opera theme and technology levels
[ ✔️ ] 7. Images in the article are hosted on Star Army's wiki and sourced responsibly (contact Wes privately if there's a concern)
[ ✔️ ] 8. The article is original and doesn't contain copy-pasted content from other articles.
[ ✔️ ] 9. The article complies with Star Army's rules in terms of damage ratings, speed limits, etc.
[ ✔️ ] 10. The Faction Manager(s), if applicable, have posted approval for this article in this thread.

Here's some fixes this article still needs:

1. A few small concerns I doubt will be really listened to anyways
 
Time to go lift on some taxmen.

[ ✔️ ] 1. State clearly that the article is approved in the submission thread
[ ✔️ ] 2. Move the wiki article to its permanent (destination) location on the wiki
[ ✔️ ] 3. Move the submission thread to the Approved Submissions subforum or get a moderator to
[ ✔️ ] 4. Edit the article to add a link to the approval thread in the OOC Notes section
[ ✔️ ] 5. Link other articles to the approved article as appropriate (equipment lists, etc.)
 
I mean no offense, @META_mahn or @Jack Pine, but I am officially requesting that this submission be re-reviewed - because in its current state...
  • Portions of it do not follow the Weapon Template, which is not allowed by the Submission Rules or the Style Guide.
  • Numerous sections lack any prose, which is not allowed by the Style Guide.
  • The title is an abbreviation, which is not allowed by the Style Guide.
  • The nomenclature does not follow the format specified in the Standard Product Nomenclature System article (despite linking to it), which is not allowed by the Submission Rules.
 
FrostJaeger said:
The nomenclature does not follow the format specified in the Standard Product Nomenclature System article (despite linking to it), which is not allowed by the Submission Rules.
Click to expand...
Now how did I not realize that? I swear I checked it four or five times...

Article un-approved, because it's breaking nomenclature. Please submit a nomenclature fix.

Also please use an ordered list instead of subsection organization. The template exists for a reason.
 
On account of this article being approved the way it was before, I will not alter the style or any of the tables of the article, which I know you guys are a stickler for doing. What I will do is fix the nomenclature.

And please, next time. Don't 'un-approve' this, just ask for a nomenclature fix. It comes across as a real slap in the face when you approve it and pull it a day after again.
 
Actually no, we have to un-approve it. If we don't, people will likely just brush it off and it'll never get fixed. This is the only way to give people that nudge to do it that might actually make them do it.
 
Updated the nomenclature, removed the faulty link and updated it to be more obvious S6 has their own system. I will peruse our other articles and see if the mistake hasn't been made repeatedly. And fix it if need be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top