Approved Submission [Asteria] HARD

You should probably be the reviewer for this @CadetNewb as you've been reviewing Asteria articles lately.

Um, @Ametheliana , I don't think I can review my own articles.

Wouldn't it be good if you sectioned this off with headers in order to give it an index for easy linking?

I've gone ahead and given that a go - tell me what you think.

@Ametheliana
@META_mahn
@Arbitrated

Are any of you guys able to have a look at this? I was hoping it'd be straightforward and easy.

Hm- oh, I thought Ame was reviewing it, sorry.


I'll get onto the review tomorrow, I have plenty of time then to look the article over and such.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

This review is for: HARD, An Asteria Thing[/url]

The submitted article is/has…
[Y ] A very high level of overall quality
[Y ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[N/A ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[MAYBE ] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[N/A ] In the proper format/template
[Y ] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[Y ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[N ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link) SEE BELOW
[Y ] No red and/or broken links
[N/A ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[Y ] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not…
[N ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[N ] Obtusely redundant
[N ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[N ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[N ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[N ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[N ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[N ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[N ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[MAYBE ] Lacking Detail (See below)
[N/A ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has…
[N/A ] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[N/A ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[N/A ] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[N/A ] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.


Summary
The article seems overall alright. It would be appreciated if some of the skills that are closer to the top of the page received expansions to their descriptions; some are only a couple lines while skills further down have significantly longer descriptions.

Who/what is the Mikado? A link in the page would be appreciated.

Status: Pending

Notes
Are participants supposed to have every skill listed? I'm aware that specialization is a focus, but this seems slightly unclear.

A lot of the page's bulk is the skills section. While this section is important, I believe other parts could use expansion/improvement-For example, what are general "roles" that a HARD force would have? A commander, perhaps a heavy weapons specialist or a medic as well? Having "general roles" for Operators may be helpful for if people were to organize a HARD force in a plot but are for some reason or another unable to contact you.

Also, perhaps knowing requirements for a HARD team-could anybody feasibly sign up to join, or do they need prior service to even come close to trying to sign up?


I intend to finish this review by: FRIDAY, 10/6/2017

For the time being, since I'm running a bit dry on words, I've simply shuffled the skills around to make it look a bit better. I've also swapped out Mikado for 'ruler' since it's more straightforward - it's just an archaic term for Emperor/Empress, but I don't think it's worth an article on its own. Regarding the skills though, a person doesn't need to learn everything, and I've tried making it more apparent by separating the last sentence in the skill overview from the main paragraph to emphasize it. I've also added in some brief details regarding how people would end up joining HARD as well.

Let me know your thoughts.

It seems altogether much improved.


A few more questions, mostly minor stuff:

-What's the size of the "single firing team" in terms of people? I'm going to guess three to four people.

-How are the weapons "Improved"? I can assume customization comes at the discretion of a soldier, but the improvement seems, to me, that the equipment a HARD team can access is straight-up "better" than a standard military fare. There's not really anything wrong with this, it just seems to catch my attention in an odd way.









EDIT: Obviously this can't be done right now in terms of the submission, but eventually adding a history section of sorts that highlights notable HARD teams might be cool, maybe also with some of the notable missions for those squads. That's your choice, though.

Fire teams are typically 2-4 people in a modern military, but I've gone ahead and made that clear. I've also cleaned up the grammar regarding the weapons; they get weapons that are improved by added customization, much like how special forces today are given silencers, red dots, flip-up magnifiers, laser designation, etc. You're also correct regarding the history of this as well; right now, since we're just starting out, there's not much to it yet. I'll be sure to fill it in as RP unfolds however.

Things seem in order!



APPROVED!