The submitted article is/has…
[Y ] A very high level of overall quality
[Y ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[Y ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[Y ] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[Y ] In the proper format/template
[Y ] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[Y ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[Y ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[Y ] No red and/or broken links
[Y ] 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
[N ] Lacking Detail
[N ] 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
[Y ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[Y ] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[Y ] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
Summary
The "Appearance" section is listed twice in the article. Both paragraphs are exactly the same, down to the grammatical error I fixed in both ("than" was spelled as "that").
The "Operation" section repeats the word "one" a lot. This isn't going to really hold up the submission, but perhaps you could change some things there to "break it up" a little? An occasional "The operator" or "they" in the right places might help it feel less monotonous to read through that section.
Status:Pending
Notes
Apologies for the delay on the review. This looks great, otherwise!
I intend to finish this review by: Wednesday, November 29th. If not earlier, because of how easy these changes should be ^^
