Alright, since I have
just been cleared to review submissions let's see if I can do this and not cause half the universe to explode.
This Review is For: Submission Above
idk why the formatting broke here so I just went for this
The submitted article is/has…
[ YES ] A very high level of overall quality
[ YES ] A general topic sentence under the title header
[ NO (Not Required) ] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)\\
[ YES ] Needed and/or useful to the setting
-It's a 188-604 based company, and such a cheaply manufacturable weapon battery cell is...IMO quite a necessity.
[ YES ] In the proper format/template
[ YES ] Proofread for spelling and grammar
- I personally don't see any. Should be fine.
[ YES ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
-Very clear-cut terms and even has a nice table!
-Suggestion: For the row label, name it "stack size" and for the column label, name it "pack size." Took my brain a bit to wrap around the table. But after reading the Operations in Weapons subheading it became pretty clear.
[ YES ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[ YES ] No red and/or broken links
[ YES ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[ YES ] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[ NO ] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
-Basic stuff, really. Doubt settled!
[ NO ] Obtusely redundant
[ NO ] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[ NO ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[ NO ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[ NO ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[ NO ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[ NO ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[ NO ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[ NO ] Lacking Detail
[ NO ] 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
[ YES ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[ YES ] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[ YES ] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
Summary
Good Heckin' Article.
Approved
I have finished this review on: 9/13/2017
edit: thx for 500 likes arble