Why bullet points if a single sentence will do the job? You're over-complicating things and the second object in the sentence depends on the first for context, otherwise the article is unnesesarily bulked into three lines and two bullet-points of hugely differing length (one short one long). Making them equal would mean turning that earlier sentence into a paragraph. Its unnessesary thickening/bulking. I know what I'm doing.
Second, the title is descriptive and does everything it has to do. It does not need fixing. I know what I'm doing.
Next, the namespace is fine: Inflection is the namespace of Lazarus Consortium (not corp)'s hardlight and out of tidiness I keep all of my hardlight projects and products under that namespace.
I know what I'm doing.
Look.
I like you as a person. I like roleplaying with you. I like talking to you.
But you burn me out as a writer faster than any other techmod and the others don't even come close.
I feel dread in my belly if I've submitted something new and I see you're the one who's reviewing it.
"Oh, we're going to play the formatting game again, okay"
Its mainly because I submit a lot of technology and special items: Things which are guidelined, not templated because you can't apply templates to articles of this nature, just requirements.
I don't mean pedagogy and understanding: "oh, could you explain this further, its confusing?" or stuff like that.
More than anything, you you ask for largely unnessesary rearrangements of articles instead of deferring to experienced writers who know what they're doing from a player standpoint.
Examples? Gladly:
What header type you think something should be under, because it looks neater.
That something should be broken up into bullet points because costs are involved, which would then demand an extra sentence demanding an explanation of the relationship between the two purchasables.
That some areas could be collated together into a smudged mishmash of misunderstanding and no clear distinction because they're two seperate functions of the same thing.
What does any of this stuff have to do with the article? I'm the one writing a guidelined article, not you.
And my point is, it burns me out. Unnessesary re-writes that are specificall to meet formatting demands, not player-understanding or article-explanation demands suck the joy out of what I'm doing.
So I ask: In future, could you let someone else get to my articles first, even if it means they sit cold for a while?
I like you. I really do. In fact, I think very highly of you.
I just think most of your demands are unnessesary, wasteful and you tend to circle the drain with lots of small collections of demands, not a giant list of shit I need to do (which if I'm honest is what I really WANT: I want to do it all in one sitting, not go back and forth back and forth over and over over formatting).
Sorry if the nature of this response is heated.
I've got stuff I'm sat on and I don't want to submit it because I don't want to go through this again.
Other than the checklist of basic requirements (which should be your bible and should be stuck to the entire way through the submission very aggressively), you only have three jobs that stray from it:
1: Make sure its scientifically reasonable.
2: Make sure its good for the game, not OP or out of place
3: Make sure shit is understood, clearly communicated
If you have problems with subtle formatting on a guideline article, not a templated article, that's your personal subjective preference.
