[Origin] Asura and Kirin

I know I'm not a tech reviewer, but the use of "AMBAC" as the terminology for your stabilization system concerns me. I've never heard that acronym used outside of Gundam; I don't know if it is a trademarked or copywrited term, but even if not I think avoiding any appearance of infringment of someone else's creative work is for the best. Moreover, part of the description,

[url=https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=origin:m1_advanced#control_systems:29hl8wi2]Asura Article[/url] said:

allows for thrusterless manoeuvring in the zero-G environment of space by means of precise movement control of their limbs. AMBAC works by leveraging the Third Law of Motion (when there's an action there is an equal and opposite reaction) with regard to inertia to effect changes in direction.

Click to expand...

appears to have been taken from the Wikipedia explanation,

[quote="Wikipedia Article":29hl8wi2]allows for thrusterless manoeuvring in the zero-G environment of space by mobile suits by means of precise movement control of their limbs in the Gundam universe.[18][19] AMBAC works by leveraging Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion (when there's an action there is an equal and opposite reaction) with regard to inertia to effect changes in direction.[/quote]

This is reasonable enough in terms of finding an easily understandable explanation, but still I think it should be reworded rather than left as direct plagiarism.

This explanation has been used before on the site. Therefore, it is not a concern.

Forum and wiki searches fail to show any trace of AMBAC or the description I pointed out anywhere else on the site. Moreover, plagiarism is always a concern, no matter if it has been previously ignored or if others have done it before. I don't want to be confrontational, but I hardly think that it would be that difficult to change your terminology and reword the description; the benefit of removing any hint of plagiarism or infringement from SARP is well worth it.

https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=or ... ol_systems

Nowhere on the wiki? You need to look harder, if I have to be blunt.

Nowhere on the wiki aside from the same copypasta you've been using on this whole series of frames. And again, it doesn't really matter if it's been approved before: copyright infringement/plagiarism is both against the site rules and generally a bad idea. If you don't care to change the items I pointed out, that's your prerogative. Ultimately, it's the admins who will have to decide.

I don't see any reason for someone like YOU to be making such a big fuss. We have tech reviewers like Nash for that. Besides, if we complain about taking science from fictional shows that makes sense, then oh well, we might as well just give up on making any tech at alll, since none of our ideas are very original.

Five. Cool it. I'm pretty sure being condescending and confrontational to people is not acceptable. Sean is pointing out a valid concern. While the tech in question might make sense (I haven't sat down to thoroughly determine that, and probably won't) plagiarizing from another source is against site policy. Plain and simple. It's not that hard to rename the item in question, especially if there's a chance it might be a copyright term (duck tape is one example, jeep is another). I really do recommend you do so, that way we can avoid this in the future.

Also, copy/pasting stuff from wikipedia to our own wiki is plagiarism. You did copy/paste it, the capitalization, grammar, and wording are identical (for this case retyping it word for word counts as copy/paste). Stop giving Sean a hard time for your problems. While he may not be an admin/tech reviewer he has every right to pop in here as well.

Five,
While the AMBAC is not copyrighted, if you are going to copy text verbatim from Wikipedia you need to give them credit by adding a footnote that points to the Wikipedia page.

I don't see the need to change a perfectly good definition of something. Especially when its already in my own words, just because someone thinks that its too much like something on wikipedia.


And I didn't copy the text.

Well, the Text is exactly the same, regardless. Just change it, it isn't that difficult to do.

I'll change the bleeding definition if it will get people to stop whining about it.

I have made the changes to both articles now.

You may need to re-read the "About the Kirin" section. You kept calling the Kirin the Asura in some instances.

Edited.

This review is for: OI-M1-1b Advanced Ashigaru "Asura"

The submitted article is/has…
[x] A general topic sentence under the title header
[x] Artwork (illustrations are strongly encouraged for all spacecraft and handheld items)
[x] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[-] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[x] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[x] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view

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

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


Summary
Note here if any serious issues are present. These are the issues that will hold up approval.
** Short description of the issue. If a longer explanation is needed, put it in Notes.

Status: Approved.

Notes
This field is for any extra description needed for the issues stated above or (as the name suggests) and additional notes you wish to state in the record regarding the item.

Nomenclature
Nomenclature should probably be OI-M2-1a, and the Kirin OI-M3-1a since this does not carry the same name Ashigaru

Spelling and grammar
Following typos still exist.
enviroment, purpleish

Grammar error
of it's design should be of its design
on it's lower back should be on its lower back
Unlike it's larger should be Unlike its larger

it's is contraction for it is


Details

Issues corrected.


I intend to finish this review by: Complete

These are essentially heavy modifications to the Ashigaru, updated versions of the test model. Therefore, the Nomenclature stays. Also, the title says that its the "Advanced Ashigaru".

Otherwise, I've edited the article

Also note that there is already an OI-M2-1A: OI-M2-1A

The nomenclature was just a suggestion, because the Asura is so different from the Ashigaru.

Review is complete for Asura, there are still typos, and grammar errors. Once they are taken care of, I can approve it. I will review the Kirin tomorrow AM, please make sure to go through and correct the errors that were found in the Asura that are probably in the Kirin.

Nashoba.

Finished editing the Asura