Re: [Origin] Garuda
This review is for: Garuda
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
[x] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[ ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[ ] 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)
[ ] Obtusely redundant
[x] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[ ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[ ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[ ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[ ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[ ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[ ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[x] Lacking Detail
[ ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[ ] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[ ] 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
Issue1: Weapon articles need to be wikified, weapon articles that have wiki pages but have stats that don’t match those pages will require either resubmission as a new stub article or reapproval of the previous article.
Issue2: Afterburners on this are unacceptable. Being able to move at .99c continuously and being able to maneuver around is absurd, being able to move at 1.05c is impossible, having a speed difference between the two forms while in space makes no sense (same engines, same mass, no reason for speed/acceleration to be different) and finally a x3 speed boost for 10 minutes doesn’t really fit with how engines would work. Why is there a 10 minute limit? How would afterburners even work on an IAPD?
Issue3: The article does not state if the submission uses the starship or the armor damage scale on the Damage Capacity section of the template (though it does say it later in the submission).
Issue4: No accompanying civilian starship submission.
Issue5: Links to previous mecha submissions for parts should instead be to separate wiki articles about the component.
Issue6: speeds in excess of mach 6 with this vehicle would almost certainly result in its destruction due atmospheric friction.
Issue7: This has the same amount of SP as a scout starship, yet is vastly smaller and has considerably less armor than starships of similar SP. Being in the starship size bracket at all seems a bit much.
Status: , Pending
(If a military starship)
URL of accompanying civilian ship is: Needs a civilian starship submission
I intend to finish this review by: Friday(WRITE IN DATE)