Approved Submission ZA-FWR-01 10mm Selective Mode Rail Rifle (SMRR)

This wouldn't pass the checklist.

Use this template or make a new template and submit it.

The template is more of a guideline so we don't end up with a paragraph an image and a few facts usually not totaling more then five bits of info. All the relevant information from the SOP template is on mine just in a more easy to read and better looking configuration, its never been an issue in the past on numerous submissions and the structure tends to change depending on the weapon system involved (and or the quality and size of the art such as rifles will probably have the arrangement of this). Now if you wish to take this template and make it a standard I'd have no problem with that but overall there is no issue here that I see, so do you wish to continue or is the structural demand it?

Previous approved submissions don't have any bearing on the present ones and that it worked in the past is not a valid argument.

I would seriously consider the options to either a) strip the template yourself and put it up for Wes' approval and then come back to this submission and get it approved in its current state or b) re-format it to fit the current template. As you can see below, it's ready for approval, save for the template hindrance.

This review is for: ZA-FWR-01 10mm Selective Mode Rail Rifle (SMRR) with URL
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:za_fwr_01

The submitted article is/has…
[☆] A very high level of overall quality
[☆] A general topic sentence under the title header
[☆] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)
[☆] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[ ] In the proper format/template
[☆] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[☆] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[☆] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[☆] No red and/or broken links
[☆] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[☆] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[☆] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[☆] Obtusely redundant
[☆] 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
[☆] 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
[☆] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[☆] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
To the submitter: Is this a refit or overhaul of a previous article? If yes, provide a link and a list of changes.

I intend to finish this review by: 3/16/17

In truth, Arieg is correct. Having made some of the templates myself, it's worth noting that they are not used as a hard rule or standard to go by, and instead serve to give us consistency and quality in submissions. If a different template is used, it's acceptable so long as the relevant information is present and well organized. I also point out that the big box graph thing is ugly and could use some work however. I prefer bullets.

@Wes what do you think? Template necessary or not?

This reminds me of Doshii. : (

Speaking of, Doshii and I have talked about this in particular when I noticed a past submission of Arieg's didn't follow a template and I was wondering if we let template use slide or not. I can't quite remember the answer Doshii got (we'll find out soon!) but I do know that he was happy and willing to ask when he didn't know the answer. : )

Alternate templates aren't always bad but the full-frame infobox that Arieg has here looks more cluttered than it does refined, tbh. I can see why it's a reject-able template.

There have been other submissions that were forced to conform to more standard template formats before approval within the past year alone, though. So it's not like this is a unique situation.

I agree that the full frame infobox is better replaced with something else, but otherwise, nonstandard templates have never been a big deal. They've been approved in the past so long as they were quality.

Okay, I'd like to say a few things. Starting off, I would like to point out that this Submission was approved and does not follow the official format or template. Not only that, but it seems every time anyone disagrees with you, you run to Wes. Given Doshii approved this previous submission on January 17th 2017 as seen here I think we can accurately say Doshii did not mind submissions not following the base template, so long as it looked good.

However, I believe that as a site, we should always strive to be better than what came before us, as has been stated by numerous people in the setting submissions that I've seen over my time on the site. Is there a quality error in the Template? This just seems like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Personally, I don't see anything constructive about disallowing the template. Arieg is one of the best Wiki people on the website.

Doshii stepped down, because every time someone disagreed with him, they would run to Wes. This made his position, the power of the banners under his name, and the time he had spent on this website working with the NTSE and the site as a whole worthless, as no one would trust what he said if they did not agree with it. You have been NTSE for a little over a month or two, and haven't even been on this website for a year yet, and even as I read this, I see you doing exactly what made Doshii step down to Cadet. It seems like you do not respect the words of those around you who have more experience in the position you are in unless their words agree with yours. Not to mention the fact that the position was created in the first place to take things off Wes' plate, not point out problems, then not seek a conclusion that everyone is happy with.

Not trying to attack you, I'm just making a point. If you want to continue second guessing your fellow NTSE Moderators and get Wes to step in every single time you disagree rather than settle the differences yourself through a discussion, that is your choice, but realize that if you go to Wes every time someone disagrees with you, you just invalidate the point of there being NTSE moderators.

Given I believe one of the points of the Wiki is to emulate a professional Wikipedia, I went and looked up the Wikipedia Page for the AK-47. The two, are strikingly similar. While personally, I don't see the issue that is currently seen in the Wiki, ((I take it, it's the infobox)) we can see rather clearly that they are basically the exact same. This is part of what we strive to be on the website when it comes to our Wikipages, clarity in conveying information. Do I think the infobox could be made a little thinner? Well, it would cost the picture of the base gun a little but it could be done if needed. Overall? What is wrong with the box?

Does this look better? https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:za_fwr_01&rev=1489679788 That was a version of the box being slightly thinner, and I have returned the page back to normal to properly represent what Arieg originally had. I only wanted to make it a suggestion with a visual.

Fyi: Wes is concerned with how things look on mobile. Some of Arieg's formats have not translated well. The last one I asked about looked fine on mobile, so Wes expressed no issue with the deviant template.

Some templates are old and were designed before we had the wiki functionality and wherewithal we have now.

I was good to go with Wes on these formatting issues because he wants things looking good, and I couldn't see anything that looked bad.

Fyi only. That's just my experience. The NTSE mods make the calls.

Okay, I can see that. The second version of the page largely fixes the possible readability problems, if that is indeed the issue. (In my unscientific survey sample of one)

I have checked both formats on my Ipod Touch G3 ((Old lil thing)).

While the second one in Ace's post is a little easier, as it provides a little more space, I found little difficulty navigating the over all page. The only downside I found to either of the two formats was that I had to zoom in a little to read, but I have to do that on the main site anyway, so it doesn't bother me much. The format was, inherently just as easy to read as other formats, once you remove the problems that mobile viewing has in general. If I had a tablet at my disposal, I would check on the tablet. However, I also checked on my Xbox One, which is considered a mobile platform, and I was met with the same experince.

@Doshii Jun, given you are the one who brought it to our attention, what are the marks one has to avoid to make the page mobile friendly? Personally, I understand that if I am viewing a desktop site on a Mobile Platform, I am going to be inconvenienced, but for the sake of moving along, what is it the page failed to meet on the Mobile platform? Could we please have this information so that we can move forward with it, as I do not see Wes saying this is a bad format, just that sometimes Ariegs stuff does not work well with Mobile.

Wes' concern is the page index.

On my Nexus 5X, using Chrome, the current submission looks like this.



On the last submission, Wes told me that if it looks OK, he's fine with it. He added that he "prefers the normal layout." I asked for, but didn't need or get, further clarification. I had the answer I needed for that submission, and told him I would watch for future submissions.

Doshii Jun said:

Wes' concern is the page index.

On my Nexus 5X, using Chrome, the current submission looks like this.

View attachment 7695

On the last submission, Wes told me that if it looks OK, he's fine with it. He added that he "prefers the normal layout." I asked for, but didn't need or get, further clarification. I had the answer I needed for that submission, and told him I would watch for future submissions.

Click to expand...

The Table on the page had been ~~NOTOC~~ed, which removed the Table of Contents. For substantially larger submissions, like Species Pages and the like, I can see the TOC being desired, but at the same time, the inability to modify the TOC other than the removal of it often leads to awkward submissions.

Is this, in particular, a page that needs to have the TOC?

Otherwise, can the Reviewer give a reason that the Format looks bad? Is the format sub-par? Inadequate? By the looks of their last submission checklist, the only thing halting this from moving on is "Is this a nice looking enough format" and move it on. We are currently running on the word of a preference and not a hard rule. My honest opinion would be to view the Preference as Wes saying "This is the absolute minimum I will accept on this website" and until otherwise told that the templates he puts up on the website ((Which are currently out-dated as per the information Doshii Provided)) are absolutely required for the website, we go based if the NTSE Moderators feel the formatting used is adequate or superior to the version that is provided as a template.

Just as Doshii just said actually. If it looks good, the template shouldn't be a problem. That is what you said, right @Doshii Jun ? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

That's up to the mods. What I've said is all I have.

I feel like I should touch on this as I do like the right side wrap stat boxes and have an intrest in making wiki pages look good.

In the AK47 example, the right side wrap area becomes full screen on mobile, and doesn't have large text boxes in it.

Arieg's has a lot of text in it that I think would be better placed under a header in the main article. I think the right side wrapping should just be used for basic stats.

Zack said:

Arieg's has a lot of text in it that I think would be better placed under a header in the main article.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Long story short: Don't put paragraphs (or even long sentences) in infoboxes. It really messes them up and makes them look bad.

Acewing13 said:

Doshii stepped down, because every time someone disagreed with him, they would run to Wes... I see you doing exactly what made Doshii step down to Cadet.

Click to expand...

Cadet's the one who came into another reviewer's thread and started second guessing them.

Wes only gets called when unreasonable people who don't know what they're talking about decide to argue with people who do, to the point that no progress can be made until their unreasonable demands are met or they're told off by the admin.

Basically, I would like pages to have the TOC whenever possible and paragraphs should never go in info boxes. So for those reasons I'd ask that we use the normal template or a version with only small stuff in the info box.