Object 71 - "Pixie Guns" / Discussion

i see what u did there with the testing logs layout….

Good article,upvte

By the way, once you have the author page, I will definitely go to "+1".

Welcome to America.

+1

Good article. The dialogue and story was really good but I don’t like the fact that Pixie guns just become normal guns

HOLY SHIT???

Thank you for using my shitty lil guys lmao. One of the biggest criticisms is that the titanium was never expanded on, and now it has been!

You’re the goat, Pogs, have my +1

I will tell you as kindly as I can possibly tell you, this page was not written well. There are SPaG errors everywhere, and the context doesn't make sense as several sections add nothing or are in the wrong place. I'm writing this here in the comment section since I am at school rn.

Here is the stuff you should fix:

1. You have an offset list above the Concord Object Classification. If you need an offset list, put it at the bottom, yk where it will actually help people. Putting it at the top makes the article feel more disjointed.
2. Every single link in this article puts > before it for no reason. This isn't how internet links work and while it might just be a style choice, I personally don't like the look of it. Plus it messes with the format later on as it goes to the next line… which then removes your cursor from touching it, which then removes the format glitch, which makes your cursor touch it and cause the glitch again, etc etc.
3. There should be a comma after "Pixie Guns" in the opening sentence, since it is clarifying a point but separated from the rest of the sentence.
4. It should be "The majority of indoor levels" not "a majority of indoor levels". It is a small change but it will help in this context.
5. "Pixie Guns only take the form of 1 firearm model, that being the Gyrojet MkII" is very clunky. I really suggest you cut this sentence down. For an example: "Pixie Guns only appear as Gyrojet MkIIs". From there you could elaborate on Gyrojet MyII if you want.
6. "Unlike normal firearms, however," uses 2 transition words too closely together. The "however" doesn't need to be there.
7. "shoot" might be a better word than "fire" since it'd be clearer in the phrase "…Pixie Guns fire using a mix…"
8. You use two periods, one before and one after the Pixie Dust quote. There is no version of reason where you'd use both simultaneously. You'd use the one before in American English and the one after in British English, but using both versions in the same article is wrong.
9. Why did you make it theorized if Pixie Dust is used in Pixie Guns. Between the shared name, the explosive properties of Pixie Dust and it being found in Pixie Guns, it shouldn't be a theory. Also Pixie Dust seems pretty damn identified, unless I missed something or don't know what "identified" means lol.
10. "However, if one fires a Pixie Gun once, the gun is unable to be used until after 5 minutes." is very clunky, and doesn't get the point across well. Maybe change this to "You are only able to fire a Pixie Gun every 5 minutes." or something along those lines.
11. The second paragraph should be in the Dangers section. It would make your article more cohesive.
12. "that manifested" is a useless term in "Liminal Echo was hypothesized to be the cause of this, as there were no records of any objects resembling Pixie Guns that manifested before that year."
13. The second footnote does nothing. Just put this in parenthesis because it'll make the reading harder later on if the reader misses this.
14. I'm fairly certain that there should be a comma after "While initially" in the next sentence.
15. In the same sentence, "should the city come into attack from external forces" does nothing since we know what self-defense means for a city.
16. "nicknamed “Mechanized”" is unclear. It uses 3 things that it could be referring to: Most of the early data, collaborative research efforts between the I.M.B.H. and S.C.A.S., and section OX-03. While I now realize you meant the collaborative research, it both isn't clear and simply "Mechanized" is a terrible name for a project since that could refer to literally anything. You Need to name things descriptively.
17. "as well as the Charles Darwin Research Center in Level 11." what does this add to the article? I don't see where a nickname was named is relevant.
18. The end of this paragraph ends with a period outside a quote, so please stick with that if you aren't from America and be consistent.
19. "Due to their high destructive capabilities" You have just spent several paragraphs including the previous paragraph iterating on this. You do not need to mention their destructive capabilities for the 9th time (Yes I counted). I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if the phrase "Despite knowing the prior risks involved" didn't immediately make the 9th mention irrelevant.
20. "they played an incredibly destructive part of it given their highly destructive capabilities." You do not need to say "given their highly destructive capabilities". That is established, including in the SAME SENTENCE. Repetition shouldn't be used in this way.
21. Side note: Wasn't the leaders almost wiped out by the Emstable War? I thought they lost. I'm probably wrong since I heard all of this second hand but I wanna check nonetheless
22. "given their highly explosive properties." WE KNOW
23. Side note: the infamous FOJ attack should be put on the discord for those doing the FOJ canon stuff.
24. You forgot the author info at the bottom

I will crit the rest of the article but this is just the stuff for the first offset. The first offset is incredibly long, dense and unclear. It has blatant SPaG errors, bad sentence structure, and repeats the same thing over and over and over. We also don't need to know every instance of it being used and studied. A quick overview is fine but this just reiterates the same thing for every group in separate paragraphs. It becomes dull to read. Please combine several of these into 1 or 2 paragraphs. Shortening the history section would make it much easier to read.

Anyways I'll read the other offsets later. This article needs more work, and if I was not doing a crit, I'd have downvoted it already. It's okay to write a bad article once in a while, but that means that you have more work to do, and that's fine.

Best of luck, -Squibb