The in-universe details I try to keep from contradicting as I can't speak to their accuracy. The stuff that really stands out that need to be edited is phrases like
Strong armor is enough to keep her vulnerable
which basically translates to “Strong armor is enough to keep her weak.” So WTF is this trying to say? Because, after all, "vulnerable" means "weak", which is the opposite of "invulnerable," which is what the author seems like what he was trying to talk about when he was talking about the Hera's armor.
Then there's stuff like 1) the use of "anykind," which is not even a word; 2) calling the Hera a "prototype" instead of "the class ship" or "first of its class," which are the proper navy terms for the specific ship that a particular class is named after (a prototype is what gets improved upon in the testing phase
, not actual deployment); and 3) confusing the words "compliment" (saying something nice) with "complement" (an item that completes or enhances something else, among other meanings).
Needless to say, I have some work ahead of me. Again, stay tuned.
EDIT: Ok, just reread the "vulnerable armor" phrase again. Here's the whole quote:
Strong armor is enough to keep her vulnerable, internal structure safe from main cannons of enemy warships
What threw me off was the fact that there's no need for a comma between "vulnerable" and "internal" because the entire noun is "internal structure." Yes, two adjectives need to be separated by commas, but "internal" here is not
a separate adjective, it's part of the noun
"internal structure". so the phrase "vulnerable internal structure" has only one adjective ("vulnerable") and one noun ("internal structure") so there's no need for a comma here at all.
Needless to say, stuff like this gets very easily missed in works that involve writing but aren't written professionally. This sort of crap is exhausting for people like me when we see it.