| ||||||
Changes made to recent additions[]
Repetitive, unsourced, and speculative content was added to this article earlier and I removed it. Below are my reasons for doing so. Every part of an article needs to have supporting citations, which do not include opinions or our own ideas presented as evidence. Our content and criteria policies explain that only information and references that can be independently verified are appropriate for addition to our articles.
| Changed back from | Reasoning |
|---|---|
It provided a balance of performance, protection and mobility to United States troops.<ref group="Non-game" name="BUKTwitter" /> |
Adds the word "performance" which isn't sourced in the reference, there is no information about changes or details of the armor's performance. Protection and mobility describe performance anyway, it is an unnecessary adjective. |
The introduction of T-51 was also the turning point in the [[Sino-American War]] that put the [[People's Liberation Army]] on the backfoot against the [[United States of America|United States]]. |
Information is duplicate, it already appears in the second paragraph of the background section. It was also added without an accompanying reference, which would be required even in the case that this wasn't already included. |
The [[Courier]] states that the T-series' vision slits are 'bulletproof', but bulletproof is largely a misnomer for bullet resistant. [[Sheena]], an [[Appalachia]]n raider, mentions "a [T-51] helmet with a bullet hole through the visor" being taken as a trophy after a battle with the [[Brotherhood First Expeditionary Force]] which illustrates that the visor of T-51 can still be penetrated when the bullet has enough force. |
Additions to existing, correctly sourced information are speculative. Adding quotation marks and describing this as a misnomer actively speculates that the writers were wrong or incomplete about what they meant to write. We should not add our own ideas or justifications to explain why one character says it is bulletproof and another one says it has a bullet hole. Our role is to provide all the information we have, not try to cover up, make excuses, or try to explain away inconsistencies that may or may not even exist to begin with. Placed [T-51] as a qualifier but this is not part of the quote and isn't required for readability. The raider doesn't clarify what type of power armor helmet they saw, adding this to the transcript gives the reference context or confirmation that doesn't exist and may have not even been intended, and isn't necessary clarification-wise in any case. |
I saw the cleanup template suggesting a rewrite of the design section since it was repetitive. I agree and rewrote it. Thank you! -Bowndarrow (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Information placed in the intro paragraph does not require a reference (but does not hurt) and is in-general meant as a high overview of what's in the detailed article below. I suggest looking at popular pages on Wikipedia for an idea of how intros are largely ref-less, such as the page for Barrack Obama or more applicably the page for the M1 Abrams where the intro has few refs while the main article has the majority of refs and details. So mentioning that the T-51 was the reason the US began winning the Sino-American war would be applicable.
- Also, it's incorrect to assume the writers are speaking through a character such as with the Courier. It's possible for characters to be wrong and the information presented in 76 proves that the Courier is somewhat wrong. Additionally, that entire section should be moved to design. There's no need for a notes section when that paragraph can easily be placed in design.
- There's also the problem of removed information that was supported by refs. With a quick comparison, the design section lost info on water recycling (the ref is still present but has no sentence to support), helmet accessories, and hermetic sealing. And while there's mentions of T-45 as the armor the T-51 replaced, any mention of T-60 as the successor to T-51 is gone. I'd suggest adding these back as refs and visual appearance supported these sections. Devastating DaveZIP ZAP RAP 02:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the heck is going on with this talk page, but as far as I understand it, the T-60 was not the successor to the T-51, as it was a separate project that was in development longer than the other power armor models.
- intrepid359
7/24/24 [5:51am]
- Successor in the fact that it was the newer standard version of power armor for the US that was becoming a more common sight in battles. Devastating DaveZIP ZAP RAP 15:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)