Research based article?
Same as for the other article. There are many assumptions several community members don't share (as evidenced by a recent discussion on HLP), so is it really necessary to consider this article the result of pure research and nothing else? --- Mobius
- I suggest trimming the article. Saying that the Artemis D.H. is only different from the standard Artemis in its appearance (=and not its strength) can be verified by anyone who knows the rough basics of FS tabling. That's not an assumption. Saying that the Hecate's hitpoints were lowered to make two missions harder will always be an assumption unless a [V] staffer comes along and says: "Yes! We lowered the Hecate's hitpoints just to make the game harder, and in addition to all that, we were too lazy to check what we wrote in its tech description." Same goes for discussing the Iceni's weaponry: You can point out that its tech description says that it's armed with x, y, and z; however, in Endgame, it's armed with x1, y1, z2. That can be verified, so it's a fact. Explaining why that's the case is subjective unless there's a canon source (mission briefing, V staffer) that makes it explicit. - TopAce 10:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)