Talk:SRT Tomahawk

"Realistic"
The Reaction section cites three different independent sources that scoff at the plausibility of this car, finding zero independent sources that offer any corroboration that the car is even hypothetically plausible, or is anything like what a car in 2035 might be like. Yet the lead describes the car as "realistic", in Wikipedia's voice, when in fact this is what the marketers say about it. The expert press seems to be laughing at it, or at least trying not to laugh.By the same token, the body of the article is filled with sentences like "The Tomahawk is powered by a 7.0L naturally-aspirated 144-degree V10, capable of producing up to 2,164 horsepower (1,614 kW; 2,194 PS)." I'm confused about the word "is" here. The car doesn't exist, and the fanciful 2,100 hp V10 engine doesn't exist, and according to sources, it's just silly. Why not just say it has a billion horsepower? Or a trillion? Why not say it made the Kessel run in 6 parsecs? Or zero paresecs? Because there doesn't seem to be any rules to this game. You just make up gobblygook.The guidelines for how to write this are at MOS:INUNIVERSE. These gobblygook specifications are not what the car is in it's game universe; it's performance is whatever the game designers actually put in player's hands. Saying the game puts 2,100 hp in the player's hands is begging the question, since there's no independent measure of how realistic a simulation the game is. The cars in the game can only be compared to other cars in the game, not an objective unit like horsepower. We should be describing what the car does in the video game. That means quoting or paraphrasing game reviewers that tell us how this car performer as a game car in relation to other cars in the game. It's a piece of game content, not a real car, not a real design, and not a concept car.One review says the car struggles for relevance even as a game car, though manages to pull through. The article should lean most on sources like this and mostly steer clear of the made up pseudo-science. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. I basically did a quick rewrite of the lead, and created the development and reception sections around what sources were saying it. I also didn't write or alter much in the way of the "vehicle data" section, because I'm no car expert. And I did the rewrite "quick and dirty", because, you know, time was a factor, considering someone was trying to delete it, and it was already on its first relist. Its not perfect. It's more of a "proof of concept" thing, to show a valid encyclopedia article could be created. Sergecross73   msg me  01:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've removed the word "realistic" from the lead. It wasn't meant to be commentary on this vehicles plausibility, it was more meant to reference that it was from a real wold car company, and they were traditional vehicles, not go karts or hovercrafts or anything else sometimes seen more frequently in video games. Sergecross73   msg me  18:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. You're no car expert, and anyone who understands the topic and explains their reasoning is having a "meltdown"? It's not constructive to define other editors as crazy and over-emotional. In fact, this behavior is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. You know this already, but I think others might need to have it mentioned.When the main body of the article consists of extraordinary claims used as advertising and promotion, segregating the criticism to a section at the end of the article creates a POV fork. Go karts and hovercrafts are far more realistic than this car. This car is more in the plausibility realm of X-wings or those wargs the orcs and goblins ride. Which is fine because fiction is cool. It's fun to make things up. But in this context it's intended to deceive the public and requires direct correction, not as an afterthought. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no deception. It says repeatedly that it's a fictional car that does not exist on the real world, so there's no reason any logical reader would have any of the misconceptions you keep dreaming up. Sergecross73   msg me  19:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)