OK, this I just don't get: "Though the paragraph is sourced, the statement itself is not; it is OR due to no examples being described." The source covers the statement. The statement is blatant OR. It literally says that. No, it's canon. I'm directly paraphrasing from the book. Paraphrasing, or quoting? There is a difference. Paraphrasing. Quoting would be plagiarism. Fine. The way you /paraphrase/ it makes it blatant OR. How can it be OR when it's repeating what the source says? Here, let me transcribe the source. "During the Clone Wars, warship design technology improved in leaps and bounds as engineers on both sides sought desperately to create bigger, faster, more heavily-armed and armored vessels." Indeed. I stand by my statement. I'm sorry, but your statement is incorrect. Then cite examples. It can't be original research if it's canon. The source doesn't give any. Cite examples from other canon sources. Well, the Victory. Which I then talk about. But your OR objection is simply...incorrect. And Venator. How about some CIS ships, then? I don't know how else to put it. We don't know those were created because of that philosophy. Now you're asking me to add OR. Not if you cite them properly, it isn't. It is cited. No no, I mean if you cite the CIS examples. IIRC, much of the source material for Lira came out before Ep. III, right? It's OR to say they're part of that philosophy. I'm not sure if it is or not. However, there's surely a way to phrase that statement so it isn't OR. Perhaps cite the statement with a footnote that says that this is how it's stated in the canon source? It's not OR. It can't be OR if it's not original. That's what a footnote means.