"First, thank you for explaining what I was trying to say PiccoloNamek. I also realize that I probably did overreact, but I was getting very frustrated at getting the same response almost every time I brought up my issues. I think based on Kesh's comments that I may not have been getting across exactly which video I was talking about...Piccolo cleared it up for me. Hopefully all confusion is gone now. I also don't have the perseverance to look through extensive policies and to try to connect the dots to figure out why the video in question would technically be a reliable source...I've never been very good at that kind of thing (or in stating what I'm trying to get across in a simple way, as can be seen by my overreacting), but I still believe that since the video is the main source of information for the game, that it should be used as such. There really is nothing open to interpretation. And perhaps you just missed it Kesh, but the previews for StarCraft II pretty clearly state that most of the information in the article was derived from when the speaker was giving details on the video being shown. 

 Now, I can get down on to what I think can be specifically improved about the units section (sorry if it's overly long, I'm probably gonna go into quite a bit of detail here): 

 StarCraft II will feature approximately the same number of units as the original game.[15] Many units from the original game will return, some featuring new upgrades and abilities. For example, the Protoss Zealot, a melee unit from the original game, now has the ability to ""charge"" into combat[16]. Other changes to unit design have been inspired by story events in StarCraft and its expansion, Brood War, replacing old units with new, or renamed, versions which sport different attributes and abilities.[16] 

 This first paragraph is actually fine in my opinion. It states an example of a change to a specific unit; it doesn't list all of the known changes, nor should it, but it gives perhaps the most prominent known example. It doesn't really matter which example of an upgrade to a previous unit it gives, but it names a specific unit and that only that unit will have this ability. In addition, it does not name any additional abilities, and does not leave anything specific ambiguous or left up to the reader to figure out. In case that wasn't clear, an example would be ""and the ability to carry handheld shields."" An ambiguous sentence like this would leave questions such as ""multiple units?"", ""just one unit?"", or ""which units?"" 

 It's this second paragraph that I have a problem with: 

 The video demonstration also revealed new abilities that encourage more complex interaction with the game environment. Among these are the inclusion of units that can traverse varying levels of terrain,[14] or that become more powerful after gaining a number of kills[17], or that have the capability to teleport short distances for pursuit or escape.[16] Newly enhanced building structures enable units to be deployed nearly instantly into combat areas.[16][17] Many websites, such as Infoceptor also confirm the existence of units who can attack ground and air units simultaneously.[18], though it is unclear whether such features will be retained in the final release. 

 The first sentence and most of the second sentence are fine. However, I begin to have a problem with ""or that have the capability to teleport short distances for pursuit or escape."" As far as we know, only one unit has this ability. This makes it sound as though multiple units have been given this ability and is misleading to the reader. It is misleading because it doesn't provide enough specific information. To erase this confusion, it can be said as ""one unit"" rather than as ""units."" 

 Newly enhanced building structures enable units to be deployed nearly instantly into combat areas. 

 This is the sentence I've got a huge problem with. It is hopelessly ambiguous and leaves the unknowing reader begging for more. The reality is is that only one specific structure has been confirmed to be able to do this. This makes it sound like, again, that multiple structures have this capability. Also, in reality, in this case ""deployed"" means ""units that are produced may instantly appear at a certain chosen point on the map, within the radius of a Pylon or through the utilization of a new unit known as the Phase Prism."" Obviously it doesn't have to be quite this specific, but as it is it is misleading. Anyone wishing to know more and goes to a fansite that does have this specific information will return to Wikipedia to find that this sentence is, in a sense, ""wrong"", or at least ""misleading,"" and therefore be misinterpreted by a reader unknowing of this subject. The final sentence is fine as written, but could be more informative. I won't complain though. 

 Finally, I do believ