Talk:ZALA Lancet

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Aviation Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

some english svp

latest (early nov'22) add-ons are definitely not to even most basic standards. how this is ever allowed to stand? 46.138.61.78 (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 november

Can someone say why Telegram info and blogs are deleted? Its ok if they providing they view on the war like thinking Who Will win or etc. Yes, then its not official info,and you cant include It in wiki. But footage? Footage is footage, we clesrly see M777 and other stuff, there no gore and its not computer graphic. Stop deleting It. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:8652:1129:5981:C95F:FDC6:1705 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now its fine

I guess its fine. All links given is from a real war journalists(voenkors), so It reliable. Also please dont add such sources as TASS Thobelex (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are anything but reliable. Just propaganda outlets. These war "journalists", the Russian MoD and TASS are all unreliable, so please stop using them as sources. Thanks in advance. BilletsMauves^€500 08:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't use the propaganda i don't like, just use the propaganda i agree with." 81.79.103.251 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the Russian MoD an appropriate primary source when used correctly with attribution. Something to the effect of "The MoD released a press statement claiming increased production numbers of the Lancet-3. This has/has not been verified by independent sources.", for example. As long as you're making it clear that this is a claim they are making and not an independently verified statement of fact, that should be okay. I would recommend sticking to independent secondary sources for anything that has no real dispute surrounding it (we can all reasonably agree on its wingspan, for instance), that is the standard. RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]