Talk:Russian submarine Losharik

Top Gear

Is this source acceptable? If not, is there any better one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123, The Guardian gives us "The clearest photograph is believed to have been accidentally published by Top Gear magazine, which inadvertently captured it while covering a test drive of a Mercedes-Benz GL450 in Arkhangelsk, northern Russia." - Dumelow (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. That looks somewhat more of a WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mirror

In its print form the UK's Daily Mirror is viewed as a tabloid. Are we still happy to use the online website as a source here? Perhaps a better source could be found. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It was the only source I could find at the time, the London Evening Standard has since covered the same info so I have replaced it - Dumelow (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Blog source

Is this blog source of any use? I found the images quite instructive (if they may be believed, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Spyage and Spookery

Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) wrote in his edit summary: (→‎History and features: move ref to end of sentence; but is that a WP:RS? does it need to be named (or perhaps entrirely discounted ?))

I submit that is a perfect reference for belief, rumor, conjecture, disinformation, and so forth. To prove an actual fact, not so much. Rumors are a legitimate part of any clandestine subject, and sources which are less than solid otherwise have a place in illustrating them. Qwirkle (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that source is reliable? That's a pretty fundamental policy around here, isn't it? Unless we qualify it with something like "Crackpot fringe neo-con apologist website x says..... blah, blah, blah..."? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

List of fatalities

Two of the men killed appear to be notable, possibly. Does this justify listing the names of all 14 who died? I don't think we generally include entire lists of fatalities. The rank or status of some of those killed may be notable. But I think that is already mentioned? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ENGVAR

Is this article written in British English, US English, or something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Militarese, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you means it's governed by MOS:MIL? I see no advice on spelling there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean that source articles on certain subjects - military, naval, maritime for the most obvious- contain usages that reflect those professions, despite the usual usage in their countries of origin. Clues that might be strongly suggestive elsewhere are not. Qwirkle (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, the sources differ. I can see you are a big fan of WP:MoS, but perhaps someone ought to choose? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Russia propoganda source

The link for the claim that this sub can go to 2500m depth - a figure that is extemely unlikely, is linked as item [3] which is itself a far from reliable non-independent source and the words "it is known that it can dive to" is therefore complete rubbish. Sorry not a wiki expert but many thanks to those of you who are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7221:9201:10D1:1559:592E:A873 (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)