Talk:Chetverikov ARK-4
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Phil Bridger in topic January 2019
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chetverikov ARK-4 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
January 2019
editTHE only REFERENCE ( NOT EVEN sHAVROV) IS A rUSSIAN WEBSITE WITH POOR VERIFIABILITY STANDARDS. Should a verifiable reference emerge there is no reason why the page could not be re-instated--Petebutt (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- From looking at the specifications, the aircraft looks suspiciously like the ARK-3, particularly the ARK-3-2 second prototype.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- As the three paper sources that the article creator quoted as references do not mention any ARK-4 at all, and the website appears to be vastly short of a reliable source, it appears that the article is a hoax.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a hoax, per the source that I just added to the article, but it does seem to have been a variant of the ARK-3. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- The source posted appears to say virtually nothing about the so called "ARK-4", literally just a line, and since the authors don't seem to know how many engines the ARK-3 had (it had two) does not seem to be a useful source.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- That may well be true. I'm simply saying that this should not be characterised as a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- The source posted appears to say virtually nothing about the so called "ARK-4", literally just a line, and since the authors don't seem to know how many engines the ARK-3 had (it had two) does not seem to be a useful source.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a hoax, per the source that I just added to the article, but it does seem to have been a variant of the ARK-3. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- As the three paper sources that the article creator quoted as references do not mention any ARK-4 at all, and the website appears to be vastly short of a reliable source, it appears that the article is a hoax.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)