Talk:Type 901 fast combat support ship
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CorenSearchBot Error
editHow is this article a duplicate of this article?
"gentries" → gantries
editI have changed "gentries" to 'gantries'. I am guessing that was the author's intent. If not, please do what you think best.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
bmpt.livejournal.com
editThe reliability of bmpd.livejournal.com has been challenged before at Talk:9K720_Iskander#Algeria_operator_-_Unreliable_cited_material. In that case, the blog article cited a professional publication. After discussion, bmpd.livejournal.com was not found to be adequate; the professional publication was used instead.
In this case (https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2885968.html), the blog article is not even citing a professional publication, but social medias sources. If bmpd.livejournal.com was inadequate in the above case, it's inadequate here as well.
(I would also note that it is not obvious what editorial oversight is exercised by the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies over bmpd.livejournal.com. According to the blog profile, it is a catch-all for articles from CAST's own staff, and other associates, that apparently cannot be included in CAST's more professional publications.
It is striking that the article in question does not even include the identity of the author. Other bmpd.livejournal.com articles do identify the author (seemingly by livejournal profiles) which might be used to gauge the article's reliability. No such thing can be done with this article.)
Finally, it has been, according to the article, half-a-year since the event the article refers to took place. If that information isn't showing up and being corroborated by unequivocally reliable sources, then that suggests that the claims being made are weak. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)