This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
It's pretty strange to see such an unprofessional article from TWP, because one does not die from a radiation sickness in such a short period of time. I am not subbed to them, so I haven't seen the full article, but I think these few sentences in the beginning are saying all we need to know about the credibility of this. Besides, as far as I know, there were no Russian sources declaring additional people dead since the day of the explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"one does not die from a radiation sickness in such a short period of time" this is a good point. I mean, given a high enough exposure a person theoretically can die within 48 hours, but it would require a very severe exposure, much worse than anyone at Chernobyl was exposed to. Stono rebellion (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I removed the sentence that included: "rise to assertions[by whom?] about the accident being a failed Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile test." In the source, I have not found any assertions other than those by the author (Joseph Trevithick) and unnamed US intelligence officials, which info is based on a NYT article which, however, also mentions 7 deaths, which makes the article, as it seems, not reliable (based on the consenus about the death toll in the wikiartile (see also discussion above). So I have replaced that sentence with wording from 9M730 Burevestnik which clearly states who thinks what. Of course, we can add US intelligence officals if more sources are find, and the opinion of Joseph Trevithick, if it is encyclopedic. But they have to be attributed as such. UPDATE: There is also this, not sure if encyclopedic. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jeffrey Lewis was not the only one who started pointing towards the Burevestnik right after the accident. There were other people in the OSINT community who presented the satellite imagery to the public, where the old testing site in Pankovo was shown, the new one in Nyonoksa and the similarities between them were pointed out. So, while there is nothing wrong in pointing to Jeffrey Lewis here, the impact of other people on this whole topic should probably not be downsized. However, it is indeed a question how to do that, giving the Wikipedia guidelines on citations. I'll think about, maybe will change it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Velasquez (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a heads up that nearly all of the sensors in Russia on uRADMonitor are also offline.
Strangely enough most of them stopped working in 2016 but it might be worth asking what went wrong.
Data up until then seemed OK so maybe connectivity issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.44 (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
