Talk:Stratellite

Reverted changes to article

[1]

Because I'm not sure what the facts are in this case I'm reverting, to avoid needless slander. These accusations should be sourced and properly formatted. Can anyone provide a source? -- Ec5618 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Sources are now cited in edit. Section containing "Stratellite" specs MUST be verified. They are claims citing ZERO sources.

If you look in the history of this aritcle, you can see that the original source for the specifications was the company's website. Somehow this information got removed along the way. I have re-added that information and removed the Template. Johntex\^talk 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Details

Details section contains much opinion with few sources cited.

Agreed. And it's really POV, also. I did a little work to remove the worst of it (including the "see also" links to pump-and-dump, etc). But there's a lot more cleanup needed to bring this article up to snuff. -- Plutor ^talk 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

These statements do not seem to be consistent: "Estimated broadband coverage of 300,000 mi². Wireless signals could be transmitted to and from a 200 mi diameter." A 200 mi diameter is just over 30,000 square miles, only one-tenth the estimated coverage area. To achieve 300,000 square miles of coverage, the signal diameter would need to be over 600 miles. Of course these calculations were done assuming planar geometery. The earth's curvature over such distances will of course need to be taken into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.85.221 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Globetel Discussion

Please check out [2] for discussions on Globetel and Sanswire. Thanks Rovo79 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Current event tag

Could someone please explain the inclusion of a {{current}} event tag at the top of the page, when the article does not mention any current events. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

expired links, unsourced material

This article needs some help. --68.9.119.54 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

continued relevance ?

looking at the sanswire website suggests this article is badly out of date. understandable i guess since it seems to have been written about a pre-prototype concept model using an early press release (according to other talk) that wasnt availale on the website.

the image for example does not come close to anything currently on the sanswire website. their images makes the stratellite seem like one of those segmented worm kites ... no tailfins etc per the picture.

since stratellite is a trademark term of sanswire (confirmed on their website) it might be more appropriate to just refer to it in the stratospheric airship page.

the qucomhaps website only refers to a piloted aircraft flying a racetrack pattern not an airship of any sort so im not sure why they are linked to ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.66.72 (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

News story from 2004

URL:http://www.economist.com/node/3423026. Accessed: 2013-02-07. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6EFrGWZh0) Not quite out of this world, Dec 2nd 2004 From The Economist print edition, The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Something is strange...

According to the site of the TAO-Group, their cooperation with Sanswire ended 2010 [3] [4], but no reason was given. I cannot reach www.sanswire.com (site is not responding), but I've found an article on yahoo finance that states that Sanswire was once called "GlobeTel Communications Corp.", and according to this FBI-Press-Release that company seems not very trustworthy. Could please someone with the proper knowledge (e.g. in fincance / stocks / law...) find out what all this means and update the article? GGShinobi (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)