Talk:Belyana

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Decorated belyana

• ... that belyanas (pictured) were giant disposable wooden ships used in the Volga region for timber rafting? Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that disposable wooden ships called belyanas (pictured) used in the Volga region could make up to 3500 km in its only trip down the river without any engine or sails? Source: [2]

Created by Artem.G (talk). Self-nominated at 14:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC).

• Cool topic. I like those ships, much better than just throwing the logs in the river like the Americans did (which led to stuff like this). The article is certainly long enough and new enough, and seems reasonable well cited (but my Russian isn't up to the task, ru-0.7 here). The hook facts are interesting cited to reasonable sources. I can't check how closely you have translated them, please double check for yousrself whether you have used Close paraphrasing. QPQ is not necessary. The only concerns I have are with the images and with the prose: "livejournal" without even a link isn't an acceptable source and does not help at all with determining how old the images are and who might own them (although the ancient Cyrillic used is an indication that it is an old image). This isn't good enough for an image that should go on the Main Page, so you might wish to swap it out for one with a known author. The other issue is that the prose needs copyediting and perhaps a translation check: The upper deck was not provided and the acceptable strength of the ship's structure was achieved by dense stacking of loaded timber. is a bit unclear. Do you mean "There was no upper deck. Dense stacking of the loaded timber was used to achieve an acceptable structural strength" or something like that. The deck was also a load Does this mean "The deck consisted of load material"? There's a few more like that. I can go through and try to do what makes sense to me, but I can't properly check the translations; this needs someone to go through the article before it his the main page. The WP:LEAD section should also be a bit longer for an article of this size. Overall: very promising, but not quite there. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Kusma thanks for the review! I rewrote unclear sections, hope it is better now. I was compiling data from different sources, and at some point completely messed up some sentences. About the image - I've provided better source [3] that is the official website of the Nizhny Novgorod Oblast government, though there is no indication there to the date and author. But, as you note, old Cyrillic was used before 1920s, so it should be in PD now. As an alternative, I think one of these images can be used: File:Volga (Travel poster).jpg or File:Belyana1.jpg though the one that is in question now seems to be better and more interesting. I'll work on the lead today and check the text for awkward phrasing, but I'll be grateful if you'll also copyedit it, as I think that I get used to the text and may miss some bad wording. Artem.G (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• OK, but the licensing template is still wrong, it claims a known author. Shouldn't you use c:Template:PD-Russia-1996 instead? The paintings could also potentially be used as they have known authors and may look better at the small size we use on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• You're right, thanks for that. I've updated licence on commons, so it should be fine now. The image is really old and by all standards should be free to use, but I totally messed with the right licence, would be more attentive next time. About the paintings - sure, they can probably be used, though I think that the real photo is much better and gives better impression about this (quite unique) vessel. But, of course, if you think that the image is inappropriate for the main page, let's swap it with something else! Artem.G (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think all of the images are a bit difficult to comprehend at the size we use on the Main Page. The one you chose is OK, but may end up not being chosen as there is a lot of competition for the image slot. I'm not totally convinced that the photographs with the handwritten titles have really been "published" in the time you claim, but I find it plausible that they are free. I'll approve the nom: —Kusma (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P7