This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips 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 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 Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of
forestry 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.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles
A fact from Belyana appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
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]
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply