Template:Did you know nominations/Balagansk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination  The following is an archived discussion of Balagansk's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Bratsk Hydropower Project

Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Ymblanter (talk), Rosiestep (talk), and Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 14:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg I think a clarification is needed regarding the hook: the source actually says that the Balagansk District was evacuated to a new place called Novo-Balagansk, after which the Bratsk Reservoir was filled with water and the former Balagansk Region was incorporated into another district. The source doesn't actually say that the new settlement was renamed Balagansk, and the hook also implies that the "flooding" caused the evacuation, and not vice versa like what the source says. Maybe one of the other sources in the article has the relevant information? —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    This one says that the population of the area was resettled after 1958, and that Novo-Balagansk was founded. This one says Novo-Balagansk was renamed Balagansk (will now add to the article). The official website says it occurred in 1962, though it does not say explicitly "N=B was renamed B in 1962".--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I have edited the article a bit to address my other point, but overall it looks very good. Approved. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    Great, and thanks for the edit, I think the point is more clear now than it was before.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)