Template:Did you know nominations/White River (Ontario)
Appearance
- 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) 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
White River (Ontario)
... that there are three hydroelectric generating stations on the White River in Northern Ontario, Canada, all owned by First Nations? Source: Ref. #10 and Ref. #11.
- Reviewed: L-8
5x expanded by P199 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC).
- Hi P199 article is looking good but I have a query about the hook. From the sources it looks like the generating stations are part-owned by a first nation, with shares in two held by Regional Power and the other by Innergex Renewable Energy? - Dumelow (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. Correction made in the article and hook updated as follows:
- ALT0a: ... that there are three hydroelectric generating stations on the White River in Northern Ontario, Canada, all part-owned by First Nations?
- -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi P199, remainder of review: article more than 5x expanded from22 October; exceeds minimum length and is well written; sources used are cited inline and appear reliable; I didn't spot any issues with overly close paraphrasing; hook is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to the source cited; a QPQ has been carried out.
You could mention the first nation involved (Netmizaaggamig Nishnaabeg, as they have since renamed) as they co-own both plants, rather than a generic link to the First Nations page, but will leave that up to you and the promoter- Dumelow (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi P199, remainder of review: article more than 5x expanded from22 October; exceeds minimum length and is well written; sources used are cited inline and appear reliable; I didn't spot any issues with overly close paraphrasing; hook is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to the source cited; a QPQ has been carried out.