Talk:Krwawy chleb

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 Crisco 1492 talk 22:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1909 Polish novel Bloody Bread about the struggles of Polish immigrants in the US was in the 1950s briefly criticized by the Polish communist censors for "glorifying the United States"? Source: http://wrh.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/299_PDFsam_WRH-t.-XII-2015.pdf, page 307. Quote in Polish: "gloryfikująca Stany Zjednoczone"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KAUT-TV (added from below September 29)
  • Comment:

Created by Piotrus (talk) and Oliwiasocz (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 523 past nominations.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC).

• I will be closing this in 24 hours if I don't see a valid QPQ before then @Piotrus:.--Launchballer 14:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Launchballer: Which policy allows such a speedy closure? I was under the impression QPQ can be done several days or even weeks later, while the nom is on hold. For now, have one here: Template:Did you know nominations/KAUT-TV . I will try to do QPQs for others later this week. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:QPQ: A nomination which doesn't include a QPQ (and is not from an exempt nominator) may be closed as "incomplete" without warning.--Launchballer 00:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Per a recent rule change as a result of this discussion, the old rule where QPQs must be provided within a week of the nomination has been phased out. Instead, QPQs should be provided at the time of the nomination, and any nomination that does not immediately provide a QPQ is liable for closure. Doing the QPQs "later this week" is no longer sufficient: they have to be given at the time of the nomination, and you must provide them as soon as possible if you do not want your nominations to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• • @Launchballer and Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the heads up. I am not very happy with this change. I've always done my QPQs on time, with submission (and I've done hundreds of them), but just recently someone translated a bunch of my articles form pl wiki without heads up, and I am trying to rescue some of them for DYKs within the time period - and I am a bit busy IRL so for the first time I delayed QPQ. And then this happens. Sigh. You know you can trust me do to my QPQs, no? It's not like I will drop noms here and run. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer already gave an ultimatum for your open nominations: provide a QPQ within 24 hours of the messages, or they will be closed. If you do not think it will be feasible to complete them all in time then it may be better to just let them go for now and try to avoid this repeating in the future. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that a QPQ was provided for this nom, so it needs a full review.--Launchballer 21:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi @Piotrus: I'm sorry there's been such a delay in reviewing this. This article is unfortunately not new enough. It was translated on the 15th and this DYK nom is from the 24th. When promoted, it included a non-existent quote from the (English language) review by Sister M. Andrea; a portion of the quote from the Polish Librarians' Association which, in square brackets on the Polish wikipedia, was translated here as if it was their own words; and no original Polish for the many Polish quotations (per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE). I've fixed these issues, but even now there isn't much to this article beyond a plot summary and a disjointed set of quotes from reviews (some of which, like "social accents", hardly make sense in English). Better wishes for your next DYK, Tenpop421 (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKNEW, the seven day requirement can be extended for a day or two if needed. Still work to be done though.--Launchballer 14:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer and Tenpop421: I've fixed the only clear actionable issue (i.e. I've rewritten the sentence/quote with "social accents" to sound better in English). I appreciate Tenpop421 cleanup of quotes. I am not sure what remains? The article is long enough, and its 'reception and analysis' section is much longer than its plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Piotrus: Given Launchballer's better knowledge than me of the DYK guidelines, I think this could be DYK eligible. I was mostly voicing my frustrations w/ the article as I found it. Thank you for fixing that phrase. I've replaced "foreshadow" with "foreground" in one quote (please correct me if I'm wrong, I was going by a online Polish-English dictionary). My only real problem is with the phrase "(the period of partitions and World War I)." Could we wikilink "the period of partitions" to something (do you mean Brest-Litovsk?). Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tenpop421: I've asked the translator (Oliwiasocz) to be more careful with the quotations on her talk page, and I've added a wikilink to the partitions of Poland. Thank you for your fixes, they were indeed much appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks! I have to say, this is what confused me about that line: how does the 18th century partition of Poland relate to the circumstances in which the novel was written? Indeed how does WWI (which would start five years after the book was published)? I understand you might not have the Zieliński to hand, and to avoid confusion we can just remove this phrase, but on the off chance we can make it clearer. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tenpop421: I think I understand, although I don't have him on hand ATM, so I am not sure if this explanation will not a bit ORish (it is based on what I remember, and also, some stuff was not spelled out in the analysis as the academic Polish writers assumed their readers would understand stuff that for them is basic knowledge about Polish history, that non-Poles would however lack). The gist of this is that the book was written during the time Poland was partitioned, on the eve of World War I. During that time, discussion of Polish topics was subject to censorship by the partitioning powers; so some topics had to be written about through allegories, metaphors, allusions, etc. So in essence, when the book covers supression of Native American uprisings, this, for the Polish readers, would evoke the memory of Polish uprisings against the partitioners (ex, the January Uprising) and inspire [some of] them to take up the arms again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining to me, and making it clearer for non-Poles on the page. I think this article is good to go now. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The hook reads awkwardly to me. The phrase "about the struggles of Polish immigrants in the US" seems parallel to the point. I think this could be more clear if the hook was either directly about the initial rejection by communist censors or about the Polish immigrant subject matter. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I don't think those two points are parallel: its subject matter being the struggles of immigrants is at odds with the censors' comments about glorification. It gives the reader something to click for. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)