- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Balonem do bieguna
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Balonem do bieguna; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
- Cited:
 - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
|
Overall: 
Article created on 22 February, and meets the length requirement. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for–though WP:AGF is in full effect for the majority of them for language and/or availability reasons. Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. There are no obvious neutrality issues. The hooks are both interesting (I prefer ALT1) and I'll AGF on the sourcing (but see below); I might use "with" rather than "through", however. QPQ has been done. I have but two comments/questions for the record:
- I added Smuszkiewicz (1982) to the lead so the article complies with WP:DYKHFC (making the "South Pole" part of the hook cited at the end of the sentence where it appears–silly, I know). Was that the right source to use?
- I seem to recall you explaining that although it looks like a regular wiki, encyklopediafantastyki.pl is in fact written by professionals and as such is a WP:Reliable source. Do I have that right?
Ping Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- TompaDompa, Szmuszkiewicz ref seems fine, he mentions South Pole ("na biegunie południowym powiewa polska flaga"), I just can't quickly verify the page number since I am using an pdf w/out page numbers (probably p. 69 in the printed edition). The reliability of ef is somewhat iffy, as in, it is written by professionals (notable ones) like SFE, but the quality of entries is problematic. Their bio on Umiński, for example, despite being written by pl:Wojciech Sedeńko, is simply a plagiarism of a book plus pl Wikipedia, unattributed, not even merged, and the only novel part it has - list of Umiński sf novels - is inaccurate as I've shown in my SFE analysis, where I identify ones they missed, and at least one they list has AFAIK no sf components (it is not impossible that Sedeńko wrote stuff for Wikipedia under a differently named account and received non-disclosed permission to use the book's content, Polish fandom is a small world - just AGFing, but on the surface, it looks, well...). That said, the quality of their entries varies (some are good), and it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Here I use it simply for their pictures of covers and information on dates of publication of the novel, which I think is simple and trustworthy enough. The only date that comes from EF that is not in Czachowska is 1929. But EF entry on BdB is also written by Sedeńko ([1]), and despite the fact that he also wrote the plagiarized Umiński bio, well, in theory, he is a RS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Very well, then this is
ready. TompaDompa (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Article created on 22 February, and meets the length requirement. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for–though WP:AGF is in full effect for the majority of them for language and/or availability reasons. Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. There are no obvious neutrality issues. The hooks are both interesting (I prefer ALT1) and I'll AGF on the sourcing (but see below); I might use "with" rather than "through", however. QPQ has been done. I have but two comments/questions for the record:
