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 97198 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• ... that Purnendu Dastidar, a prominent leader of the East Pakistan Communist Party, was jailed for over two decades?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kazanie Skargi

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC).

• Review comments: Article appears to meet length, newness, inline citation, and hook requirements, however, all but one of the sources are not online and so must be taken AGF. You'll need to fix the link to Ayub Kahn as it links to a disambiguation page.

A problem with the article that you should be able to fix is that any reader unfamiliar with history may have a great deal of difficulty determining why Mr. Dastidar spent so long in prison, because the article does not clearly explain this man's legal problems — why he was jailed for so long is unclear — one can infer it given the political maelstrom of the times, but reader shouldn't have to infer it. For any reader familiar with history, the struggle for independence from colonial rule was obviously a strife-ridden, perilous time, and the likely reason for Dastidar's troubles, however, that fact is not spelled out in the article, thus the article gives Dastidar's experience no explicit context. Stating the context of his life and the charges on which he was held and/or convicted (rightly or wrongly), with accessible cites, would go a long away to making the article paint a better picture of the pathos of his experience, and give the hook a fish to catch. A lesser issue is the staccato nature of the sentences. Another editor should re-review once the main issue is addressed. Sctechlaw (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The link to Ayub Khan is fixed now. However, I think the article outlines well the reasons for the imprisonment, "He was a member of the Chittagong Jugantar Party, and took part in guerrilla actions against British targets together with Surya Sen, Kalpana Dutta and Pritilata Waddedar.[4][5] In 1931, during his student years in Calcutta, he was imprisoned.[1] The British authorities charged him with being an associate of Surya Sen.", "Following the declaration of Martial Law in 1958, Dastidar was once again jailed.", "Along with other communist leaders, Dastidar was jailed at the time of the September 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. He was released in 1969, in connection with the ongoing mass protests which forced Ayub Khan to release all political prisoners." --Soman (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree. Restating here what the article says does nothing to rectify what the article doesn't say: for (one) example, why was it considered an arrestable offense to be an associate of Surya Sen? This is the sort of thing that makes explicit that which is currently implicit — the difference makes all the difference. Consider that you have knowledge that a general reader may not have — you ask the reader to make inferences rather than giving the reader specific facts about why Dastidar (is it Dastidar or Dastigar?) spent so long imprisoned. The general reader needs explicit context and explicit explanations for extraordinary claims (that he spent a great deal of his life imprisoned). For every time he was arrested and imprisoned, you need to give a reason, with citation, and the reader also needs context: nowhere does the article mention that his life was lived against the backdrop of the national struggle for independence from colonial rule. Sctechlaw (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

But it is said that "took part in guerrilla actions against British targets together with Surya Sen, Kalpana Dutta and Pritilata Waddedar". It is quite clear from context wherein the legal problem would have risen. In the second case, it is said that the arrest followed after Martial Law (whereby the government could cook up any excuse to arrest him), and in the last case it was in connection with arrests of other communist leaders at the time of the war. All the instances have references. --Soman (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Sctech: that he took part in guerilla attacks is not, in text, explicitly related to his arrest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• This is a bit weird. The text explicitly says "The British authorities charged him with being an associate of Surya Sen", i.e. confirming that he was arrested and what was the cause. The sentence is followed by a direct reference. A preceding sentence says "He was a member of the Chittagong Jugantar Party, and took part in guerrilla actions against British targets together with Surya Sen, Kalpana Dutta and Pritilata Waddedar", which contextualizes why association with Sen could bring someone into problems with the colonial legal authority. I don't know what were the exact charges, but that is less relevant in the context. --Soman (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• That you put "i.e." is just further proof that nothing explicit is in there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• But what is the question? He was arrested for being an associate of Surya Sen. That's quite explicit. --Soman (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• There is no explicit text, as Sctechlaw and Crisco 1492 have been saying, stating "why was it considered an arrestable offense to be an associate of Surya Sen", and similar lack of explanation giving context on other matters. If you wish the DYK to succeed, the article will need to be expanded to explicitly give the reader such contextual information. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's quite bizarre. The article already states that he was involved in guerrilla actions (see Guerrilla warfare for more details). Guerrilla fighters arrested by the colonial authorities were jailed. The formal criteria the British courts might have used are a secondary matter. And it is not something mentioned in the hook, the hook just talks about the time in jail. --Soman (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that you state this in a different sentence, not in the sentence about his arrest. That gives the (mistaken) impression that the two are not related. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• But the hook does deal with the causes of the arrests, it just pinpoints the fact that the was jailed for a certain amount of time, a fact that is sourced. --Soman (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• You are remarkably unwilling to make what should be a minor change. The article as it currently is written is almost nonsensical without explicitly stating why Dastidar was imprisoned for twenty years. This is an important part of his biography, and it should be clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• The obvious choice would be to add to the hook 'jailed for twenty years for political charges'. But we don't have sources that explicitly back up that assertion. It is still a quite notable feature that a political leader has been jailed for 2 decades. --Soman (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Article has not been edited to address issues raised here (aside from a single wikilink) despite the reviewers pointing out issues. If nothing is done by the end of May, this nomination will be closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed ALT1 ... that Purnendu Dastidar was elected to the East Pakistan Legislative Assembly in 1954, whilst being in jail? --Soman (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• ALT2 is good to go. Article is new enough and long enough. Referencing is up to par. Hook is interesting and cited; AGF to snippet view source. All in all this is ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)