Template:Did you know nominations/Pakistan Communist Party
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pakistan Communist Party
edit- ... ... that the Pakistan Communist Party ceased to exist just three weeks after it had been founded?
- Reviewed: American Committee on East-West Accord
Converted from a redirect by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
The hook is sourced in the article, and it seems interesting. The article, having been newly written two days ago, fits the criteria of length and age. I just have two minor issues with the article: one of the paragraphs begins with "but"; can this be rewritten somewhat? Another issue with the article, which is more glaring: the article twice mentions a "national question", but does not explicitly mention what this national question is. Can the article be rewritten in such a way that it is clear what the "national question" being mentioned in the article is? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I reworded some parts now, hope that settles the doubts. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Soman: What the "national question" is needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article; a link won't suffice (besides, the link in the article leads to a rather vague article that doesn't entirely discuss the Pakistani "national question"). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the problem lies in the article national question, which doesn't provide much detail. In this case, the sentences "On one hand, the PCP split represented dissatisfaction with the shift of the party line on the national question. In 1942 CPI had, in response to the demand for Pakistan, formulated a position which supported the notion of self-determination of nationalities. By 1947 this line had been reverted and the Muslim demand for Pakistan was now branded as a reactionary movement by CPI. Swatantar and Qurban argued towards the CPI leadership to retain support for self-determination of nationalities." should be read together. The article thus clarifies that the dispute related to the demand for Pakistan. Now there is a lot of context that isn't laid out here explicitly, such as the fact that India at the time was British India, that there were movements for independence of India, that there was a demand to build a separate nation of Pakistan, etc.. --Soman (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Soman: What the "national question" is needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article; a link won't suffice (besides, the link in the article leads to a rather vague article that doesn't entirely discuss the Pakistani "national question"). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I reworded some parts now, hope that settles the doubts. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well I guess that works.
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well I guess that works.
