Talk:Organ donation in India

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 Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that organ donation in India utilises "green corridors", refering to a route that is cleared out for an ambulance carrying donor organs to the recipient awaiting transplantation? Source: source

Created by Shanze1 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC).

• Sorry, I don't think this is interesting to a wide audience, and I don't see any other fact in the article that would be. I had considered ... that due to congested roads, India is considering using air ambulances to transport its organ donations? as a possibility, but unfortunately the source is not sufficient; an opinion by one doctor, even if he directs a notable organ transplant NGO, is insufficient to say the government is considering wide use of air ambulances. There are also several very strange statements, such as that Andhra Pradesh has failed to "adopt" a federal Indian law, which is illegal and inaccurate, as I learned while writing 2017_pro-jallikattu_protests#Timeline. I think this subject matters, and if you fix the sourcing in these areas, fix some minor grammatical errors, and write a more interesting hook, etc., perhaps you can re-request a review. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Air ambulances are in use already but I don't think that, or anything else in the article can be of use for another hook. I'll look to improve the article as you suggested. Thank you for your time. Shanze1 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto and Shanze1: Interestingness by itself is never used to outright reject an article, though it's common to request a more interesting hook. I personally think both the original and Psiĥedelisto's hooks are interesting. Full review follows.

Article is new and long enough and well referenced. Earwig detects a few cases of close paraphrasing that should be reworded, see WP:CLOP. Psiĥedelisto has identified some factual issues that must be addressed. Original hook checks out from the first provided source, but the second source is about an unrelated meaning of "green corridor." You may want to double-check the article in general for accuracy and consistency with the sources. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I did not reject the article. I requested a new hook, but couldn't think of one myself. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 16:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now addressed all said issues. Removed inaccurate statements and made sure everything's consistent with the sources. Also made efforts to fix grammar errors. Shanze1 (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shanze1: I noticed another issue: according to the sources including [1], it looks like there was one amendment that was proposed in 2009 and adopted in 2011, rather than two separate amendments. Also, for the Organisations and Statistics sections, it's a bit unclear which reference matches to each section/list/chart. I've made a slight change to the hook wording as well. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), Thank you for fixing that grave error, I must've misinterpreted the sources. I have organised the citations to make it clear now. For charts, there's only one source.

@Shanze1: Everything looks good. Thanks for sticking with this and making the corrections, a big part of DYK is improving the articles themselves! John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Returning to WP:DYKN for new hook. This hook is too similar to the one for Organ transplantation in Tamil Nadu. Yoninah (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Shanze1: I have given the article a copyedit. I added a few "citation needed" tags where information needs to be sourced. That figure in the lead comparing the minuscule rate of organ donations in India compared to the worldwide average would be a very interesting hook IMO if it can be sourced. Yoninah (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your copyedit, Yoninah. I have added the needed references and here are two new hooks, including about the one you suggested.
• ALT1: ... that only around 0.01 percent of Indians donate their organs after death, while in western nations around 70 to 80 percent of people do? Source
• ALT2: ... that despite performing the second largest number of organ transplantations in the world, India's organ donation rate still remains at only 0.65 per million? Source

It's kind of odd to say "western nations" in ALT1, although I think it is the better hook. Shanze1 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Shanze1: Thank you. We had an edit conflict right now, where I was fixing up the grammar in your additions and you restored it or something. Next time you nominate for DYK, you might want to apply at WP:GOCE for a copyedit before submitting an article.
• ALT1 hook ref is verified and cited inline. However, I would write it this way, so as not to confuse American Indians with people from India:
• ALT1a: ... that only around 0.01 percent of people in India donate their organs after death, compared to 70 to 80 percent of people in western nations?
• ALT1a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah:, Oh.. sorry about that. Will consider GOCE in future. Thanks. Shanze1 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah and Shanze1: No, really! You can't put such a false statement as this on the main page. It's not the figures that are wrong, but the facts. 70 to 80 percent of westerners may have offered to donate their organs after death, but only a minute fraction have actually done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More accurate suggestion

• ALT1b: ... that only around 0.01 percent of people in India pledge to donate their organs after death, compared to 70 to 80 percent of people in western nations? Shanze1 (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• You're right for calling this out, Cwmhiraeth, but the source is comparing actual organ donors with pledged organ donors:

According to WHO only about 0.01 percent of people in India donate their organs after death as compared to western countries, where around 70-80 percent of people pledge their organs.

• This doesn't seem like a proper comparison. I think the part about western pledgers should be removed from the article, and a different hook found. Yoninah (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. That is indeed an odd comparison, I failed to notice. How about this older hook?

• ALT2: ... that despite performing the second largest number of organ transplantations in the world, India's organ donation rate still remains at only 0.65 per million? Shanze1 (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is only going to be interesting to statisticians. Let me look at the article and suggest something else. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I looked at the article again and I honestly can't find anything hooky to say. Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I can't too, but thanks for looking again. Shanze1 (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• There were some oddities in the article, including two undefined references, but I think I've addressed them. While the Statistics section replicated the source material, it was odd in that there was no data for 2019 and 2020 yet the graph and pie chart included both years. I've adjusted both accordingly, and I think that section could provide a potentially interesting hook. Shanze1, Yoninah, let me know what you think about ALT3:

• ALT3: ... that from 1995 to 2018, nearly 95 percent of transplanted organs in India were from live donors?

I'm not entirely sure that this is the best wording, but I was trying to avoid two uses of "donor/donation", and to be accurate this is number of donated organs, not of donors. What I'm wondering about is the notice on the source page that reads, Disclaimer: Transplant data being shown on this site is in developing stage and does not include all hospitals of the country. To know the data source, different drop down menu may be selected. So the data is possibly (probably?) incomplete, and I'm not sure how the hook or the article should be affected by that—it may be that this is not, after all, usable. Or we could use something like "that according to available government data, from 1995 to 2018" (and so on). If this doesn't work, we'll probably need to mark the nomination for closure, which is what I originally came to do until I got the idea for ALT3. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, The hook is nice. But as you've pointed out, the disclaimer is concerning. This source appears to have more complete data. But don't think it's a good idea to replace the official outlet with that. There are also other sources ([2]) mentioning how live donors are predominant in India, that might support the hook. But I can't find any that cites the actual data. Owing to this vagueness, I think its best to close this. Shanze1 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

How about this? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• ALT4: ... that a kidney transplantation scandal led to a 2011 amendment to the law on organ donation in India?

• Reviewer needed to check ALT4. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: I would review it, but it seems from your last back-and-forth with Shanze1 that the article itself is lacking. Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah, Shanze1, I think that the statistics issue could be dealt with by giving context in the article—noting that it's an official source that characterizes itself as incomplete. Provided that we don't use any of the earlier hooks that use this source, I think ALT4 is a possibility, but would want someone else to comment on whether it's sufficiently interesting. However, the ball is in Shanze1's court: we can proceed, but if they still prefer to withdraw the nomination or don't wish to amend the article, then it should probably close. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, I think ALT4 is fine as well, thanks to John P. Sadowski (NIOSH). I was unsure only about the stat section. Shanze1 (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Restore tick per confirmation of approval - I checked the hook ALT4 and sourcing. Kingsif (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)