Talk:2019 India doctors' strike/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 22:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am planning to review, please allow seven days. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 10, 2019, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing style is acceptable, but is mostly chronological and thus suffers somewhat from having a news event/journalistic feeling, rather than an encyclopedic tone. The lead is not complete - it should summarise the issue, not present a chronological description of events, which is incomplete.

2. Verifiable?: Part of the problem here is the title, while there were a number of solidarity actions in other states (Maharashtra seems the most significant), I do not think this can be treated as a national doctors' strike. As far as I can see, there were strikes at a number of public hospitals in Kolkata (13) and some district hospitals in West Bengal (6 out of 23), but beyond West Bengal most other events seem to be solidarity actions (small protests etc). "2019 Kolkata doctors' strike" would in my mind be the most accurate title. The section on background has poor sources and is overlong. This sentence: "Instances of assaulting medical professionals in government and private hospitals is common in West Bengal[8] and India.[21]" contains two sources neither of which actually provide evidence of the commonness of violence. The reference to West Bengal mentions nothing, the reference to India mentions two cases. The next two sentences then repeat text from the reference. There is a vast amount of literature on violence against health professionals world-wide and in India, some of this should be used. This is a very useful search engine.

3. Broad in coverage?: Incomplete - Many months have passed since the events in June - no indication of what is the current status and outcomes of the strike. There was international solidarity activities organised these should be mentioned.

4. Neutral point of view?: No major problems here.

5. Stable?: Not relevant given amount of work still needed.

6. Images?: Only one image in the article and not clear the relevance - image of protesting doctors is from Goa, not dated. Is this a solidarity protest related to the incidents at NRSMCH or something else?

Having to fail as there's a lot more work needed to get to GA status, my main points would be:

lead - needs complete revision per WP:MOSLEAD (just one example that stands out - the word strike is not mentioned in the lead).
background/context - needs to be shorter with far better sources (academic rather than mainstream journalism here)
protests section well sourced. However, perhaps consider two parts to avoid overt chronological style - one part to focus on West Bengal, a second part to focus on growth of national solidarity actions. (it might be interesting if it is possible to get reliable sources that discuss media coverage of the issue - sympathetic or unsympathetic).
outcomes - needs a section on results, resolutions (if any or if none).

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Goldsztajn (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add a point. I was initially worried that there were plagiarism problems. A Facebook page which looks to be run by NRSMCH doctors contains a post which is more or less exactly the same as what appears in the article. However, looking at the history of the article, it seems that the FB post has taken the material from here. If editors are working on this article and also have a direct interest in this issue, that interest should be declared. I'm not suggesting that I think necessarily this is the case here, need to WP:AGF, but just leaving a reminder.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this over the next few days as time permits. @Goldsztajn: are you around to review or should I renominate as and when I make progress? --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: Hi - I'm around, ping me when you've had a chance to work on the comments, happy to look over it again. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.