Template:Did you know nominations/Gender pay gap in India

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: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 12:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Gender pay gap in India

(

)

... that to help curb the gender pay gap in India, women have a right to equal treatment from employers in all recruitment processes, promotions and training under the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976?

Created by Abhinayaprithivi (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC).

Comment: This is not a review, but I want to mention that per DYK Supplemental Rule D7, articles should not have unexpanded headers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a very well-written article. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Hook ref verified and cited inline.
I have tagged the chart as needing a source.
In the article, the hook fact closely paraphrases the source but at the same time does not state it correctly. The source says: no employer shall, while making recruitment for the same work or work of a similar nature, [or in any condition of service subsequent to recruitment such as promotions, training or transfer], make any discrimination against women. The article says: recruitment processes including promotions, training or transfer within the organization can also be challenged under this Act. Promotions, training and transfer come after the recruitment process. Please edit this accordingly. The hook states this fact correctly, but I suggest mixing it up a little, as follows:
ALT1: ... that to help curb the gender pay gap in India, women have a right to equal treatment from employers in all recruitment processes, job training, and promotions under the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976? Yoninah (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, it's been over two weeks without a response, and I doubt one is coming: the nominator, Abhinayaprithivi, was enrolled in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Chicago/Feminist Economics and Public Policy (Spring 2016), a two-month class that ended on May 28; the editor's most recent edit was five days prior to that, nearly four weeks ago. Is there a way this can proceed? (Maybe you can find someone involved with the course?) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I went ahead and rewrote the inaccurate sentence, and also added a ref for the chart. However, in doing the latter, I found that the page creator had misinterpreted the statistics and stated them incorrectly. I believe that each of the online sources needs to be checked to ensure that the information has been cited correctly, which is a huge job that I'm not up for right now. Yoninah (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

HI BlueMoonset. I've taken a pass at the article, removing some closely paraphrased statements and attempting to verify others. The only section I did not read closely was Legislative protections, since a lot of it was citing text of the law and I'm just as likely to mess that up as I would be to correct it. I had to remove some statements which had verifiability problems but I hope I've cleared up some issues with other statements. It seems like some of the issue was the editor relying on some pretty sub-par sourcing (e.g. this which looks to be a bag of facts and half-plagiarized content). I hope this helps. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

New reviewer needed to see whether sourcing issues remain. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, @Adam (Wiki Ed):, for your edits. @BlueMoonset: I went through the article again. I noted dead links that were verifying a whole section, and changed information that was misquoted from the source. However, there may be more mistakes that I have not checked. I am not comfortable passing the article in this condition. It's too bad the page creator isn't here to revisit and fix the problems. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Yoninah. And the "By education" section has no references now. Unless Adam (Wiki Ed) knows of something further that can be done, I think we'll have to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I tagged the article for possible OR, since that's what I saw in the sources I reviewed. Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

With possible OR on top of everything else, I see no point in waiting any further. Marking the nomination for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)