Template:Did you know nominations/Road accidents in Tamil Nadu


 * 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Road accidents in Tamil Nadu, Violence against women in Tamil Nadu

 * ... that few political parties in Tamil Nadu demanded prohibition in the state, as they consider alcohol is the main reason for road accidents and violence against women?
 * Reviewed: Not a self nom

Created by Ssriram mt (talk). Nominated by Gfosankar (talk) at 05:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Review of Road accidents in Tamil Nadu: Article is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ necessary for non-self-nomination. A citation is needed for the 70 percent figure under Causes. I also don't understand the use of the word "ease" in the second paragraph, second line under Causes. The hook doesn't make sense to me (the two party leaders did advocate prohibition) and I don't see the hook fact in the article. Perhaps you can shorten the hook and just focus on the second part? Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks a lot for nominating and taking up the review. I have expanded the lead, expanded the causes, trimmed the leader part and added a couple of more references.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The Times of India link is not opening for me. What do you want to do about the hook? BTW, this article is an orphan; no other Wikipedia articles link to it. You might want to do something about that so it doesn't get tagged. Yoninah (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have linked the article and have also added points for the hook. The TOI link is opening fine for me - may be you would like to open it in a different browser or search against the title.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On this and all other articles, you have to be careful of close paraphrasing, and not follow the source line by line. I removed several instances of close paraphrasing. The article is in good shape but the hook needs to be tweaked:
 * ALT1: ... that political party leaders in Tamil Nadu, India, say alcohol use is the main cause for road accidents and violence against women?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Confirming that ALT1 is verified and cited inline in Road accidents in Tamil Nadu. Road accidents in Tamil Nadu good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Current status:
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Road accidents in Tamil Nadu good to go.
 * Symbol question.svg Violence against women in Tamil Nadu not reviewed.
 * Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed for Violence against women in Tamil Nadu; based on the review of the other article, close paraphrasing in this one should be carefully checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I've started working on the violence against women article. I'm finding problems with poor writing quality, including but not limited to excessive borrowing from cited sources. I've identified one issue that I won't be able to resolve without help: There are some references to "UNESCO report 1993", with hyperlinks to the UNESCO article. We need a reference citation the enables a reader to identify the source cited; this citation does not do that. --Orlady (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, book references follow short citation style where the same book is referred is multiple times. UNESCO should be with the # symbol referring to the bottom portion of references - I have corrected it now. Let me know for further updates.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the linkage. Now that I know that "UNESCO" refers to the document listed with author name "Kosambi", I've edited the citations so they identify the reference as "Kosambi". --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another progress report. I don't find support for the hook fact, with respect to violence against women. The article as I found it said "alcoholism is believed to be one of the major reasons for violence against women in Tamil Nadu," but it turned out that the source for this was the opinion of one activist. After reading the sources, I have revised that statement and another statement about calls for prohibition of alcohol to say: "Some politicians and social activists name alcoholism as a major cause of rape and other forms of violence against women in Tamil Nadu and have cited this as a reason for calling for reinstatement of prohibition in Tamil Nadu." I have learned from sources that the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) party is campaigning against alcohol -- and even blames alcohol for 90% of all crime in Tamil Nadu -- but the party's positions are not discussed explicitly in the article, and the party's statements are not specifically focused on violence against women. I will continue examining the article (there are still a lot issues with it), but I suggest restating the hook as follows:
 * ALT2 ... that alcohol use has been called a major cause of both road accidents and violence against women in Tamil Nadu, India? --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. I will try to modify the portions as well.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ssriram mt, Orlady, where does this stand now? I see a couple of edits over two weeks ago, and nothing since. The nomination is now two months old, and really ought to be completed soon, one way or another. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  Sorry, I didn't notice that the article had been edited on April 6 and 7; anyway, I don't think those edits were intended to address issues raised here. In any event, I've done some additional editing to the "violence" article. I think that the ALT2 hook is supported, but I can't approve it because I proposed it and because I've made a lot of edits to the article. I believe that the article may still have some text that is too close to the sources, but I have run out of patience in working with this article (I now have almost as many edits as the article creator). It's time for someone else to take a look. --Orlady (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the two articles need not be linked. While the former is reviewed, it can be closed. The second one can be taken separately or if it doesn't meet the heads, can be taken off. I do understand patience may be running out, but I have more vernacular refs online to boost the contents over English sources. So would need to buy a bit more time.Ssriram mt (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ssriram mt, I see no evidence of any editing to the second article in the past two weeks, so unless you can update the second article in the next 48 hours (or when you next edit, if that's later), I'm going to remove it from the ALT2 hook. Given Orlady's concerns about text that may be too close to the sources, I don't feel I can leave the second article in the hook as an unbolded wikilink. (If we don't run it now, it will not run unless the article becomes a Good Article and is renominated when it does.) Please let me know your intentions. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - I am finding it tough to get online English sources at this moment. Please go ahead removing alt2 hook. Thanks a lot.Ssriram mt (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I was looking to cut down ALT2 to the road accidents article, but a hook that says alcohol is called a major cause of road accidents seemed not particularly novel or interesting, so I looked in the article to see if something else could be used. There, I found a promising possibility, that 70% of road accidents are caused by alcohol: it seemed quite high, but that would have made it hooky ... if it were accurate. It turns out that the cited source is talking about 70% of road accident fatalities being caused by alcohol (not just accidents); unfortunately, it's unusable because it's 70% in the whole of India, and says nothing about the percentage in Tamil Nadu in particular, which it would need to be for this particular article. This kind of error in using a source is pretty fundamental, and I think it casts a shadow over the article as a whole. Under the circumstances, Ssriram mt, I'm highly reluctant to allow this nomination to proceed at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC) (further edits at 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Sure - you can take it off the nomination. I have only vernacular references and English online refs are limited - so may not be able to expand at this point of time.Ssriram mt (talk)


 * Ssriram mt, do you mean you're fine if I reject the entire nomination? Sorry to bother you again, but I want to be absolutely sure you understood that's what I meant: the Road Accidents article has inaccurate information in it, and that's the article that had previously been passed. This means that as both articles have problems, the nomination would therefore fail entirely. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes sure - np.


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Closing entire nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)