Talk:Blood donation in India

Clean-up on section: list of organizations

I started the article back in 2016 with a few notable organizations that had enough coverage in reputed sources. My rationale for reducing this section from a descriptive list to just passing mentions are as follows:

• Realistically it's impossible to cover all organizations in this article considering the vastness of this country.
• Major blood donation organizations is subjective. It can be well-kown at the local/state level but relatively unknown at the national level.
• Unsourced additions over time, therefore defying verifiability.
• There have been attempts to promote certain organizations by users with a COI, with direct links.
• And finally, per WP:BOLD as there weren't any responses to my RfC at India noticeboard.

Thanks! MT Train^Talk 16:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blood donation in India/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 01:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this article. Thanks to the nominator for the work that has gone into it already. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll begin with some section-by-section feedback. If I make any suggestions that would fall outside the GA criteria, I will try to mark them as such. For those non-GA issues, if you don't get a chance to fix them, I will fix them later. To get a couple of things out of the way, the article is stable, and there is one image, which has an acceptable caption and license tag. The article is neutral, but I may make some suggestions to improve the tone in certain places.

Lead section

• Remember that the lead section should present an organized summary of the most important content from the body of the article. In this case, the organization of the lead is difficult to follow, as it begins by discussing the places donors can visit, then mentions efforts to address the discrepancy between blood supply and demand (without first explaining the problems with supply and demand). Then it mentions regulatory procedures and inconsistencies, followed by more donor procedures (sugary drinks, etc) and donor recognition. We need better structure in this section.

• There is an entire section on blood donation history in the body of the article, and this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the lead.

• The section on donor recognition isn't well summarized in the lead (no information about government initiatives and the app, for example), and instead the lead section mentions things like badges that aren't discussed in the body of the article.

History

• minor point: India is wikilinked, but major countries usually don't need links per MOS:OL

• second world war: proper noun, capitalized

• "The 1960s saw" - tone issue - the 1960s don't have vision - better to say "In the 1960s, many blood banks opened ..."

• The HIV epidemic is mentioned, but there is really no explanation of the role of blood transfusions in this epidemic.

• "prohibits transgenders" - transgender people?

• Is there any update on the litigation from about a year and a half ago?

Criteria

• This section appears basically word-for-word here. I can't determine whether this site copied from Wikipedia or vice versa, but it is rather poorly written anyway, so we should probably rewrite it. Since Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, we don't need to list the exact donor criteria in a line-by-line format. For example, we could state (in paragraph format) that the prospective donor's pulse rate and blood pressure are measured, but we don't have to list the specific parameters acceptable for donation.

• The references used in this section are quite old (2016 and 2007!) and medical procedures can change a lot in fifteen years. Are there more up-to-date sources? The 2016 version of the indianbloodbank.com site contains strange writing; is this an official organization? For example, a person suffering from cardiac arrest is dead and won't attempt to donate blood. They may be referring to a donor with a past history of cardiac arrest, or they may be talking about a different cardiac problem, but they don't make that clear. A single iron-rich meal isn't likely to have any noticeable effect on a donor, and blood donation can cause fainting but not from low blood sugar as they imply.

Clinical demand

• Regarding the 54.4%, are you saying that out of all of the blood collected for transfusion in India, 54.4% of it was from volunteer/unpaid donors? We need to make that more clear.

• "12.7 million units" - In general, we should not begin a sentence with a numeral.

• The supply sentence is very confusing. Do you mean that there 33.8 donations per year for every 1000 people in the population?

• "Medical specialty had the highest demand ..." - The wording here is very close to the wording used in the journal article. We need to reword it.

Regulatory mechanisms

• What does NABH stand for? Usually we list the full term before the acronym per MOS:ACRO.

Organisations

• It looks like there are no organisations listed here.

Issues

• For the sentence about HIV transmission, I don't think the source describes the risk as relatively high. One of the people in that article describes the risk as negligible. However, you may want to explain the various perspectives, and you want to mention specific statistics so that the reader doesn't have to guess.

• "with the rest coming from replacement donors" - What are replacement donors?

Initiatives

• The information about the web initiative seems to refer to a specific state, but the state name is not given.

Let's stop here for now. I think it is possible for this article to reach GA status, but I think it will require more editing than the typical GA nomination. I'll be happy to provide more feedback once these items are addressed. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Larry Hockett: thanks for the feedback. I'll work upon your comments over the next few days. Best, MT Train^Talk 14:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mark the train - This is just a heads up that the review has been open for a good bit of time now. GA reviews can often be completed within about seven days, but in this case we are two weeks into the review process and still waiting for the first round of feedback to be addressed. If you are busy right now, we could consider closing this GA review. That way you could improve the article at your leisure and then renominate it when you have more availability to respond to a reviewer. Just let me know. Thanks! Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Larry Hockett: please close the review for now. I'm a bit busy and wouldn't be able to find time to address your comments are least for the next few weeks. I plan on expanding the article sometime in the future and then re-nominate. Thanks, MT Train^Talk 01:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)