Talk:Maternal mortality in India

Bihar program called Ananya

I typically avoid looking at publications which do not have conventional library indexing. If an organization does not index their work, then they probably have no desire for people to read their work.

I was interested in maternal mortality in Bihar though and found this 2010-2015 study design. I was skeptical of its quality because it had no indexing.

• Smith, Kimberly; Rangarajan, Anu; Borkum, Evan; Dandona, Lalit (31 October 2011), Measurement, Learning, and Evaluation for the Ananya Program (Family Health Initiative in Bihar), Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research

I think the study happened, but and I found the organizer's website, but I think they never published their results. If they had results I wanted to read them. I found their dataset but did not examine that. The data also has strange indexing.

• ananya @ Harvard's dataverse collection for the BMGF

Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Image for top of article

I found an image in Commons:Category:Mothers and children in India and posted it.

Anyone can choose another image. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Seemingly okay article from bad source?

Consider this article as a source for listing social causes of maternal mortality in India.

• Singh, Kavita; Puri, Seema; Chopra, Geeta (6 March 2018). "Maternal Mortality in India: An Overview of social causes". International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP). 8 (3). doi:10.29322/IJSRP.8.3.2018.p7503.

Thanks Headbomb for reviewing the sources in this article. Part of your review was identifying the journal as unreliable because it came from an identified predatory publisher.

• User talk:Headbomb/unreliable
• Wikipedia:CITEWATCH

I accept that this journal went through a good review process and that this is an accurate result.

The authors of the paper list their affiliation as University of Delhi, which I think most people would call a prestigious university. I profiled one of them who seems like a legitimate researcher.

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/author/Q90545237

I understand that "predatory journal" means "not peer reviewed" rather than "bad content".

Headbomb, suppose that I wanted to use this journal, but I wanted to communicate that this paper is not peer reviewed. Suppose that I wanted to weigh it similar to the authors publishing their own blog, and that this is a self-published source from people who seem to be experts in the field. Can you imagine a way in which I could communicate "self published, not a peer reviewed article" which perhaps also sends my override information back to your automated tool? Is there some talk page where I could present this situation for advice? I have 1-2 sentences and some plausible social claims tied to this source which I think are useful to include and hard to source otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This fails both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, so just don't use it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I will take it up at MEDRS. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• MDG5.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)