Talk:Labour in Nepal

DYK?

@Valereee, Drmies, Anne Delong, Yoninah, and Gerda Arendt: is this article acceptable for DYK in its current form? It's about to pass the one week limit, and while I would be able to make technical improvements later on, I am not exactly sure how much I can expand it to make into a proper summary article like Labour in India that it is supposed to be, before it has to be approved for the mainpage. If any one of you has the time to take a quick look and advise whether I should nominate it, I would be eternally grateful. Yours, Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, It's long enough, new enough, has sources in every paragraph, the sources cited aren't bare urls. Earwig detects no copyvio, and it appears to be neutral. There's a citation needed tag, that would have to go, and I haven't checked any of the sources, but assuming they're good, yes, it would likely pass easily with a well thought-out hook. --valereee (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, so, it's not a major consideration whether the article is anywhere close to what it is supposed to be in its complete form, as suggested by the title? If that's the case, I might be able to make a lot more nominations. Thanks for dropping in so quickly, and the ce, by the way. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, nope! One of the best things about DYK is that it gets more eyes on your stubbier articles, which may attract more editors to it who would be interested in expanding it. That's the difference between DYK and Good Article Review. (Although DYKs also accept articles that have been designated GA in the past seven days, too.) There's also a DYK helper script that is really nice -- it's at User:SD0001/DYK-helper --valereee (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What she said, about Labour in Nepal and in general. This is not GA terrirory. Go ahead and nominate, nothing to loose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments: Lead

At the moment the lead is misleading - the first sentence essentially indicates that the article is about employment then immediately shifts to labour force (which are different things). I would suggest the first sentence be: "Labour in Nepal refers to the working population of the country, broadly defined: free and unfree, formal and informal, rural and urban, employed and unemployed, migrant, child and reproductive."

The picture used in the lead has no meaning whatsoever as far as I can see. First, it is placed too small to see anything. Second, it displays that Australia is equal to Nepal. Why China as a measure of labour force and Nepal's relationship to China in this case is relevant is not explained anywhere (and doesn't need to be). Picture should be removed.

On migrant labour - around 95% of migration permits are issued to men, but as the border with India is open, there is far more migration of women via that route. ILO estimates indicate 1 in 8 Nepali migrant workers are women (when migration to India is included). Information about male/female migration effects is true, but partially so and the statements on this issue need to be qualified. Mention that almost 30% of Nepal's GDP is based on migrant labour remittances is needed.

On agricultural labour - needs mention that the structures of work are related to landlordism, caste, landlessness.

Role of tourism in employment important to mention. Mentions of trade unions and labour law is appropriate as is. Some kind of infobox would be useful here with key statistics. I will try and draft something. --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)