Talk:Punam Krishan/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 20:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for nominating this article for Women in Green’s 9th edit-a-thon. This review is part of my pledge for the review at Talk:Paula Ben-Gurion/GA1. —Grnrchst (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have any better sources to cite for her birth date than an instagram post? If not, it’s no bother, as I think this should be covered by WP:ABOUTSELF, but thought it worth checking.

Does that work for Reels?–Launchballer 10:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
• Authors for articles in The Glasgow Times (Punam Krishan/Rosie Lewis/Rebecca Newlands/Sandhya Suresh), The Herald (Susan Swarbrick), The Scotsman (Punam Krishan/Janet Christie), Radio Times (David Craig), BBC News (Michael Sheils McNamee), The Independent (Maria Butt/Annabel Nugent), The Bookseller (Katie Fraser) should be credited in the citations.
• The publications, Glasgow Times, The Herald, The i Paper, BBC, Pulse, Heart, BBC News, BBC Scotland, The Independent, Radio Times, Wales Online, The Scotsman, The Bookseller, Eastern Eye and Glasgow Live, should be wikilinked in the citations.

I think I’ve got them all.–Launchballer 10:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • ISSN numbers should also be provided where possible.

Which citations should include these?–Launchballer 10:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Her parents had an arranged marriage, and moved from Kapurthala in Punjab to Scotland in the late 1970s, where her father owned a corner shop.” Recommend rearranging sentence to: “Her parents had an arranged marriage, and in the late 1970s, they moved from Kapurthala in Punjab to Scotland, where he father owned a corner shop.”
• “She told Susan Swarbrick of The Herald in July 2019 […]” This is a lot of in-text attribution for details provided in the citation. I think this could be trimmed down to “She said in an interview with The Herald […]”.
• “and described herself in January 2019 as “raised in equal parts on curry and Irn-Bru”” Appending this to the previous sentence implies she also said this to Swarbrick, but this is coming from a different interview. I’d recommend starting a new sentence and moving it to just after the sentence about her parents’ move to Scotland, as it would lead into this quite nicely; this would also allow the bit about her education to lead naturally into her schooling. As before, I’d also suggest trimming the date.

Trimmed both attributions to just ‘stated’ and rearranged.–Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• Publication date should be provided for the BBC citation.

Thought I was done with these. Added.–Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “After graduating in 2006,[7] Krishan took a post at a medical partnership” Did she start her position at the partnership in 2006?

2006 probably shouldn’t be citing her General Medical Council profile, so cut.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “medical partnership” Could you clarify what this is? Is it a clinic/general practitioners’/hospital? What work did she do there?

GP; I added that the article.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “but left in September 2017” Is there a better source for this than a LinkedIn profile? Her article in The Scotsman says she was there for 6 years, does that mean she began working there in 2011? If so, what was she doing in the five years between graduating and beginning her work there?

As far as I can make out, she carried on studying until 2011. I added ‘ten years’ to the article.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “after burning out” Recommend linking to Occupational burnout.
• Spotcheck: [10] The article doesn’t explicitly reference burn out, which is in one of the other sources cited in this sentence. Citation should be rearranged so they’re inline with the specific information being verified.

Added link and reference.–Launchballer 10:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve noticed that there’s quite a few sentences that are broken up by citations to several different sources. Could we perhaps rearrange these or retool these so the sentences are easier to read, without multiple interruptions with citation marks? There’s also some potential for synthesis, as in some cases, it might imply a connection within a sentence that the sources themselves do not imply.

I’m sorry, I really don’t see how an extra three characters in superscript impacts on readability. If you can point me to actual synthesis, I’d be happy to reword.–Launchballer 10:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “She stated in April 2018 article” -> “She stated in an April 2018 article […]”

I actually trimmed this as I don’t think it adds anything.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The url in the Heart citation is broken; it gives a 500 error.

Works for me.–Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• “given a dressing down” This is rather colloquial and un-encyclopedic language.

Changed.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• BBC Scotland citation is malformed, containing two “BBC Scotland”s in the title field and then repeating that it’s from the BBC as the publication.

Changed.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Swarbrick described” It’s been a couple paragraphs, so it might be good to use her full name here.

Added.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “she wrote” Krishan or Swarbrick?

Changed.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What’s with the lower-case “oksana” as the author for the GAMA healthcare article? I can’t see an author in the article.

Oksana is what the source code for the article credits as author, but cut anyway.–Launchballer 10:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “she published a children’s book” Are there any reviews of this book that we could cite?

Found a review in Kirkus Reviews published after I wrote the bulk of this article.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “The Weakest Link“ Should be wikilinked in the body.

Added.–Launchballer 10:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we expand a bit on some of these TV and radio appearances?

Added what I was able to find.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This BBC News citation doesn’t have a publication date.

Added.–Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Eastern Eye citation doesn’t include a publication date and duplicates the publication in its title field.

Added.–Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “A Superhero’s First Aid Manual” Was this also written by Krishan?

Clarified.–Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is sometimes unclear.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Looks all good on the style front.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Many of the citations are missing vital details (such as authors and publication dates) and could do with wikilinks and ISSNs for consistency. Some have malformed titles, resulting in the duplication of publication names.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   One case where information appears to be verified by a different citation, not cited inline with it.

   C. It contains no original research:

   A couple possible cases of novel synthesis, as there are some sentences that combine sources to imply a connection that may not have been implied by the sources themselves.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No plagiarism noticed on spotchecks; Earwig flags nothing major.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   A couple things that could do with some elaboration, with one possible gap in the biography.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   All focused, with no major deviations.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Neutral throughout.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since nomination; last reversions took place over a year ago.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image has a valid non-free use rationale.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Only image is of the subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a well-written, if short, article and I think it’ll meet GA criteria with some further improvements to prose, verifiability and broadness. Feel free to ping me once all my comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions, and I’ll be happy to give this another look. Great work so far! —Grnrchst (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: I believe I’ve addressed everything.–Launchballer 10:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]