# Talk:Sharad Panday

Research papers should be in quotes; books are in italics. Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sharad Panday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 08:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Glad to pick it up for a review! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason of having citations in lead?
 Done Have removed citations from lead.
"pioneers" and "pioneered" slightly puffy. :P
 Done Have re-worded "pioneers" and "pioneered"
If it is Don Bosco High School, Matunga, you could link Don Bosco High School.
 Done Have linked Don Bosco High School.
Could you add when he received the "Ontario Heart Foundation fellowship"?
 Done Have added the year he received the fellowship.
"The hospital was one of the very few places in India where heart surgery was performed, and thus Panday performed hundreds of open heart surgeries" why is the "and thus" part here? Are the two parts of the sentences linked somehow?
"was chief" if there was only one chief position, you could fix it to "was the chief".
 Done Have added the chief.
Link Nanavati hospital.
I think Nanavati hospital is linked.
We could have the publications as a list.
Looks good to me, and this is all I have to say! Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Have tried to address most of it. Please do let me know if its adequate. Thank you  FITINDIA  19:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Fitindia Just two more comments left. The list and a tweaking thing. If you have any difficulty, ask me, I could do them for you!
Adityavagarwal, have done the list could you please help me with the tweak. Thank you 19:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Fitindia One last thing I would say is to add citations to publications, as every bit of information has to be supported by sources (reliable)! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Adityavagarwal  Done Please do have a look. Thank you  FITINDIA  20:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Short but interesting article, good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

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

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

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

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: