Talk:Ashutosh Tewari/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   *There are a handful of capitalization errors throughout the article; please fix these.

   Specifically, "over 2400 Robotically assisted procedures", "field of Genitourinary robotic surgery", "Impact of robotics on surgical Skill". Emw2012 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   All set, just three more issues (the only ones not crossed out in 2, 3 and 6) to go. Emw2012 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

   • External links should be removed, or moved out of the text into an 'External links' section.
   • Since it is a technical term, 'prostatectomy' should be mentioned and wikilinked in the 'Robotic prostatectomy' section (but not wikilinked in the heading).
   • More terms should be wikilinked (e.g. Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College, McH, DNB, others)
   • Parts of the 'Honors, awards, and prizes' section looks copy/pasted from its only source, http://www.cornellphysicians.com/aktewari/awardsandhonors.html. Try further changing the wording around, since it's copyrighted. Also, take a look at similar sections in other GA's on biologists and medical scientists (e.g. George Schaller, Pamela C. Rasmussen); they are almost all in prose. At almost 20 items, the list distracts from the small ~16KB article -- consider converting it to prose (preferable) or shortening it to less than 10 items.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • While many statements are referenced, those references tend to be quite bare. In line with suggestions at this article's recent FAC (which apply to this GAN, more or less), the references should be expanded to include author and/or publisher, date, accessdate, etc. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style. For scientific publications, it's often helpful to link to the publication or its abstract, as well as its DOI or PMID.

   This still needs to be done. Emw2012 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Is there a reason that commentary on Tewari's research in the article is so sparse, considering that he has over 200 publications?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The second image in the article, Image:Virtual_Reality_OR.jpg, is listed as under GFDL even though the source website (http://www.cornellurology.com/roboticprostatectomy/) states at the bottom of the page that the content is copyrighted by Cornell University (and may also be copyrighted by Healthcommunities.com). Unless a cogent fair use rationale can be outlined or appropriate permission from Cornell or Healthcommunities.com obtained, the image should be removed.

   Still outstanding. Emw2012 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • The article needs improvement, but I don't think it's so bad as to warrant failing for now. Try addressing these concerns, and any more that may sprout up, within a week. Again, I'd strongly suggest using the aforementioned GA's on biologists and medical scientists, or maybe even the FA's Charles Darwin or Barbara McClintock, as a template for this article. Good luck! Emw2012 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   • Due to several concerns (see feedback for criteria 2, 3 and 6) still being outstanding after several weeks, I'm failing Tewari's article for GAN. I suggest renominating it once the concerns outlined above have been fixed. Emw2012 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)