Talk:Aditi Shankardass

Award
The only award I was able to identify was the "Westminster Poster Prize". Google web, news, and book searches found no reliable sources covering that prize, so I have removed coverage of her as "prize-winning" in the article. Bongo  matic  02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientific contribution
I wonder if the claim about Dr. Shankardass' "pioneering clinical work using electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings of the brain to help diagnose developmental disorders in children" could be backed up by references to scientific publications. I was unable to find any such references anywhere. Also references to other scientific work by Dr. Shankardass are essential here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.120.151 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with previous commenter. Shankardass has a total of four publications, where she is neither the first nor last author. I have edited the "pioneering clinical work" wording to downplay her contribution. (J. A. P.)

I vote for removing this statement: Her previous work using EEG recordings of the brain to help identify the underlying neurological cause of dyslexia was the subject of her presentation at the United Kingdom Parliament in 2001 at the Annual Reception for Britain's Top Young Scientists, Engineers and Technologists.[7]. As the hyperlink is not active, this information cannot be verified. (J. A. P.)

Tone
I am concerned about the tone of this article as it seems promotional and not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. It seems likely the purpose of this entry is to promote a the work of the subject and her diagnostic/therapeutic approach to autism. As this approach is not evidence-based (and this article does not link to any evidence), I think this article might serve to make the subject seem more legitimate to laypeople, which is worrying. I hope other interested parties will review and revise it.

AZeefan (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree, the tone is too promotional and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. G.W.L.

Sexism in lede
"She has also been voted one of the world's "Sexiest Scientists Alive" and one of the "10 Most Beautiful Women Scientists"." . I'm removing this, but I also wanted to note some of the reasons why. First, except perhaps in some exceptional cases (who are notable separately for beauty, for example) of which I am not currently aware, the physical attractiveness or sexiness of a scientist is not relevant to their biography. But I also wanted to note that the reference given lists both men and women, and a spot check of others on the list suggests that we do not include membership in the list on the male scientists biographies. See for example Leroy Cronin, Nathan Wolfe, and even Bobak Ferdowsi who is arguably (though I don't agree) notable primarily for his good looks and hairstyle, as opposed to his job with NASA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your removal was an improvement to the article, as it was posted too prominently for good taste, although I see no problem in mentioning that she's thought of as beautiful. Likewise, I don't see any reason to remove the material about her singing capabilities, as a biography can mention various things about are reliably sourced without being sexist. I used a "big word", but I think the word beauty would work as well without being inappropriate. I'd also support mentioning this in male scientists' bios without issue. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)