Talk:Soma Mukhopadhyay

"Mukhopadhyay also did not does not discuss the fact..."
"... that a letter board can be more easily repositioned than someone else’s hand or wrist."

Regardless of the edit remains botching the grammar: What does this sentence mean? Should she discuss the fact? Who says so? What is the relevance of that fact and what follows from it?

A WP article should say what a person did, not what she didn't do. I think the sentence should be either deleted or explained. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replaced it with something more relevant. Ylevental (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Bias?
Not sure if this is where to put this but... this article represents a person connected to a polarized subject, but all of the sources are for one side of the controversy.

While there are situations where that is acceptable, I believe this article is unfair because it sets out to paint this woman's contribution in a negative light before even telling the reader what it is - see the line "The *scientifically unproven* Rapid Prompting Method" (my emphasis)

It is fair to have a section on the controversy, but the initial paragraph should simply state that this woman created this method, or should state that said method is considered negative by some and positive by others.

(A sample of a positive source: http://idoinautismland.com/?cat=16) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7F:2850:5CF8:C813:B145:3A7E (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)