Talk:Suri Sehgal

I'm responding to your e-mail here because this is where I prefer to have the conversation. You asked if I thought whether your most recent edits satisfied the concerns of the previous reviewer. For a definitive answer, of course, you'll have to ask that reviewer. My feelings here are a bit different -- I see no purpose served by including a lengthy list of publications, whether in footnote form (as you originally did) or as an in-article list (as now appears). Either way, it is a lot of information that is not likely to be of interest to the average reader. It's also a lot of weight being given to something that's routine, in the sense that scientists are routinely expected to publish their findings. There's no indication here that any of those publications attracted an unusually high level of commentary from others in the field, nor from the popular press (or even the popular scientific press). Indeed, a look at Google Scholar tells me that some of those papers have barely been cited by anyone else in the field. My feeling is that the entire list should be removed and replaced by a single external link to a source that provides such a list.

Although you didn't ask, I'll mention four other things. First, the list of awards suffers from the same problem as does the list of publications -- there's no indication that any of them are particularly noteworthy. Second, that introduction is far too massive. For articles of this general size, the lede paragraph should be a summary of the article's contents and not a place to add lots of additional information. Third, that entire section on the subject's career reads like a resume. Surely it will be possible to tell the "story" of the subject in a more condensed, and engaging, fashion. And finally, I'm surprised that your previous submission (the one on the Foundation) was accepted without insisting that the references be made more presentable. So many "bare URL's" just looks sloppy. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the templates that are ordinarily used for formatting references; the most useful to you likely will be cite web, cite book and cite journal.

I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC) as amended by NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. When I wrote the last comment, I was thinking of the article on the Foundation. Another look at the instant draft shows that many of the references are indeed properly formatted (though there are still quite a few that are not). My apologies for misstating the situation. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope I am replying correctly. I have not used this feature before. Thank you so much for your comments. I will make changes right away to address them. I am somewhat of a Luddite with this stuff. I really appreciate your feedback so much. I will start by deleting the publications. I do also plan to fix any base citations. I found that process a little hard to follow but I am committed to getting it right. I will also try to make the career part less like a resume. When I created the Foundation page I was told several times that I was making it too much of a story--so I was trying not to do that. LOL I will send this same content to you in an email in case I didn't do this right. Thank you again!!Seedsforchange