Talk:Punam Krishan

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Krishan in 2021

• ... that following a string of scandals, the contestants on the twenty second series of the BBC One celebrity dancing competition Strictly Come Dancing included a locum GP (pictured)? Source: https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/views/regulation/new-sessionals-welcome-on-board/ for 'locum'; https://news.sky.com/story/strictly-come-dancing-2024-go-compare-singer-wynne-evans-joins-line-up-13191912 for everything else
  • ALT1: ... that Dr Punam Krishan (pictured) "learned the hard way to live without patient ‘satisfaction’"? Source: https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/views/regulation/ive-learned-the-hard-way-to-live-without-patient-satisfaction/
    • ALT1a: ... that Dr Punam Krishan (pictured) "learned the hard way to live without patient 'satisfaction'"?
  • ALT2: ... that Dr Punam Krishan (pictured) was raised on curry and Irn-Bru? Source: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17800808.dr-punam-krishan-reality-life-scottish-gp/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chand Sifarish
  • Comment: The contestants for this show are being drip-fed, so I may add articles to this if anyone else lacks an article. (Update August 12: Lineup complete. Shame actually, there were rumours that Sunil Patel might have participated and he's a cryptoentrepreneur.) I'd suggest running this on the day the series starts, probably the 21st of September. (Update 30 August: 14th September, as they're running a special programme at the end of the series.)

Created by Launchballer (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 243 past nominations.

Launchballer 11:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC).

• I didn't know what a "locum GP" is. Maybe that's a good thing, as it makes the first hook more "hooky". But can you clarify that in the lead of the article? Eg you can write "is a Scottish locum general practitioner (GP) from Glasgow." Also, in "Early life and medical career" please also clarify what's a "locum"? Might be helpful to link to Locum#United Kingdom healthcare.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• We have a (somewhat execrable) article about what locum GPs are at sessional GP, a term I've never heard of. I've made some edits to the article.--Launchballer 19:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The original hook is problematic: there's an implied cause and effect—because of the scandals, they've brought in a locum GP—that is nothing of the sort. So I think the special occasion request will need to drop as well. You'll need to fix the single quote marks in ALT1; curly punctuation is against the MOS on Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed ALT1a above. I'm guessing that "the Strictly Come Dancing contestant" would qualify for WP:DYKTRIM, right?--Launchballer 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: New enough, long enough, QPQ done. Copyvio unlikely per Earwig (7.6%). Image is confirmed to have been included in the video with a CC-BY license, so it's good. As for the hook, technically, she "describes herself" as raised on curry and Irn-Bru, but I'll leave that to the promoter to decide.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Striking the original hook and ALT1a since neither are the one approved (which mentions curry). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Punam Krishan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 20:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for nominating this article for Women in Green's 9th edit-a-thon. This review is part of my pledge for the review at Talk:Paula Ben-Gurion/GA1. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Do we have any better sources to cite for her birth date than an instagram post? If not, it's no bother, as I think this should be covered by WP:ABOUTSELF, but thought it worth checking.
  • I'd recommend using the cite Instagram template instead of the cite web template.
    • Does that work for Reels?--Launchballer 10:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
      • I'd assumed so, but seems from the talk page like it doesn't work so well. My bad. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
• Authors for articles in The Glasgow Times (Punam Krishan/Rosie Lewis/Rebecca Newlands/Sandhya Suresh), The Herald (Susan Swarbrick), The Scotsman (Punam Krishan/Janet Christie), Radio Times (David Craig), BBC News (Michael Sheils McNamee), The Independent (Maria Butt/Annabel Nugent), The Bookseller (Katie Fraser) should be credited in the citations.
• The publications, Glasgow Times, The Herald, The i Paper, BBC, Pulse, Heart, BBC News, BBC Scotland, The Independent, Radio Times, Wales Online, The Scotsman, The Bookseller, Eastern Eye and Glasgow Live, should be wikilinked in the citations.

I think I've got them all.--Launchballer 10:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• • ISSN numbers should also be provided where possible.
    • Which citations should include these?--Launchballer 10:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
      • I said this because I'd noticed the citation to The Guardian has an ISSN. To ensure consistency in citation style, I'd recommend adding them for any other publications that have an ISSN; that or removing the ISSN from The Guardian citation. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
        • Trimmed.--Launchballer 13:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• "Her parents had an arranged marriage, and moved from Kapurthala in Punjab to Scotland in the late 1970s, where her father owned a corner shop." Recommend rearranging sentence to: "Her parents had an arranged marriage, and in the late 1970s, they moved from Kapurthala in Punjab to Scotland, where he father owned a corner shop."
• "She told Susan Swarbrick of The Herald in July 2019 [...]" This is a lot of in-text attribution for details provided in the citation. I think this could be trimmed down to "She said in an interview with The Herald [...]".
• "and described herself in January 2019 as "raised in equal parts on curry and Irn-Bru"" Appending this to the previous sentence implies she also said this to Swarbrick, but this is coming from a different interview. I'd recommend starting a new sentence and moving it to just after the sentence about her parents' move to Scotland, as it would lead into this quite nicely; this would also allow the bit about her education to lead naturally into her schooling. As before, I'd also suggest trimming the date.

Trimmed both attributions to just 'stated' and rearranged.--Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• Publication date should be provided for the BBC citation.

Thought I was done with these. Added.--Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• "After graduating in 2006,[7] Krishan took a post at a medical partnership" Did she start her position at the partnership in 2006?

2006 probably shouldn't be citing her General Medical Council profile, so cut.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• "medical partnership" Could you clarify what this is? Is it a clinic/general practitioners'/hospital? What work did she do there?

GP; I added that the article.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• "but left in September 2017" Is there a better source for this than a LinkedIn profile? Her article in The Scotsman says she was there for 6 years, does that mean she began working there in 2011? If so, what was she doing in the five years between graduating and beginning her work there?

As far as I can make out, she carried on studying until 2011. I added 'ten years' to the article.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• "after burning out" Recommend linking to Occupational burnout.
• Spotcheck: [10] The article doesn't explicitly reference burn out, which is in one of the other sources cited in this sentence. Citation should be rearranged so they're inline with the specific information being verified.

Added link and reference.--Launchballer 10:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• I've noticed that there's quite a few sentences that are broken up by citations to several different sources. Could we perhaps rearrange these or retool these so the sentences are easier to read, without multiple interruptions with citation marks? There's also some potential for synthesis, as in some cases, it might imply a connection within a sentence that the sources themselves do not imply.

I'm sorry, I really don't see how an extra three characters in superscript impacts on readability. If you can point me to actual synthesis, I'd be happy to reword.--Launchballer 10:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• "She stated in April 2018 article" -> "She stated in an April 2018 article [...]"

I actually trimmed this as I don't think it adds anything.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• The url in the Heart citation is broken; it gives a 500 error.

Works for me.--Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• "given a dressing down" This is rather colloquial and un-encyclopedic language.

Changed.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• BBC Scotland citation is malformed, containing two "BBC Scotland"s in the title field and then repeating that it's from the BBC as the publication.

Changed.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• "Swarbrick described" It's been a couple paragraphs, so it might be good to use her full name here.

Added.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• "she wrote" Krishan or Swarbrick?

Changed.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• What's with the lower-case "oksana" as the author for the GAMA healthcare article? I can't see an author in the article.

Oksana is what the source code for the article credits as author, but cut anyway.--Launchballer 10:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• "she published a children's book" Are there any reviews of this book that we could cite?

Found a review in Kirkus Reviews published after I wrote the bulk of this article.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• "The Weakest Link" Should be wikilinked in the body.

Added.--Launchballer 10:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Can we expand a bit on some of these TV and radio appearances?

Added what I was able to find.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• This BBC News citation doesn't have a publication date.

Added.--Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Eastern Eye citation doesn't include a publication date and duplicates the publication in its title field.

Added.--Launchballer 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• "A Superhero's First Aid Manual" Was this also written by Krishan?

Clarified.--Launchballer 09:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is sometimes unclear.

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

   Looks all good on the style front.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Many of the citations are missing vital details (such as authors and publication dates) and could do with wikilinks and ISSNs for consistency. Some have malformed titles, resulting in the duplication of publication names.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   One case where information appears to be verified by a different citation, not cited inline with it.

   C. It contains no original research:

   A couple possible cases of novel synthesis, as there are some sentences that combine sources to imply a connection that may not have been implied by the sources themselves.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No plagiarism noticed on spotchecks; Earwig flags nothing major.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   A couple things that could do with some elaboration, with one possible gap in the biography.

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

   All focused, with no major deviations.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Neutral throughout.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No major changes since nomination; last reversions took place over a year ago.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image has a valid non-free use rationale.

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

   Only image is of the subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a well-written, if short, article and I think it'll meet GA criteria with some further improvements to prose, verifiability and broadness. Feel free to ping me once all my comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to give this another look. Great work so far! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: I believe I've addressed everything.--Launchballer 10:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for addressing all of this. I'm happy to pass the review now. Excellent work! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.