Talk:Vajroli mudra/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 04:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Prose

• The first sentence of the lead is just copy-pasted into "Mudra" in the same position.

Noted. It seems reasonable that this brief summary should be there also.

• It is described in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika 3.82–89. No citation given. Could you add the description, too?

That is a citation, and the paragraph already describes it. Added it to the list of references.

Still needs an in-line citation for verifiability. –Vami

I added one.

• In "Reception", there are many, many redundant citations within paragraphs with only a single given citation. The major culprits are citations [2], [6], and [10].

I've removed repeated citations except where needed to support direct "..." quotations.

• Could Hatha Yoga be discussed some, since Vajroli mudra is nested in it, and the topic is derided as as unscientific and dangerous?

Good point. Added in Context section.

What is hatha yoga? What is distinct about it? Looking for that sort of information, put succinctly. –Vami

Added similarities and differences.

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.