Talk:Yoga/GA1

GA Reassessment

NPOV ??Andycjp (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain further. The article has a neutral tone throughout, and is mostly about the history and evolution of yoga. What specifically is not being addressed? Please note that articles are not required to have a criticism section - in fact such a practice is deprecated in favor of addressing criticism in the article body, in context. What specifially is not being addressed? ~ priyanath ^talk 02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Priyanath. There's lots to critique in this article, and I'm not at all sure it is currently at GA status...but NPOV isn't one of its problems, in my view.--nemonoman (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article by removing duplicate material, and some clunky writing. I also replaced some sectarian references—which tend to promote a specific POV—with academic ones. There is still a problem with pop yoga books (Christy Turlington's book just one example), and teachers/gurus from specific schools, being used as neutral Reliable Sources. Sometimes this seems to be done to promote the book or school. The article is not as bad as I thought it was. The major problem is the instability of the lead. Over the last months, the lead has ranged from giving the broadest overview of Yoga, to becoming a blog posting on "I think yoga is...." ~ priyanath ^talk 16:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor launching this so-called individual reassessment needs to follow the GAR guidelines for the reassessment per WP:GAR. Otherwise I will remove the notice. Specifically:

* Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article. "NPOV?" does not qualify.

* Notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects. Andycjp has not done so.

Also Andycjp owes priyanath a Thank You Note for transcluding the GAR page as the GAR guidelines require.

Note to Andycjp, get to work, or I will assume you no longer wish to GAR this article. --nemonoman (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You would be quite right in removing the reassessment notice and the NPOV tag if Andycjp doesn't get to work soon. It did give me a good excuse to go over the article, though :-). By the way, far from notifying the WikiProjects, Andycjp removed all of the WikiProject templates from the talk page, thus cutting the Yoga article off from the WikiProjects. I added them all back in. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I went to this page because I was interested in any kind of scientific proof that yoga might improve the health. As long as there is no mention of this, I don't think this article is neutral. The reason I think so is that many people seem to believe that you can do yoga instead of regular training, and the fact that the article currently is missing any information about this topic could be seen as some kind of cover up. If anyone with information about this topic could add some info about this, that would make the article much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.155.160 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See Hatha Yoga or Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine. Since Hatha Yoga is a relatively small subsection of Yoga, there is just a short summary section here (per WP:MOS) on Hatha Yoga, with a link to the main Hatha Yoga article. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I concur Priyanath - Whilst the article needs more work in an overall sense, in terms of the question you are answering it seems that many people have the view that Yoga is an exercise program only or mainly - when in fact it is actually a far more holistic set of values and ideals - of which physical health is only a small part.--VS ^talk 07:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor who promoted this individual reassement has flown the coop, apparently. So far as I can tell per WP:GAR no one can close this individual reassessment but Monsieur NPOV himself, Andycjp. He now appears to be another drive-by editor. So unless somebody else takes some initiative, this article's status stays in limbo.

I'm going to Be Bold and revert the GAR, but leave this page intact. If Mr Andy wants to rv my revert (this time Following the Rules and Adding Some Detail), I'm all for it. The GAR team will probably get around to this article anyway soon, and it like most GAs could use some freshening up. But Mr Andy doesn't look to be the man to do it. --nemonoman (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)