Talk:Yoga as exercise/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Will be working on this. Look for comments at the end of this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Overall this is a fairly solid article, however I've got some issues that I think prevent it from being a good article at present. Initial comments below:

Thank you. Two things to say: firstly, I spent so much time on this article (and around 100 subsidiary articles) and read so much about the subject that it has been hard to see it from outside (and to keep it short); secondly, I am accustomed to working rapidly to sort out reviewer's comments, and can transform an article radically if needed within the timeframe of a GAN. I'm sure we can sort this one out together. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

General

• I appreciate that this article is trying to be comprehensive, but from jump it's a bit inscrutable for me as a casual reader. Assuming someone doesn't know anything about yoga as exercise, how likely are they to know about the origins of yoga, and thus how is delving into a bunch of technical terms going to help introduce the topic?

That's very useful. I've simplified the lead, especially the first sentence! I've done a little simplifying of the article body but, well, if one is describing nuclear physics one uses the language of physics, so I don't apologise for using, defining, and linking technical terms. You are right that the article does not need to be 'comprehensive' for GA, as 'the main points' will be sufficient, so if there are specific materials you want cut down, just ask.

• It's also weird to me we have a section consisting of dictionary definitions. We're not a dictionary. I think you could cut the entire section and start with the history, which gives a (much briefer) etymologic origin before moving into the relevant history.

Removed. I'm very happy to hear this as I felt the same way about that section.

• According to Suzanne Newcombe, modern yoga in India —as a general point throughout, you throw out names of people without introducing them. I don't know who Suzanne Newcombe is so her expertise is not immediately relevant—is she an author, a historian, etc? A single word or two is enough.

Glosses added.

• Given that it doesn't have a major role in the article proper, to the above point about the lead being very jargon-filled, if the content isn't in the article later it shouldn't be in the lead (WP:LEAD)

The lead was constructed by going through the article and summarizing the main points, so I'm not sure what is intended here? The names in boldface are redirect targets and seem to me to need their citations; I've moved the only other ref out of the lead, and moved the paragraph on academic naming from the former Definitions section to 'Research' where it fits well.

• I don't really see the utility of the Comparison with Hatha Yoga section. It's positioned oddly in the article, after everything about yoga as exercise, and it repeats content from before. The most relevant parts should be folded into the history section.

Cut; pasted parts into 'History'.

• {xt|Under the chick lit surface is a measure of genuine insight}} This doesn't seem like something that meets WP:NPOV.

Replaced with direct quotation from book review to make it quite clear that it wasn't my opinion.

• Yoga training courses, as of 2015, were still unregulated in the UK—update?

Updated. In truth all Brits will be amazed if this changes in our lifetimes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Mittra uses his own categories such as "Floor & Supine Poses"—another person who's not introduced.

Fixed.

• I don't think, especially given there's a dedicated list elsewhere, it makes sense to include the asanas list. It's long and it's drifting out of the context of a general article on the subject.

Removed. It was a list of types of asana.

• Likewise the table of "Jared Farmer's analysis of trends in yoga" feels like undue weight of one person's opinion, and it's also content that's better summarized in prose anyhow.

Text it is.

• The "In Culture: Literature" section reads like a trivia list currently. Are there enough details about yoga being part of pop culture/media to make a subsection? I imagine so, but what the section currently does is relate three different works with very little indication of how they're important or how they connect to each other.

Added lead sentence to connect the types of literature exemplified.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the helpful comments. I think they're all covered to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Images:

*File:Spread of postural yoga across the world.svg really seems like given how tough it is to read without making it huge and disrupting content, it should use a timeline template instead of a map (i.e., something appropriate from {{Timeline templates}}.)

Removed; I don't think we need a timeline as it would be very close to the text without the benefit of a geographic display.

*File:Yoga dimensions.svg—is there a source for this diagram? Otherwise it could be considered original research.

Removed. For the record, it was reliably cited and constituted a graphical paraphrase of the source.

• I'm concerned that the captions and text for File:Mode of action of Mudras.svg and File:Shatkarmas.svg imply these methods objectively actually work, versus being part of the belief system.

Stated "with the intention of" in captions and text. Boldly labelled Mudras image "Intended effects". There isn't the same issue with the Satkarmas image as the actions described are indeed physically performed by practitioners; whether they achieve anything is another matter.

Sources:

• Evaluating at present.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

David Fuchs - there's a lot to cover. Most of it is very plain, and easily verified; for the book sources, I can add brief quotations to specific refs if you like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's just taking me time because I've got other GANs I'm trying to clear out to devote my time to this. I'm going to circle back on this fully this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Spot-checked current version refs 1, 3, 4, 6, 22, 26, 57, 86, 95, 125, 149, 172, 192, and 213. I didn't spot verification issues or close paraphrasing problems.

Noted.

• What makes Brammer 2010 a reliable source? Does he have any professional pedigree? Otherwise it's just someone's masters thesis, which seems a bit thin to use heavily as a source.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed him from text, replaced ref.

Thanks for the prompt attention. I'm going to take another look at the article tomorrow with a fresh set of eyes and if there's nothing else, I'll pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)