Talk:Mark Singleton (yoga scholar)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SquareInARoundHole (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Beginning review

I am beginning a review of this article. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll respond promptly to any comments and will be happy to work together with you to resolve any concerns you may have. We can easily add a list of his minor publications (chapters, articles, translations) if you think it worth it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Review

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

I believe this article passes the criteria. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments

@Chiswick Chap: Before I move forward any further, there's a few major issues that need to be addressed.

• Ensure that acronyms are spelled out. (What is SOAS?)
  • Linked.
• Wikilink where appropriate. (What's modern postural yoga? There's a Wikilink for that!)
  • Linked.
• Citations 3 & 8 are redirects and no longer support the content being referenced.
  • Fixed.

Once these are sorted I'll resume the review. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Some additional comments after reading:

• Source birth year.
  • Done.

• Use scientist Infobox for thesis and PhD work
  • Done.

• Add important details to infobox, like alma mater and, if possible, thesis advisor
  • Added.

• Per MOS:LEAD, lede should summarize the body of the article (like a TL;DR), but there is information in the lede that is not in the body of the article or contradicts information in the body slightly, which is confusing.
  • We may have had a little bit of scholar-editing here... fixed, I hope!

• While the body of the biography does follow MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL, as a reader it's a little confusing to read going back and forth between his practice and his writing or appearances, especially since biographical prose seems to have a good flow and then is abruptly chopped by a short sentence briefly mentioning something he did where it fits chronologically, and reads a bit like a placeholder to expand later. If there aren't more sources to expand such an inclusion, ie "In 2016, his work was featured in a BBC Radio 4 program by Mukti Jain Campion entitled "The Secret History of Yoga"",it might be worth considering that it doesn't belong in the article at all, or it belongs in a different section of similar content. A suggestion as a reader would be to make his biography solely about his personal life, education, and practice; and to change "Reception of major works" to "Major works and reception" where you can summarize his written works broadly, make the works in chronological order (if not already), and summarize each on in a paragraph before the summary of the reception.

• • Removed the BBC item to External links.
  • Retitled section.

I'll resume once these are addressed.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:

Additional comments:

• Split lead into two paragraphs.
  • Done.

• Second lead paragraph should summarize his works a bit more, and be less granular (ie, his co-editor should be mentioned in the body, not in the lede).
  • Extended.
  • Co-editor details removed.

You should remove citations from the lede that are in the body.

• • Done.

• I still urge that commentary about his works should not be in his biographical section, but rather in the section about his works with a summary above the breakdown.
  • OK will try. The problem is that the writings and the career are tightly interwoven, most especially because Yoga Body set out his thesis (in both senses), made his name, and furthered his career.

• The biography section seems to be all based on primary and/or first-party sources. Statements like "traditional Indian yoga was strikingly difficult to find" don't seem to be supported other than by Singleton's own telling. It's not clear until I check sources that what is written is his opinion, and written by him. Is there more broad coverage of some of these things to be well known like "[his work had] an unprecedented emphasis on āsanas", "authentic, traditional Indian yoga was strikingly difficult to find", and "His discovery that modern āsana-based yoga had much more recent origins" need WP:IS, as of right now, some of it reads a little bit like self-promotion because of the sourcing.
  • Attributed as needed. With the reorg, the biography is shorter and actually more primary; I think this is basically fine because we are allowed to rely on scholars for the facts of their own careers. The following section then validates the career and writings with the opinions of other scholars and reviewers. However, given your concern I've added a quick summary of modern yoga cited to Shearer 2020 and Syman 2010, from among the many sources available, to make it clear this isn't just Singleton's opinion. I think this works best as a footnote really.

• The second paragraph in the body seems a bit long.
  • Split.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments:

• I think it's getting there! I made some changes for flow, I hope you don't mind. I'm left for wanting a bit more as it stands. In doing my own research on Singleton, I found some topics of conversation that could be covered here a bit. I also removed the source for his birth year, as it doesn't clarify that is actually this Mark Singleton. Here's a few things I found interesting:
  • https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/iyengar-invention-yoga
  • https://www.wsj.com/articles/cultural-borrowing-is-great-the-problem-is-disrespect-1535639194
  • https://thewire.in/books/cultural-borrowing-kwame-anthony-appiahbook-extract-lies-that-bind
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/fashion/25yoga.html
  • https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/yoga-in-the-west/12359840
    • Ok, I've added some more from these and other sources, and a supporting image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments:

Moved some things around. Can we had a bit more summary to him as an editor/author at the base paragraph of his works/reception? How many works has he edited and/or authored? Are any of his works contentious? Has he received criticism for any of his work? I think adding a select list of publications would be great, too. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Base paragraph: extended somewhat.

Did he receive criticism for any of his work - Yoga Body got 95% of it; the rest is sufficiently summarised in the 'Major works and reception' section. I think we've covered 'the main points' of this.

Added list of minor works. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments:

Let's archive the sources and I think it's ready for a second opinion. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've gone beyond the GAN requirements and added archives for you. I'm not sure why you would need another opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This is my first GA review. :S SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be managing just fine. Check the six criteria and take it from there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)