Talk:The Path of Modern Yoga

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Path of Modern Yoga/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Review

I'll start. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll get to this tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Well-written: Yes and no.

• "The book was welcomed by many reviewers, both academics and yoga teachers." I'm not sure this is true, or if it can be verified by the three cited reviews. The lead strikes the same note, of course. I don't think you can say "critics welcomed the book" and "others were more doubtful", that is, if you can have two singulars if you only have three reviews. And what Niki Whiting misses isn't really "an exploration of yoga's historical context"--that is, "context" isn't really the right word.

Reworded.

• "based on 10 years of research" is what the author says (I presume), and needs attribution.

Quite right, attributed.

• The "Publication" section is a bit thin, too thin for its own section; maybe you can put that note on the illustrations in the synopsis, after the "35 chapters" note. Also, that reference, which essentially adds nothing but an OCLC number, is really not a reference.

Removed publication sentence, added illustration sentence to Publication section.

• In the "35 chapters" section, the verb "map" is used in consecutive sentences.

Reworded.

• "Mark Singleton"--now I see where that comes from: it's from the publisher's website. These are blurbs, written by those people for the purpose of advertising the book; they are not excerpts from reviews--you can't find them anywhere else. In my opinion, the quotes from Alter and Farmer need to be cut as well. (Disclosure: I have been asked to write such blurbs, or I might not have known how they come about.)

Removed.

2. Verified: Sure--but see the note above, on the material drawn from the publisher's website. That is not the kind of thing that we should cite.

As above, removed.

3. Broad in coverage: This is the tricky one: it's a relatively new book, and it's not very widely reviewed. From what I can see the article cites as much as it can.

I've added a sentence on the Publishers Weekly review - as always, it's plain and practical but perhaps worth having.

4. Neutral: sure, no problems--both positive and negative views are cited, for instance.

5. Stable: no disruption in history.

6. All images serve a purpose and seem to have the proper license.

Drmies - all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Chiswick Chap. It's not often that such a short article with relatively few sources is brought up for GA, but the subject's thinness should not disqualify it from meeting the GA requirements. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)