Talk:Yoga and cultural appropriation/GA2

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) 00:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I plan to review this article as part of the GAn backlog elimination drive. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 00:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll be away from my desk for some days so will respond only intermittently during that time. Please be patient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Current review status

Will be updated as I review the article ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?)
It is current as of: 10:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Could do with a through copy edit to make it great, but nothing major is standing out and it's good as is. Noted, thank you. (It's in British English)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Possible scare quotes, see 2b None of the quotes are/were "scare quotes". For fixes see 2b.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Lots of either unattributed short quotes or scare quotes in Appropriating yoga section. For now I'm marking this as a failure, but it is fixable! There are/were no scare quotes. Quote marks indicate(d) direct quotations. All now removed or cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Concise and to the point. Seems to cover everything important without getting sidetracked. After a week of taming coatracks I'm thrilled! Thank you very much!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Does a good job of presenting both sides without trying to answer the bigger questions. Thank you.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Review the citations and the quotations. For single word quotes either expand the quoted bit, or just drop the quotes. Carefully review the Appropriating yoga section. It isn't one of the requirements, but this might be helpful Wikipedia:Quotations See 2b above and replies below.

General notes:

• Odd use of wikilinks. Some things are linked repeatedly, in close secession, while "person of colour" not only isn't linked, but might be in scare quotes.
  • Checked duplicate links, removed one.
  • That's a direct quotation. Added link and repeated ref, per discussion below.

• I have absolutely no idea what is going on with some of the citations. The first paragraph in Appropriating yoga is a good example: some quotes are cited immediately after the closing quote mark, some sentences without quotes are cited, and some quotes aren’t cited at all. Or at least not beyond it looking like that paragraph is sourced entirely from Jain's book.
  • My approach, which is standard, is to cite once at end of paragraph unless there is a long quotation or something likely to be challenged, in which case I repeat the ref. Since you ask I am now repeating refs all over.

• "She comments that she is now ashamed" no, she doesn't. She says "If I could have it undone would I? Yes." I'm guessing multiple rounds of editing turned "would have undone" to "regrets" to "ashamed". Did this occur elsewhere? Check anything about people, especially where the wording implies/says how they feel or think.
  • Edited.

• 'She identifies yoga studios, yoga teachers and yoga-related businesses as among those misusing yoga, stating that sacred symbols like idols of Buddha, Ganesha, Patanjali, and Shiva need to be treated with "reverence", just as the Om ‌ॐ symbol, yoga sutras, and mandalas are not "décor" and that they should not be added "casually" to beautify a yoga space.'
  • Which parts of this are actually quotes? Either expand the quoted section (perhaps "are not décor and casually adding them to a yoga space does not make that space more authentic.") or rewrite to remove ambiguity, because currently they could be mistaken for scare quotes.
    • The word "décor" is quoted to indicate it is not in Wikipedia's voice but a direct quotation; I've cited it directly to confirm this. The use of quotations, including of distinctive single words, is to indicate the tone and approach of the person whose opinions are being presented. I've removed the quote marks from "relevance" and "casually" as these words are too ordinary (not distinctive) to need them and too few to worry about on copyright grounds.

• Everything else looks really good! Nice choice of images, especially for the lede, and in general. I'd float the chart, but that's entirely personal preference.
  • Noted.

It's so close but I can't comfortably pass it until it's clear what's an actual direct quote. I'll give it another look over tomorrow (it's 3am here!) and make sure I didn't miss anything, but you can probably safely assume that's the only real issue. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 07:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Noted; I've clarified all the direct quotations. Thank you for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Looks good! ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 10:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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.