Talk:Yoga and cultural appropriation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anand2202 (talk · contribs) 03:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC) TrangaBellam (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

Preliminary Observations by Anand2202

1. This article mentions the direction of a continent as place of origin. This is vague. Yoga, a good article, clearly mentions the Indian origins.
   1. Done.
2. Lead of the article has no citations.
   1. This is normal for articles on Wikipedia. The lead summarizes cited text in the body of the article, and as such does not repeat citations.

Anand2202 ? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried to improve the article by expanding the introduction for the benefit of the reader.

• Um, as I said above, the "introduction", known as the lead, is purely a summary of the cited text in the main part, the body, of the article. The lead is not directly cited as a rule because it uses the cited material below. See below for why it's not a good move for you to edit the article.

First paragraph throws light on Yoga while second paragraph outlines the cultural appropriation. The third paragraph need to be scrutinized. The vagueness in repeated use of the term scholars and in the sentence by "practitioners in India have adopted western yoga practices" is under lens. It is not clear who are these practitioners in India and what are the western yoga practices. If it has a verifiable source then we can look into it, else we can consider other options.

• No! The lead is not introducing anything "new"; instead the terms mentioned are explained - the scholars in terms of people named in the body of the article in the "Analysis" section, whose research papers are listed in the "References". There is thus no "vagueness" at all: the lead is summarizing precise, verifiable facts found in the article.

In the mean time, I would be adding some more content to the article. Anand2202 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• As I've explained on your talk page, that is rather unwise, as it crosses the line of separation between the roles of reviewer - responsible for evaluating and commenting - and of nominator - responsible for editing. Please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions; you may also find the guideline Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles helpful. We should take your materials as suggestions - they would be far better placed here, or in your sandbox than in the article - as we will have a difficulty if we disagree, moving towards an edit-war rather than consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've looked over your additions and I do find them problematic, in multiple ways. It would be appreciated if you'd undo all of them, and work conventionally by making suggestions here on this review page, so that I can reply to them individually, only changing the article if need be. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 27 January 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.

Review by TB

• It appears that Anand2202 has recused himself; in that case, I will take over the responsibilities. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Anand2202's edits are blatant POV-pushing and need to be reverted. Then, we can start the GAR ... TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Done that just now. If you want to add a further note on their talk page, that might be a good thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam - are you planning to do this GAN review? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Obviously; my first set of comments will arrive in about 96 hours. Btw, I am not impressed that Andrea R. Jain's monograph (OUP; 2014) is not among the citations. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam I've added a summary of Jain's argument to the article. She actually doesn't use the phrase "cultural appropriation" (nor is either half of it in the index) but she's clearly discussing the same topic. Hope that's better for you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam : glad to see you're out of the woods now. Would be pleased if we could get this GAN done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)