Talk:Yoga in the United States

Yoga in the United States has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 26, 2019. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 06:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am willing to review this article.

My first comment is that the title "Yoga in America" should be changed to "Yoga in the United States". "America" as a name for the United States is a colloquialism; it is not the correct term for the country. Similarly, except in direct quotations. references to "America" in the article should be changed to "the United States", or alternatively to an abbreviation such as "US" (although not "USA", per WP:NOTUSA).

Done.

I will make some more comments soon, though it may be a day or two before I can do so. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. I'll do the America thing now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chiswick Chap. Thanks for noting the new article nomination brought about by the renaming of the article. Like I said, there may be a short delay of a day or so before I can make more comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not completely sure talk page transclusion is working, or how to fix it if it isn't working. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm watching this page directly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would give the following as an example of a statement that needs to be rewritten: "But the United States was starting to think about its relationship to eastern philosophy." That makes no sense taken literally. A country, as distinct from people within that country, does not "think about its relationship" to something. The statement needs to be rewritten to better convey the underlying meaning (also note that generally a sentence shouldn't start with "but"). More comprehensive comments about the article soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what you've added ("Americans were starting to engage with Hindu philosophy") is much better and fixes the issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the lead could do with at least a little more detail, explaining briefly who (for example) Emerson, Thoreau, and Vivekananda are (not everyone will know this). It would be worth noting for instance that Vivekananda was Indian rather than American; keep in mind that not everyone who reads the lead will be aware of these basic points. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't simply ignore my comments. If you disagree, for some reason, that's fine, but I'd like a response. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't spot it; - bullet points would help to distinguish items to be actioned from discussion. I was waiting for comments; since open items block progress, I've never thought of ignoring items as a GAN strategy. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Your edits have definitely improved the lead, and have helped raise the quality of the article. I still think that even a little more added detail (on Yogendra and Indra Devi) would go a long way toward improving things further. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

The "early signs" section should be retitled. It is too obscure a title and begs the question "signs of what?" Something like "Early pioneers" would be better (although you don't have to adopt exactly that title if you don't want to - there would be various other possibilities). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article states, "She repeatedly stressed the importance of Patanjali's system of yoga, before travelling to India and Ceylon and dramatically converting to Buddhism." To me, it seems that "dramatically" reads too much like editorial opinion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General statement: all adjectives in the article are closely derived from named sources: I've never added my own opinion, if indeed I have one.

Specifically: Syman p63 writes "Today it's hard to appreciate how dramatic Blavatsky's conversion was." Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was your opinion, rather that it "reads too much like" editorial opinion (a very different statement). The point is, calling something "dramatic" isn't factual information, even if it is a term a reliable source uses to describe something. There is no automatic reason to add the term to the article simply because the source uses it. Instead of using a term that conveys a writer's personal feelings about Blavatsky's conversion, better to say something factual about what it meant and what its significance was (for instance, something explaining how unconventional and out of the ordinary such a conversion was). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Added a bit more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've recently revised part of the "Early pioneers" section to read, "She repeatedly over the course of six years stressed the importance of Patanjali's system of yoga, before travelling to India and Ceylon and astonishing the American public by suddenly converting to Buddhism, a tradition that Syman notes was even more deeply despised in 19th century America than Hinduism." That's definitely better than what was there before; however, "19th century America" should read instead as "19th century United States". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could still do with just a little more detail. Even a very brief explanation of what an "asana" is would help, for example. I realize that readers can find this out quickly by simply clicking on the link, but preferably they shouldn't have to go to another article for this information; the lead should have sufficient information so that readers new to the subject can understand it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% satisfied with the writing of the "Yoga as asanas" section. It's basically acceptable, but could stand some improvement, I think. You have six short paragraphs starting with dates ("In 1920...", "In 1943...", "In 1948...", "In 1961...", "In 1958...", "In 1966..."). This is rather repetitive and I suspect likely to weary readers. Some variation, so that each paragraph doesn't start with, "In year [whatever]", would help. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edited.

Thank you, that helps things. I've made a single minor copy edit to that section. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence mentioning "bodybuilder B. C. Ghosh", I would be inclined to delink "bodybuilder", per WP:OVERLINK, as a common word that doesn't need to be linked. You don't have to do this if you don't want to, but delinking a common word like that is what I would do. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a much rarer term than Asana, actually, but clearly a matter of taste. Delinked.

On the positive side, there is a lot of good information in the article; I realize that writing an overview of a subject such as yoga practice in the United States isn't an easy thing to do. More soon; probably tomorrow. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've checked the text over again and added some glosses. I think you'll find that as well as "a lot of good information" it is actually well-structured with a coherent narrative and topic structure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article notes that, "The historian Sarah Schrank, reviewing recent literature, notes that William Broad's The Science of Yoga, "lambasted mercilessly by the American yoga community..."; please add a mention of William Broad's background (journalist). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The six good article criteria are,

1, that an article be "Well written". I am satisfied that the article meets this criterion, especially after recent edits to improve it.

2, that an article is "Verifiable with no original research". This criterion also appears to be met. Everything seems to be carefully cited and I have no reason to think there is any original research.

3, that an article is "Broad in its coverage" and "addresses the main aspects of the topic". This criterion is met. "Yoga in the United States" is a very large topic and I think the article would benefit from more information, to address the topic in greater detail. However, it does succeed in addressing the main aspects of the topic in an at least sufficient level of detail.

4, that an article be neutral. The article is neutral.

5, that the article be stable. The article is stable.

6, that the article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". This criterion is met. I didn't note a copyright problem with any of the images.

I don't see a fundamental objection to passing the article, and I will be passing it. However, I am going to wait briefly before doing so, so that the remaining issue noted above (about William Broad) can be addressed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. If you have ideas for areas where more detail would be useful I'll follow them up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passed article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]