Talk:Asana/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.


GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 22:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Introduction[edit]

Hello, there. I think you once did a peer review for me, so here I am returning the favor. This article is well-researched and contains interesting information, covering the bases well and also mentioning critical perspectives. Many parts I found absolutely fascinating.

Many thanks for taking this on, and for the warm words. It has been a lot of work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously a very passionate interest! --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview[edit]

1. Prose:
* There is one website with very similar contents:This webpage is from 31 January 2019. The content was in the article since 2005, so the webpage copied from the wiki article, not the other way around.
Noted.
  • The article reads well. The style is professional and to-the-point. I do think the organization of the article is a bit vague: some section names should be more specific, like Context or Ancient history (what period?). Below I will do a detailed review of the prose.
Context is the usual term for the background or context section of an article, but I'm happy to have "Indian context" in this case (done). "Ancient history" here as elsewhere denotes ancient times, i.e. pre-medieval. There is no ambiguity as dates are immediately given in both paragraphs of text in that section, and indeed in the image caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Indian context" could get a more specific name. It seems to me that it deals with textual traditions and nomenclature, and more specifically, the terminology used by Patañjali.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's try 'Patanjali's Yoga Sutras'.
As for the subsection "Origins of the asanas", its title isn't clearly different from the preceding subsections, which are also the history of the asana. From what I can gather, in "Origins of the asanas", you are giving an overview of the history of specific asanas, and the number of asanas.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the heading is correct; the rest of the History is about people and documents, while this section is about when the asanas themselves (not a few specific ones) originated. I certainly can't think of a better name for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the article's subject is asana, so a history section implies that is the history of the asana. This makes it seem like there is a redundancy.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only in seeming. I have renamed the three history subsections to emphasise their difference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. MOS:
* Generally, meets GA criteria. I will do a final review of the lead at the end.
Noted.
  • You might want to add more useful descriptions to the external links, so people know what they are about.
Done.
  • It seems odd to me that American English is used in the article, as opposed to Indian English. My Indian English is not good, but I think an experienced editor like yourself you can find someone on Wikipedia, if you are not familiar with such English yourself.
I'm a Brit and have travelled in India; the English used is very similar. I've removed all the Americanisms I can see. All the text I've added is certainly in a non-American idiom. However, modern asanas are international; hundreds have been created in America and other countries, so India has no monopoly on them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perfect. How about adding the template for Indian or British English?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a � sign in the section Medieval. I am uncertain whether this is a glitch of my browser, but it appears to me as a question mark within a square.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The see also item Salah seems out of place.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though not clearly a GA criterion, some pictures are SANDWICHING the text, which is not recommended.
Let's consider whether those need doing at the end - we may have rearranged or added text, and the residual problem may be not worth worrying about, let's see. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okeedokee.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. References layout: One dead url, please add the archived url.
Only a connection issue, but I added the archiveurl anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I couldn't access the original url, that's why i mentioned it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small number of references do not contain isbn or oclc numbers. Please include those to help identify them more easily.
Fixed. All except Bharadwaj 1896 now have them; in his case, no OCLC exists, and the article notes that fact.
Great!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Reliable sources:
  • As I mentioned before starting this review last month, there is content in the article that is merely covered by primary sources. It maybe important, for example, to show to the outsider reader that The Autobiography of a Yogi is a relevant work for the history of yoga, by showing that its relation to it is covered by secondary, if possible, independent sources—as opposed to just citing the book itself. Though the book is obviously notable, relevance to the topic at hand should also be proven, preferably by independent research.
We discussed this earlier. My position is that primary sources can be used per policy when they are appropriate, for instance quoting Patanjali's original definition. The article overwhelmingly uses secondary sources. I'd also point out since you mentioned it earlier that a magazine like Yoga Journal is by now a long-established, reliable third-party trusted by different schools of yoga and certainly independent of them. It is careful of its reputation and its readership when checking what to publish. Therefore, for most purposes, it is a reliable secondary source. The Autobiography of a Yogi situation is an artefact of your intervention, as I had in deference removed the YJ source there. I've now added a scholarly one instead; sources of all types agree on its importance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. Just so we are clear, I am not opposed to primary sources per se—I just think that if secondary or more independent sources should be combined with the primary ones to back them up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain whether the section on claimed benefits meets the strict requirements WP:MEDRS. You might want to familiarize yourself with this policy, and make the necessary adjustments, if you haven't yet, before the "anti-quack Wikipedia police" notices your successful GA nomination.
I am aware of the policy constraints, and have taken care to state simply that benefits have been claimed without asserting their veracity. The nature of the benefits is partly magical (clearly outside the MEDRS framework), partly just good exercise (not a problem), and for a few specific claims definitely medical and supported by medical sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Original research: I think none is original, but more care should be taken with use of primary sources, especially in such a highly notable and well-researched subject.
As above on sources.
6. Broadness: In general, covers many aspects of the subject matter. The section about popular literature seems rather limited though, and should be expanded to be more useful to the article. I will do a final check for broadness later.
I'm not convinced about the literature section; it's basically an aside, and I intentionally kept it short; the main cultural impact of asanas is through people's behaviour, going to classes, looking cool and so forth. The genre is hard to cite as critics basically avoid it, quite a good reason for not saying a lot about it: I've added a more-or-less-bearably-cited novel for you. I'd also point out that most mentions of yoga in novels say little or nothing about asanas as such - if a pose is mentioned at all it's meditation and lotus. But if you have specific suggestions for any good examples I'll look at them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's good. I do not insist in such a section, but if it useful to have, it should normally cover more than one book, or aspect of popular culture for that matter.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've added another. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Focus: Generally quite focused.
Noted.
8. Neutral: Yes.
Noted.
9. Stable: article is stable.
Noted.
10-11. Pics:
  • Illustrations and graphs are excellent, and some are possibly unprecedented (though not OR).
Very many thanks!
Following images do not appear to be properly licensed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File is GFDL 1.2. This seems to be ok for Wikipedia per GFDL history.
Where is the page to confirm that?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:About#Trademarks and copyrights
perhaps I am missing something here, but where does the website containing the picture state this?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh is that what you were asking. The website has closed, so I have replaced the image with File:Yoga-5.png, whose Commons page states in terms "This file, which was originally posted to http://www.sridevinrithyalaya.org/gallery2.html, was reviewed on 27 January 2012 by the administrator or reviewer SpacemanSpiff, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date." That review remains valid - once CC 2.5, always CC 2.5, so the revised (composite) image is now safe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
License says the book is out of copyright as it was not renewed, and the photo is anonymous. What it didn't say was that the image must be before 1895 when Lahiri Mahasaya died, and must have been taken in India as he never left that country. Indian copyright term is 60 years from publication, so it's PD-India. Done.
File is CC-by-SA-4.0
Copyright © 2015 www.jaisiyaram.com All rights reserved. from the website.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I've replaced the images.
Just so we're clear, I don't believe in copyright, and have had editors follow me for months because of the many copvio links I had put in articles. But rules are rules, and this is a GA review, after all.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File is CC-by-SA-4.0

Detailed review per section[edit]

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like  Done,  Doing...,  Not done, minus Removed, plus Added, and  Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Etymology[edit]

No comments, always great to see Monier-Williams back.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great.

Indian context[edit]

Done.

Ancient[edit]

Interesting.

  • a pose said to confer enlightenment, and hence identified as a prototype of the god Śiva By whom?
Ah, well picked up. It was Sir John Marshall, and he gave a string of reasons but not this one; the enlightenment thing was a later theory comparing the seal to the Jain masters. I've rewritten the paragraph from the source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without. It's indeed a dilemma.
Okay, good. There are still a few diacritics left, e.g. Vimānārcanākalpa.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Maybe also do the notes.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, hadn't spotted this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval[edit]

  • to have been created outside Shaivism, the home of the Nath yoga tradition, and to have been associated with asceticism If it was an ascetic practice and did not originate in Shaivism, why do you mention Shaivism? Or do you mean to say it was later incorporated in Shaivism?
The rest of the sentence explains this, saying "the home of the Nath yoga tradition". Added that the poses were then adopted by Nath yogins, in case that wasn't clear.
Thanks, used link.

Modern[edit]

Fascinating.

  • Just so I understand this correctly, do you mean to say that some yoga poses may have been based on Scandinavian exercise systems?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to have been based on the general gymnastics culture of the time, which was heavily influenced by Scandinavian gymnastics systems (Bukh's and Ling's). Nobody is suggesting direct copying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. This could be more clarified.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more on this in the Krishnamacharya paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the asanas[edit]

  • The first paragraph is nearly entirely based on primary sources. Please include more secondary, reliable sources.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not so. The abundant and varied sources (not counting the table, where we're just documenting estimated numbers) are:
  • #60: BBC, news organisation, certainly 2ndry
  • #61: Mallinson, scholarly RS commentary
  • #62: Singleton, scholarly RS
  • #63: Yoga Journal, quoting 5 named experts
  • #64: Huffington Post, news organisation, again certainly 2ndry
  • #65: Elephant Journal, news magazine, secondary
  • #66: Ramayana, 1ry source to prove age of a tradition
  • #67: Singleton as above
  • #68: Alter, scholarly RS
  • #69: Pratinidhi Pant, 1ry source as named by Singleton & Alter
  • #70: Ashtanga Yoga, 1ry source as discussed by Singleton to show tradition within modern yoga
  • #71: Singleton as above

This is not "nearly entirely" primary, quite the reverse; and each primary source used has a simple factual purpose, supported on all matters of opinion by a reliable secondary source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual[edit]

  • Again, too little secondary sources. Only the last paragraph contains some.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Too little" is a value judgement which depends on what is being attempted. The section provides experience reports, a valid approach, as follows:
  • #82: Brill Encyclopedia of Hinduism: RS, tertiary
  • #83: Bernard, scholarly source (PhD thesis) reporting personal experience. Unusual case, between 1ry and 2ndry; article makes clear this is a report of experience.
  • #84: Bernard, as above
  • #85: Bernard, as above
  • #86: Satyananda; book is 1ry, but the quote is reflecting on the topic (a 2ndry attitude). The section is describing asanas from within Hinduism, i.e. as with Bernard, these are differing opinions within the tradition. This is perfectly acceptable as long as the quotes are attributed and not overlong: we are answering the question "what do leading practitioners within the tradition say they are doing?".
  • #87: Iyengar, again book is 1ry but the quote is reflective, used for the same reason as #86.
  • #88: Sjoman, scholarly RS, secondary.

I agree we can provide some more scholarship; I have added a paragraph from Jain 2015 on hatha yoga's medieval goals, Singleton 2010, and Mallinson 2017 similarly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise[edit]

  • Do you have any secondary sources to show that the opinion of the Evangelical Alliance is in anyway notable? I am aware that Muslims in Indonesia wanted to limit or prohibit yoga for similar reasons, but this can actually be found in independent news reports. I doubt whether this alliance made any headlines.
Firstly, the EA is a notable organisation (with its own article), making it a reliable source. Secondly, it is a secondary source with respect to yoga asanas, and indeed the particular article quoted is by its own intention serving as an independent platform illustrating the opinions of different Christians (the EA remaining neutral on the question), which is exactly the kind of reliable secondary behaviour that we require here.
Reliability is not an issue here, notability of events is. This organization is just not the most notable organization which expressed its opinion or called for a ban. However, there are independent news reports on religious responses to hatha yoga from Christians, positive[1] and negative[2][3] and Muslims, positive[4] and negative[5]. In passing, these news reports also mention other religions. In fairness, I did find one report from the Alliance,[6] but it just looks much less notable.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Personally I don't think this is an events question, rather one of issues, which are more or less permanent really. I've added some of these very good sources now. Well found, I spent quite a bit of time hunting for such things. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely written, smooth and to the point.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting discussion in the Guardian. I am reminded of similar discussions with regard to mindfulness and its origins in Buddhism.
Indeed, many thanks.
  • From a Hindu perspective, the practice of asanas in the Western world as physical exercise is not necessarily seen as problematic, as long as their use in this way is not confused with yoga as a path Do you have independent evidence of notability of Swami Jnaneshvara?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the paragraph, using NPR source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed benefits[edit]

Well written, even though it is challenging material.

  • Can we wikilink supernatural powers to Siddhi?
Thanks, and Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contraindications[edit]

Added description from NIH. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common practices[edit]

  • the first step toward the unattachment that relieves suffering Phrased a bit unusual, maybe simplify this a bit.
Reworded.

Traditional guidance[edit]

  • The first paragraph reads more like a manual than an encyclopedia. Try sources a bit more reflective.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Namaskar[edit]

Styles[edit]

  • The approaches of schools whose ways of executing the pose have been documented are described below. Simplify a bit, please.
Done.
  • but in other directions In the wrong direction?
Done.
  • In Trikonasana, the feet are held closer together, the back foot is at right angles rather than turned in slightly, and the lower hand grasps the big toe of the forward foot, rather than reaching to the ground. A bit too detailed. Better cut this out.
Cut.
  • Same holds for The Bikram version of Trikonasana resembles Parsvakonasana as executed in Ashtanga or Iyengar Yoga, since the forward leg is bent "until the back of the leg is parallel to the floor"
Cut.
This edit appears not have succeeded.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut most of it, but we need at least to say that it's different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Types of asana[edit]

  • Dates of individual asanas of each type are given in List of asanas. Redundant, there's already a template.
Done.
  • You haven't introduced Hemacandra's Yogasastra and the Sritattvanidhi yet.
We can't cover everything. I've added dates for all the sources.
  • Sometimes you speak of Joga Pradipika, sometimes you speak of Light on Yoga. This is confusing. The table has both, but still.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lot. Light on Yoga is Yoga Dipika which isn't the same as Joga Pradipika.
My bad, haha.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In literature[edit]

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Interesting to hear that the meditation posture was more or less the start of yoga.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, given where we now are.
  • In my second reading of the lead now, I missed the part where you describe how the spread of modern yoga started as a response to colonialism. I felt this was an important point.
Added and linked.
  • Secondly, they have been claimed should specify that those claims have been made by both practitioners and scholars. As it is written now, it could mean only practitioners, which wouldn't do justice to the subject.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Mentioned evidence from studies.

Broadness check[edit]

  • Last few remaining issues underlined above, in the sections that haven't been crossed off the list yet (check ToC). Next, checking for broadness.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Edited.[reply]
I think those are all done now.
  • I found a number of review studies[7][8][9][10] that I think qualify for WP:MEDRS. I am not sure whether they should better be included here or in Modern yoga. I'll leave that choice to you, since you have stewarded and nominated both articles, but I'd like to know your reasoning. (I have tried to choose only reviews which cover individual poses.)--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are reviews of multiple (in one case 81) other studies, all about "yoga", only one specifically on "yoga styles in which the practice of yoga poses, called asanas, is the core component" (and even that not exclusively asanas). So I think the modern yoga article is the better target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

One more point of improvement left, under "Overview", Prose. It's about section names. Now, I will continue with the lead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above.
The article is ready for GA now. I hope you have found the review acceptable. I'd like to end with a note which might interest you, as well as a request:
  • It appears there was some buzz a few years back about the "Buddha bucket" found in the Norwegian Oseberg Ship, which was an ancient image seated in some posture which appears like an asana. There was some speculation that the image's posture might be the lotus position, though this claim is so extraordinary, that it hasn't been pursued. Probably not substantial enough to put in this article, but I thought I just mention it for the fun.
  • ;-}
  • If you have time, I'd appreciate if you also do a GA review of one of my articles, which can be found under WP:GAN#REL. You might be interested in reviewing Jīvaka, which deals with ancient medicine and Buddhism.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very many thanks for the thorough and helpful review. I'll see if I have anything like the knowledge required to do that review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, appreciated. It is always hard to find reviewers of articles about Dhammic religions.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

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
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asana/GA1&oldid=887578687"