Talk:Downward Dog Pose/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review. Will take a few days, at least—no more than seven. Will leave periodic feedback to allow revisions throughout, if needed. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a quick run through. Thanks for your work on this. The writing is technically good and the images are fine. I haven't looked at the sources yet. Before I run the article against the GA criteria for a final, comprehensive look, ~~is there a reason for the use of single quotes vs double in the second sentence of the "Etymology and origins" section? Perhaps I'm missing something~~. The only other thing I noticed is that the prose in the "Variations", and the "Effects and contra-indications" sections is a bit stilted (versus one or two paragraphs with topic sentence(s) that tells a story), but I don't think that runs afoul of the GA criteria (maybe FA), so it's not an issue here. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've replaced the single quotes with double, and made a few small copy-edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Still working --Airborne84 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments/questions:

In "Effects and contra-indications, it would be good to have a source or two for "The pose has sometimes been advised against during pregnancy". That would allow the reader to evaluate the sources on both side of the mixed studies/advisements in this area.

The ref is Polis et al, #27; I've repeated the ref and added a footnote quoting Polis et al, citing the "popular" sources they looked at. Those popular sources obviously are not usable as WP:MEDRS and neither we nor Polis have treated them as such.

The below sentences in the text don't have citations, but there are multiple citations at the end of the paragraphs. Are those citations at the end intended to cover these statements as well? If so, OK. But I'd put citations at the end of these sentences as well to prevent future issues if other editors rearrange passages, since it seems that these sentences should be referenced.

"Indian gymnastics, too, had a system of postures, called "dands" (from Sanskrit दण्ड daṇḍa, a staff[15]), linked by jumps, and one of the dands is close to Downward Dog." (referring just to the part I italicized)
~~"Neither the dand exercises nor Surya Namaskar were considered to be yoga in the 1930s."~~

Done. It's standard practice not to repeat citations all the way through a paragraph.

~~I recommend some mention in the lede of the "Effects and contra-indications" material to ensure the lede provides coverage of the entire article. Probably doesn't need more than a sentence.~~ --Airborne84 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Thank you. If the remaining sentence noted above starting with "Indian gymnastics" is similarly sourced at the end of the paragraph, please advise here, and that's sufficient as well. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Repeated ref for clarity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]