Talk:Lotus position/GA1

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

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail rationale and criticisms

I am quick-failing this article for a number of reasons; I shall note the particulars below so that this criticism is constructive, rather than the alternative. I find the article to be in bad shape, just barely a C-class. It does not meet the 1st criterion of B-class for completeness of coverage, and is missing a citation at the badly-constructed sentence As it brings enlightenment in practitioner mind. The article does a poor job in particular in elaborating its historical context.

"Iconography" is a total of three sentences. "Variations" is little better.
The one sentence under "Effects" would be better under "Safety".
"Claims" is rather vague as a section title.

GA progress table

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.