Talk:The Subtle Body

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 22:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Opening review Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Lead a good length

Thanks.

• One line publication subsection; if there isn't much info, this could be incorporated into a section with the illustration info on the book, and giving the synopsis its own section as standard (i.e. have level 2 headers for Synopsis then for Book publication, which will also include the illustration info as this is part of the published product)

Done.

• Synopsis is just a long list of bluelinks, barely expanding on the lead

Much expanded.

• Reviews section could be structured differently than just giving the different responses their own paragraph, but this isn't too bad; however, it at least would be more readable if there was some connection between paragraphs, e.g. a diversity of opening statements rather than 'X writing for Y said'

Done; grouped some paragraphs, led in with summaries, and varied the paragraph openings.

• Farmer review needs some clarity of phrase, especially where it gets into describing Farmer's own thoughts on yoga.

Reworded and annotated.

• The info about the book needs expanding, but a lot of the review content is similar stuff said by different people that could be nicely rewritten and condensed

Rearranged to emphasise positive and mixed reviews.

• Needs work

Coverage

• Lead could give less on the contents list and more on the reception

Extended.

• Publication section is one sentence (see note above)

Incorporated with Illustrations.

• The reviews give a better synopsis than the synopsis section, some of those details could be incorporated

Expanded synopsis, as above.

• Some parts of Farmer review section seem unnecessary (see above)

Reworded and added refs to book chapters.

• There isn't much about the book at all

Expanded as above.

• Needs work

Illustration

• The image of Pierre Bernard may need the caption to explain why it's included (yes, there's a long section about him, but the image is of him in a different setting)

Done.

• Not long enough to need any more images

Noted.

• Pass

Neutrality

• For some reason I get the impression it favors the book, but I can't identify why; maybe because it so heavily looks at reviews (though both positive and negative, yes). The review section is already noted as could be restructured anyway, which should hopefully resolve the impression when reading

Reviews restructured to emphasise two sides.

• Fair

Verifiability

• Publication and illustration parts are without refs

Ref added.

• Reliable sources

All the sources are major publications.

• Needs attention

Stability

• History stable
• Pass

Noted

Copyright

• Check looks good
• Fair use book cover in infobox
• PD image
• Pass

Noted

Overall

• on hold Instinct is to fail, it's not close, but let's try and work on it. Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've actioned all your comments to date and hope you like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The synopsis section is much better but now reads in many parts like an overview of modern yoga with this book as the source. If it could more emphasize the progression of the book, where the author discusses what, if there are arguments made, this would be improved. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Argument is exactly what the book is thin on. As the critics have said, it's episodic, anecdotal, journalistic, gossipy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Few more edits for style with the synopsis, but you (and the critics) are right, there's not much but story. Kingsif (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Meets GA criteria, but if you can keep improving, please do! Kingsif (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)