Talk:Trauma-sensitive yoga/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 18:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiswick Chap:, I can take on this review. I'm sorry it has taken so long for a reviewer to take up your nomination here. I've suddenly and unexpectedly found myself with lots of time at home for the next week or more, so I should have time to get through this review relatively quickly (though no rush on your end, of course). I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think lots of people are suddenly at home: let's hope they all use the time so creatively. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, made my first pass through. In general the article looks good. Comments below. Ajpolino (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for the quick responses. Those changes look great. Went back through the article; a few very small things, then we're done:

Background>Psychological trauma and the body - Mind-body approaches offer an alternative to traditional psychotherapy... makes it sound like you'd replace psychotherapy with TSY. Later in "Evidence" it sounds like folks recommend you supplement psychotherapy with TSY. If it is generally suggested as a supplement rather than alternative, could you clarify that? Perhaps a "complementary approach" rather than "alternative"?

Done.

Background - In the new iteration of the Background section, it's a bit disorienting to read: we begin with a paragraph on yoga, then a paragraph on how psychological trauma has bodily manifestations, then a paragraph on benefits of mind-body approaches, then back to yoga, then effects of yoga. Perhaps you could collect the yoga material in one part of the background section? For flow, I might suggest: psychological trauma has bodily manifestations > mind-body approaches can be useful > yoga is a common mind-body approach > yoga has positive effects on the body. But feel free to develop some other order that you feel makes sense.

Reordered sections.

I also responded to your comment about the five core domains below.

Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino: I think that's all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! That was quick. I have a concern about one of the images, but I'll bring it to Commons (see below). In the meantime, I'll mark this as a GA pass. Thanks for the interesting read! I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Background - In the table with "Five Core Domains", it's not clear how "Non-directivenes" differs from "Instructor style".

The "Five Core Domains" are their classification, which may be more practical than logical; I understand it to mean that it is so important not to be directive that it is spelt out as a top-level domain even if theoretically it might be an element of instructor style. As the man said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different."

Hmmm perhaps it would be clearer if we referred to the "Five Core Domains" as the authors do in the cited paper: "environment, exercises, teacher qualities, assists, and language"? Or just changes those last two to "Instructor assistance" and "Language"? Or just something clearer than the current last two?

Done.

Background vs. Rationale - In general, I think the distinction between these sections should be made clearer. Much of the material in the Rationale seems to be established facts about trauma and yoga, which I expected to read in the Background section. Whereas some material in the background section (e.g. "It addresses the need for a trauma-informed yoga practice...") seems to be about the rationale, rather than the background.

Split a Description section out of Background; moved the Rationale subsections into Background.

On a similar note, the text currently in the Rationale section could be tightened to distinguish well-established fact (e.g. "Trauma can trigger a chronic stress response in the body.") from reasonable conjecture that serves as the rationale for trauma-sensitive yoga (e.g. "present-moment experience to counteract dissociative responses", "help traumatized individuals to nurture their bodies", et al.).

Clarified wording, e.g. "seek to counteract", "attempt to help".

Key features>Victims of interpersonal violence - This subsection seems to be about evidence/results rather than "key features". Maybe it could be moved to the "Evidence" section immediately below?

Moved.

Confidentiality - Perhaps this could be made a subsection of "Key features"? It seems to be a feature of TSY, and feels a little out of place at the end of the article.

Moved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section):

b (citations to reliable sources):

c (OR):

d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Lead - Adapted from 2002 onwards... I can't find the year 2002 in the cited reference (though maybe I've missed it). It gives a reference to a 2009 paper. The abstract of that paper says they've been doing yoga with trauma survivors since 2003. That's as far into it as I looked, but perhaps you could clarify? (Also there's a page for the Justice Resource Institute where this was developed, you could WL it somewhere if you'd like).

Emerson says 2002 was the start, added that ref (was #29) to the lead; given "small beginnings", that's quite good agreement with the other paper's "2003". Wikilinked in main text.

Rationale>Psychological trauma and the body - Some research suggests..., and later research has implicated... are both classic weasel words examples. Could you clarify, either by attributing explicitly or, if supported by sources, just stating it in Wikipedia's voice?

Reworded.

Evidence - Same as above with Research has highlighted... and Research has suggested....

Removed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Ok, long story: the image you use File:Ptsd figure.png is extracted from File:Ptsd Help.png, which claims to be in the public domain even though it links to a website that claims copyright in 2015. The photograph itself appears to be from File:Battling PTSD (4949341330).jpg which was posted by the US Marines in 2010 here and is unambiguously in the public domain. My feeling is that adding text to the photo to make File:Ptsd Help.png is probably not enough to make the new image uniquely copyrightable and the 2015 copyright claim is mistaken (if the 2015 copyright claim is correct, then the image will probably be deleted from Commons). I'll attempt to sort this out on Commons, but in the meantime, perhaps you could consider extracting a new image from the excellent, high-resolution original photo File:Battling PTSD (4949341330).jpg to use on this article. Does that make sense? Ajpolino (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, making a new extracted image now. Many thanks for the review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say it looks like the above images will be kept. I've updated the source and license for each. Feel free to use any as you see fit (though I do like your most recent extracted one). Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

Pass/Fail: