Talk:Lotus position/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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.