Talk:Yoga Journal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That's very good of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you fill out the remaining fields in the FUR for File:Yoga Journal sample cover March 2008.jpg?
 * Done, though I (and the NFUR wizard) think this is all that's needed for a cover page of a work.


 * wpa-online.org is a blog. I think it could still be used if you can show the author is a subject matter expert, but I don't see any identifying information.
 * Removed. This is the boringly respectable and corporate Western Publications Association, and the citation was there simply to show the nature of the beast. The claim is also cited to YJ's own website, which I guess we can trust on its own here.


 * badyogi.com is a blog; I think the same applies, though here at least I can figure out who the author is.
 * Yes. Added a gloss for Allison Howell in the citation.


 * forbes.com is listed by WP:RS/PS as unreliable.
 * The app describes Forbes as being in the class "reliability depends on contributor or topic" (yellow), which is not a blanket prohibition (red). The topic is respectable; on neutrality, the review offers both "Best" (praise) and "Worst" (criticism), which seems fair enough.


 * "in 2019 it has attempted to remedy this": seems an odd thing to say in 2022. Should this be "since 2019"?
 * Edited.


 * Why do we need the detailed list of staff names in the first section? None are notable except Vernon.
 * Trimmed. I've left Judith Lasater in as she is notable and also mentioned in various capacities further down.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, details of publishing staff are generally not worth including unless they are either notable in themselves or had significant influence on the course of events described in the article. Neither appears to be the case here.  The editorial position is an exception.
 * Removed.

Passing. Thanks for the note about the NFUR wizard; I always thought you had to fill in all the fields, but perhaps not. Re Forbes, I find the WP:RS/PS listing confusing -- I think they're saying that named staff contributions are OK, which this one is not. However, it's uncontroversial material so I think it can stay. I wonder if you should perhaps change it to "Forbes" rather than "Forbes magazine" in the text? I doubt it was ever published in the magazine (or web version); this is part of their directory. Your call. 20:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)