Talk:Yoga pants/GA1

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

Reviewer: Disc Wheel (talk · contribs) 16:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Discussion
Quick failing this article as it's a long way from being broad in coverage. One of the glaring absences is a history section which can discuss origins and the rise to popularity. You could lump the athleisure and "revealing and concealing" section together under a "Society" heading, then talking about various attempts to ban yoga pants (i.e. Montana tried to in like 2016 or 2018). In addition, expanding coverage to their adoption in other countries aside from the US. I detailed a list of other issues below.


 * Well, I would have preferred to talk through the suggestions, and resolve them by discussion or editing. All the points made can readily be addressed, and I'll work through the suggestions below now. As for the section headings, they are easily changed. I suggest we reconvene with a second GAN so that we can discuss changes point-by-point as editing proceeds. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is actually a good deal of history already, including of the rise to popularity, but more of the history is a sensible suggestion so I've added some, and have mentioned Montana with a suitable source. Of course, the whole article (the whole of Wikipedia, too) is "history", so any division is somewhat arbitrary.

Suggestions per section
Lead:
 * You mention all these fabrics in the lead that pants are made from but they show no where in the article as well as their uses
 * Moved to Types.


 * You don't cover every section in the lead


 * You also have a source in the lead, sources are not to be in the lead
 * removed; sources are in fact permitted, especially where there's an attribution, quotation, or anything controversial, but hey

Types:
 * This section could be significantly expanded about the many varieties of cuts, fabrics, normal vs flared cuffs, high waist/low waist, and uses
 * I don't think so; any such writing would fall foul of WP:OR, and would run very close to WP:ADV with the use of commercial sources. I've found some usable material on fabrics from Bloomberg but I suspect there are editors out there who will find even that too close to advertising.


 * Also could potentially use some diagrams to show the components of the yoga pants - waistband, pant legs, etc
 * That would probably be WP:UNDUE and inappropriate for a general audience, and again would be very close to WP:OR; also, to be practical, I've not seen anything like that in the material available from reliable sources.


 * In addition, the sources currently used here are far from reliable
 * Cited sources include The New York Times, Business Insider, The Atlantic, Fortune, Slate, The Washington Post, and so on: a varied mix of reliable newspapers, magazines, and business websites.

Athleisure wear:
 * This section bounces around quite a bit.
 * Now in paragraphs with separate themes, extended with fresh sources.


 * The first paragraph has several quotations that seem to be fitting for a criticism section of some sort
 * Some editors are *passionately* opposed to "Criticism" sections. On the whole I find it generally better to incorporate diverse opinions in the main text; the next section covers "social issues", in other words the debate. The balance seems about right between the sections, but we can move one or two things from one to the other if you prefer.


 * If you're bringing in the finances, you can talk more about the economics of yoga pants too
 * No reason to suppose any different from any other clothing; and all we can go by are the available published sources.

Revealing or concealing:
 * Not sure this title is the best for the section
 * It's certainly descriptive of the concerns. Social issues, perhaps gets the core meaning here.


 * "In a New York Times opinion piece, Honor Jones argued that "Yoga Pants are Bad for Women". Jones stated that women were wearing yoga pants because of social pressure to be "sexy", and urged women to wear shape-concealing sweatpants instead. " isn't sourced and don't think the title of the article is necessary to be in the sentence
 * Not sure what happened to that ref, added it (back). Edited the text.

The article all together feels very incomplete and doesn't read smoothly, but seems primarily composed of various quotations. It's a good ways away from a good article, at this point its more in the "C" or "start" category. Disc Wheel ( T  +  C ) 16:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No section of the article is predominantly composed of quotations; the use of directly quoted material is actually quite limited and well within the bounds of fair usage. The requirement is to meet the six GA criteria; an article deserves a "C" when much of it is uncited, not the case here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)