Talk:Yoga using props/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks a very interesting article and the nominee has a very strong record of excellent editing so I look forward to working on this. I will begin the review shortly. simongraham (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. This is a topic with a lot of scope. simongraham (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * The text is generally well written with appropriate language for a general audience.
 * Thanks.


 * Is yoga with props limited to its use as exercise? It seems to me that the article should mention, at least in passing, the use of props in other forms of yoga. I suggest that this could be covered within the historical section or in a new section which follows the four paths or types of yoga listed in the main article: Karma yoga, Kriya yoga, Bhakti yoga, and Jnana yoga.
 * Well, yes. The historical usage (see next item) was for meditational yoga which is all that existed in ancient times. The other yogas don't do postures so the use of props is basically moot, unless you count meditation seats, the subject of a different article.


 * I suggest expanding the section on sopāśraya. Some detail is available in, e.g. Vijñānabhikṣu, 1981 [], and Baier, Maas & Preisendanz (ed), 2018 [].
 * OK, I've added some detail from Baier et al, who mention the ancient commentators; Vijñānabhikṣu was already discussed.


 * I think it would be good to expand the history section, particularly providing more background on the period since the Śrītattvanidhi.
 * The Śrītattvanidhi is a rare 19th century text that provides such an illustration; the next documented appearances are modern, starting with Iyengar. There is no evidence that earlier 20th century pioneers like Krishnamacharya and Kuvalayananda used props.


 * I suggest that the coverage could do with a wider global view as per WP:NPOV and WP:CSB. I imagine that there is quite a variety of use depending on geography and culture. Do you have any information on this? A quick check found Bordenkircher, 2006,[] which touches on the use of yoga props in Christian culture, and Corsi & Fanfani, 2008,[] that briefly mentions the use of props in Thai yoga.
 * The Indian roots of yoga are covered, as is international modern practice, which varies little between, say, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, and the USA. Yoga is scarcely rooted in Christian culture though some churches in the US have used and renamed some asanas. The Thai practice of Ruesri Dat Ton has only recently been called "Thai yoga", and in the absence of scholarly sources which relate the traditions, we can't assume it has any organic connection to yoga at all. Likely it's just a marketing ploy.
 * Good insights. Thank you. simongraham (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

 * Mats are mentioned in the lead but not in the main text. Please expand with references.
 * Added.


 * B. K. S. Iyengar is mentioned in the lead. Please explain his WP:NOTE with references in the main text.
 * I've extended the cited coverage of Iyengar in the main text to emphasise his importance in encouraging the use of props.


 * Please remove the repeated wikilink to yoga as exercise.
 * Removed.


 * The reference Lehmkuhl, 2020 has no page number.
 * Added. It already stated "Introduction".


 * Images are in the public domain or listed with appropriate Creative Commons licenses.
 * Noted.


 * Please add ALT tags to the images.
 * Done but this is not a GA requirement.


 * This is a well written article and is close to a GA on most terms but I feel needs expansion to truly do the topic justice. Please see my comments above. simongraham (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think your edits have really improved the article. simongraham (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written
 * the prose is concise, clear and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with layout style guideline;
 * it contains inline citations from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different perspectives.
 * 1) It is stable
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of an edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses;
 * images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.
 * Pass  simongraham (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)