Wikipedia:Peer review/Sahaja Yoga/archive1

Sahaja Yoga
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has received the following indications via the feedback section at the bottom of the article:


 * Few reputable sources


 * Moderate bias


 * Contains key info but with gaps


 * Difficult to understand

In order to keep it objective I would appreciate any advice from independent editors on this article. Feel free to rewrite in a more fluid encyclopedic style to enhance the comprehension for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelion (talk • contribs) 04:18, September 12, 2011

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this article. Peer review is more to point out problems with articles that need to be fixed, but not so much about actually fixing them. I agree with the above points - here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs in Featured_articles which may be useful as model articles.
 * The toolbox on this PR page shows 2 dabs
 * The same toolbox shows over 20 dead external links
 * The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
 * As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the unfairly targeted bit is not excatly repeated anywhere in the article (the words "unfair/ly" and "target/ed" are only in the lead.
 * To make sure the lead is complete, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
 * The first sentence focuses too much on the founder and not enough on the religion itself.
 * The lead should say the year the religion was founded.
 * In general use "double quotes" for quotations and not 'single quotes'
 * Once a person is introduced using their full name, the MOS says to just use the last name from then on. Exceptions are when more than one person shares the same last name and when someone is more commonly known by one name other than their last name.
 * The headers do not really follow WP:HEAD - avoid "The" and avoid repeating the name of the article if at all possible. "The term" could be etymology, for example
 * In addition to the many dead links noted above, the whole article uses mostly sources related to the yoga movement itself. WHerever possible it should use reliable third-party sources independent of the subject.
 * Language is fairly POV in places - this should be a neutral article, not an advertisement
 * Also need to define some of the terms for those not familair with the topic (just in the lead kundalini needs a brief definition, despite the link)
 * Many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which interrupt the narrative flow of the article. These should be combined with others where possible.
 * No mention that I saw that the founder died or how the religion is adapting / responding
 * Any chance for some free images - people practicing this yoga?
 * Avoid needless repetition - two examples: In the Cult allegations and refutations section, the first sentence is about the 2008 Belgian court case, as is the very last paragraph.
 * Spot the useless repetition here ''Nirmala Srivastava herself said that marriage is "spontaneous" and can not be "organized". "Marriage is secondary, and is spontaneous – it cannot be organised."[9]
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

The article could really use pictures, but it looks like that was already mentioned above. -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: