Talk:Sivananda yoga/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Shubhsamant09 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC) (blocked sock)

Hi, I am doing this review. Shubhsamant09 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you have summarily decided to fail this article. I don't agree with the stated grounds for failing the article; those do not cohere with the GAN instructions on quick-failing, which should only be done when an article is basically quite hopeless, not as you say "B class". It would be appreciated if you'd undo the fail here and on the article's talk page, and discuss the matter item by item. I'll reply to each of the items below for your information. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Well-written: While the article is readable, it falls short of GA-level writing in multiple places. The prose lacks polish — several sections contain awkward phrasing, inconsistent tense, and overly long or vague sentences. The tone occasionally slips into promotional language, particularly when describing spiritual benefits or the “aims” of the practice. Some paragraphs could be restructured for clarity and coherence.

These mostly appear to be very minor issues. I've edited the SY materials to ensure they are brief and neutral in tone.

Verifiable with no original research: Most claims are cited to books or media coverage, but sourcing is inconsistent in quality. Many references are primary (i.e., writings from within the Sivananda organization), which makes it difficult to distinguish fact from internal belief. Some key claims — especially about the benefits and reach of the practice — would benefit from secondary academic or critical sources. There is no visible original research, but citation balance could be improved.

Again, it is appropriate and correct to use primary sources to describe an institution's view of itself. To make the position as clear as possible, I have explicitly separated out Primary from Secondary sources.

Broad in coverage: The article gives a reasonable overview of Sivananda Yoga, including its philosophy, practice system, historical development, and present-day institutions. It touches on modern controversies, which is commendable. However, it could provide more comparative or critical analysis — how it differs from other yoga systems, for example, or how it's viewed by independent scholars or practitioners outside the tradition.

Neutral: There is clear room for improvement. While the article includes some critical content (like the 2019 abuse allegations), these are underdeveloped relative to the rest of the article. The majority of the prose tends to affirm the worldview of the Sivananda system, often without critical distance. The article needs a more balanced tone and deeper integration of independent perspectives to meet neutrality standards.

Added more critical and scholarly material.

Stable: The article is stable with no evidence of recent edit wars. Edits have been incremental, and there appears to be consensus on the overall structure and tone.

Illustrated: The article is well-illustrated with appropriate visuals: historical photos, yoga poses, and centers. The images are relevant, appropriately licensed, and improve the article’s accessibility.

Personal note: The article lays a good foundation for understanding Sivananda Yoga, but it’s not quite there yet. It reads more like a well-developed B-class article — informative, but too close to the subject’s own voice. The biggest issues are the lack of critical tone and the reliance on primary sources. A more encyclopedic writing style, better sourcing from academic or third-party perspectives, and more balanced treatment of criticism would go a long way in raising this to GA standards.

Recommendations for Improvement

• Rework sections with promotional tone.
  • I assume you mean the primary-sourced sections, so I've edited these for the sake of harmony.

• Add reliable third-party sources, especially academic or critical.
  • There were already many of these; I have added several more.

• Expand and better balance controversial or critical material.
  • Done.

• Perform a detailed copyedit for clarity, grammar, and tone.
  • I've edited the SY materials.

With these addressed, feel free to reapply for GA status and leave a message on my talkpage, and I'll review it again.

Final Result:

Shubhsamant09: This was an inappropriate quick-fail contrary to the GAN instructions.

Shubhsamant09 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

"Final Result" is that you've been indeffed for socking, so I'll renominate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)