This review is transcluded from Talk:Viparita Karani/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk · contribs) 13:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship: ~75% written by Chiswick Chap, easy pass

Criteria assessment:

Criteria	Sub criteria	Result	Comment
1. Well written	a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct		Prose is understandable, even to someone without much experience in the area like myself. I was able to follow this very easily. There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs in this though; it would be nice to see these either expanded or combined into larger paragraphs.
	b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation		Follows WP:MOS for the level expected for GAN. Follows a format to other GAN yoga articles like Yogasopana Purvachatushka.
2. Verifiable with no original research	a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline		All references are well formatted and in the way I'd expect.
	b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)		There aren't too many sources here, but this is just covering the one pose so this is to be expected. The sources I weren't familiar with have previously been deemed acceptable in other GA reviews such as the one for Yogasopana Purvachatushka
	c. it contains no original research		Nothing there felt like original sources, all statements seem to be backed up by references.
	d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism		Copyvio scores the article at 0%, which is a first for me! My own searching didn't either yield anything either.
3. Broad in its coverage	a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic		History of the pose is covered very well, but is there anything on the health benefits of the post, similar to the section on Downward Dog Pose? While there's a paragraph on mudras and the benefits of that, I'd be amazed if there's nothing from more recently that can be cited, especially since it's a relatively safe and easy pose to do while pregnant. Looking online there's quite a few articles that go into the health effects that could probably be sourced here. Likewise, a hypothetical 'In Culture' section would be good, though I imagine there may be nothing usable out there so feel free to ignore.
	b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)		Mostly fine, but there is some repeated information that should be removed. Main example is mudra's purpose and use of gravity gets described three times.
4. Neutral			No issues at all.
5. Stable			No edit wars etc
6. Illustrated where appropriate	a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content		Images all have plausible free-use reasoning.
	b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions		It's an image of the ship for the infobox. Not much to say there. No caption needed because it's for the infobox.

Sources seem fine from the ones I checked out. No issues with misinterpretation etc.

• 1a: done, with some rearrangement and rewording so there are fewer paragraphs.

• 3a: I've checked the sources and found a small amount on benefits, which I've summarised. The pose is much less iconic than Downward Dog and does not significantly appear in popular culture.

• 3b: duplication between 'Origins' and 'Description' removed.

Summary:

While a short read, it was an interesting one. There's a few issues across the article I've listed above, so not at a state for passing yet, but I believe it's fixable stuff so I'd like to give Chiswick Chap some time to have a go at fixing this before outright failing this.

Many thanks. I thought from the text above you were outright passing it, so the last sentence was a surprise. Of course I'll address the issues now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the scare - the wording there came off more harsh than intended! I just meant that despite putting a "fail" in one of the table columns, it was something I thought you'd be able to fix in due time rather than a fail bad enough to cause the whole review to be failed immediately.RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've actioned all three comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick turnaround Chiswick. Changes look good to me and take care of my concerns so I'm happy to pass this review. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]