The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Miyagawa(talk) 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Presearch (talk). Self nom at 23:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Article is long enough and new enough. The hook fact citation checks out, insofar as I found the cited passage in the book. However, the book is merely edited by Plante (not written by him) and the quotation is actually from a paper by Doug Oman. Additionally, the word "claim" is a bit strong a term for Oman's statements, and it appears to me that what Oman is saying is the component elements of meditation and other spiritual practices act synergistically -- not that different types of practices are synergistic. As currently worded, the hook misrepresents the facts. I considered rewording the hook, but I think the creator/nominator needs to reconsider it.
(above comment from ORLady)
Well, if you think "claim" is too strong, I suppose we could say "suggests", though I don't think it makes a lot of difference at the level of a hook, where simplicity and directness would seem to be at a premium. But ALT1 below is a possibility. With regard to the book being edited by Plante (not written by him), that's correct - but again, in a hook, too much extra detail could just be an encumbrance. But I suppose one could consider ALT2. Again, my opinion is that it doesn't make a lot of difference, except that simplicity and directness are at a premium, so I'd tend to prefer the original. But if others feel differently, that's fine. -- Presearch (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Rereading your comments above, I realize that my suggested alts may not have addressed the other type of misunderstanding about which you were concerned. Elsewhere in the chapter, Oman refers to the first of the four elements as "sitting meditation", and he suggests it is synergistic with other practices within what he calls a contemplative practice system. Again, there is the problem with making a hook too long (they are so short that usually some ambiguity is present). But let me have a go at another alt anyway, that hopefully will help address your concern:
Update: I've copy-edited the reviews section to try to cut down some of the more monotonous aspects of the mostly upbeat evaluations, and emphasize each reviewer's most unique ideas. Perhaps this will address the concern about tone? I believe it was already in line with WP:DUE with regard to content, but hopefully I have eliminated some potentially irritating monotony, and better highlighted each reviewer's specific contribution. -- Presearch (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've also tweaked the article to ensure that the language "sitting meditation" is explicitly included near the quotation about food groups, and is cited to book with page numbers. Presearch (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, I have concerns about the notability of the topic and other appropriateness of the article, which is heavy with direct quotations and is largely about the contents of this recent (2010) book. Overall, the article seems advert-like. I don't have much experience with the interpretation of WP:Notability (books), but I wonder whether this book is notable. Worldcat does list it in 12 academic libraries within 171 miles of my current location, and the article cites several reviews of the book, though. Are there any "notability of books" gurus in the house? --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
With regard to notability, the page that you linked, WP:Notability (books), has a very clear statement: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I don't think a "notability guru" is required to interpret something as straightforward as that. -- Presearch (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
With regard to the content of the article, I count (vis MSWord) 849 words in the "Reviews" section, and 825 words in the "Topics" section. So it is not accurate to say that the book is "mostly" about the contents. For desirable book structure according to WPBooks, see HERE (as an edited book does not have a single "plot" I have emphasized the more crosscutting chapters, but have tried to touch on most). With regard to neutrality, I have tried to write from a neutral point of view (following WP:DUE for the reviews, which were mostly positive), but feel free to edit to improve. Comment: I suspect that WP editors are more motivated to write articles about good books than about bad books, and good books tend to get better reviews. But that doesn't mean that articles about them are not giving balanced coverage. -- Presearch (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
For several days this has been ready for another look by a reviewer (i.e., issues have been addressed). Please especially see ALT3 or ALT4 above. -- Presearch (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with ALT1 above, rest OK! --Ekabhishektalk 08:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)