Talk:A Thousand Splendid Suns/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking the time to review. I really appreciate it. --1ST7 (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I'm guessing from your relatively new account that this is your first nomination? Don't worry, it's a really painless process. I won't have time to do detailed comments tonight, but at first glance, the article looks close to ready. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is my first nomination, so I'm not too familiar with the process but am glad to hear that it's not too complicated. Anyway, thanks again and have a good evening. --1ST7 (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
This is a strong first nomination, and seems close to ready for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it, I think it's really paid off. I'm a bit of a grammar stickler, but I found very little to pick at here; it seems well-written and to cover major aspects of the subject. I have a few concerns noted below, but I think these will be easily fixed. If you would use the ✅ template under the points that have been done, I'd appreciate it; I'm also happy to discuss further if you disagree with any. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Together with The Kite Runner, it sold over 38 million copies worldwide across 70 countries" -- this is a slightly confusing statistic, especially as Kite Runner, which was such a monster publishing sensation, presumably outsold this one. Is it possible to give an individual figure? I know these can be hard to come by for books.
 * ✅ I was only able to get a figure for the number of copies sold during the first week, as every other source seems to use the 38 million figure, but I think it's more clear now. --1ST7 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "behind her walls"" -- the blockquote ends with a quotation mark but doesn't begin with one. Since it's a blockquote, I don't think the marks are needed here in any case, but this should be fixed either way.
 * ✅ --1ST7 (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jennifer Marciniak's paper from academia.edu is very unlikely to meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, which require a reputation for editorial oversight and factchecking; this seems more like a self-published source. This probably needs to be cut.
 * ✅ --1ST7 (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "The movie is expected to be released in 2015" -- This sentence seems like it could rapidly go out of date. Per WP:REALTIME, it would be good to fix this expectation to a date, i.e., "in October 2012, the studio was announced a tentative release date of 2015."
 * ✅ --1ST7 (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead should act as a summary of the body, rather than independent text, per WP:LEAD; the information about the book's sales should thus be mirrored in the body text, while sections of the body like "Themes" and "film" should be mentioned in the lead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --1ST7 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist
Thanks for the speedy responses. Let me do a final check to see if there's anything left. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)