Talk:The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues that I can't immediately fix, and then start the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
On first pass, this looks extremely strong: clear, concise, well-sourced, and sufficient in coverage. Nice work. I still have to check a few things, but I don't anticipate any serious problems in this review.

A few points:
 * "are reunited like old lovers" Since it's already been explained that they are old lovers, I've cut this phrase for now. If you want to restore something similar though, perhaps something like "happily reunited"? "reunite as lovers"? "again become lovers?"
 * I'm happy with the change you made, "like old lovers" is redundant.
 * Not needed to pass GA, but I'd suggest adding a picture of Lessing into this article, like File:Doris lessing 20060312 (jha).jpg.
 * I've added the picture, although I'm not sure what you think of the overall placement of the pictures in the article.
 * This site raises copyright issues; it appears to be free webhosting republishing somebody else's work, and it's not clear they have the copyright to reprint so much of this pamphlet, which means it's not clear that we should be linking to them. Since this is used for such a basic claim anyway (Shikasta has Sufi themes), is it possible to replace it with another of these sources?
 * I've replaced this source with this one.
 * Two of the quotations sourced to John Leonard-- "the most surprising book [she] had read", and said it "changed [her] life"--don't seem to appear in that source. Ditto ""a good friend [and] teacher". Did the footnotes get switched up?
 * Sorry, my mistake. I've used the correct references.
 * I'm not sure this source is a reliable source, either. Again, the Sufism claim is basic enough that I'm not sure this is a sticking point for this review, but it would be better to source this to the academic critics or newspaper critics if possible. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed this source and referenced the existing NobelPrize.org source.


 * Thank you for picking up this review. I've made the necessary changes you requested above, when you get a chance, if you could have a look at the article again please. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 09:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA promotion, and for all your help, including your earlier copyedits I forgot to mention above. —Bruce1eetalk 12:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)