Talk:Time, Love, Memory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe lower case for "Phage group".
  • done

• I think Schrodinger's book needs to be set in its period, its time-context, with a word or two. You might say "... which described the nature of genes as known in the 1940s as..." or something of that kind.
  • added

• "When this field of study became more popular, Benzer abandoned it and started to work on a completely new area.[1]" The source makes it clear that this was a characteristically self-effacing action on Benzer's part, so you are authorized to say that; in a way, it's the point of the whole article, isn't it.
  • added

• The (fascinating) Reception section is a key part of this article. It should be represented by a short summary paragraph in the lead section.
  • added some, let me know if you think it's not enough

• Perhaps the See also item would be best annotated here, so readers can see why you've chosen to pick that article out. Just a dash – and a few words will be enough.
  • added

• When you wikilink or italicise The New York Times, please include the word "The" in the formatting (occurs twice).
  • done

• Jennings's review needs to be given a date (1999) visible in the text as its "no, not yet, and a tentative yes" is time-sensitive.
  • added

• "The book won National Book Critics Circle Award " - please insert "the" before "National". (We non-Americans might appreciate the word "American" in there too.)
  • done

• I'm a bit iffy about using Kirkus Reviews, as they're generally paid-for, but if you want to keep it, could you provide the author (Jonathan Weiner) and the date (May 1, 1999).
  • I would keep it, as it's only one sentence that just adds a bit to the Reception section.

• That's about it from me, an interesting article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the review! Artem.G (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • • Good work, it's a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)