# Talk:Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand

This review is transcluded from Talk:Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll take this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
'Background' seems to me to consist of the authorial context (para 1) and the story's in-fiction context (paras 2 and 3). Perhaps these should be in two different sections.
I've retitled the section "background and setting"; I'd rather not separate them.
Refs 7..16 are primary, indicating the story locations being discussed. Personally I'd list them separately ('Primary [references]'). It's not a GA requirement.
I'd rather not, if it's okay with you; I frequently use the primary source for plot details and settings, but they sometimes are used in tandem with secondary sources, so I typically don't separate them in the bibliography.
"family is scared". Hm, maybe "terrified" would be closer to the mark.
Fair. Modified.
"with trusted friends". And he hasn't any...
Well he personally doesn't have any yet...
Healing emblem: it's a powerful image. Guess what I'd illustrate it with. Jones 1983 is certainly sufficient authority to use such an image. I'm well aware others wouldn't choose to do so.
I've added an image of a caduceus. I'd like an albino cobra image, but the only one on commons is dreadful...
Maybe you'll get the chance to photograph one, one day.
Triad marriages: perhaps the genders (and relative ages) of the partners should be stated.
Added.
Dune reptilians: I remember the sandworm - is that it? Maybe say what reptilians are intended for readers who may not have perfect recall (or read Dune at all).
Yep, that's the sandworms. Added.
Comparison with Le Guin's complex 4-way marriages and powerful women would seem inevitable. Has nobody mentioned this?
Funnily, no, not that I'm aware of. Admittedly, Mountain Ways was written long after this story.
I expect the critics will catch up eventually...
Incidentally, did Le Guin not say anything about the story, or Dreamsnake?
I'm quite certain she's commented on Dreamsnake; indeed, one of her pronouncements is on the dust jacket of my copy. I don't know that she's said anything about this story, though, and I've looked quite hard.
It's a lovely article, and thank you for getting me to read the story! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Many thanks for the review; I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Ref 24 and ref 32 appear to be the same, but formatted differently.
Fixed.
References not needed in the lead, even for quotes, as they'll be in the body.
They're not necessary, but they're helpful, and there's no policy prohibiting their use.
If it's "The Guardian" then it should be "The New York Times".
Fixed.
Ref 29, should be "Awards".
Fixed.
Ref 26 vs Ref 29, seem to be from precisely the same source yet formatting of the reference is different.
Fixed
"1979 Locus Poll Award for Best Novel" if this isn't even notable enough for red link, why is it mentioned here?
It's plenty notable. Linked.
Around a third of the article is dedicated to the fictional "plot".  Remove the lead, and you're left with very little critical substance about the work in question.
The article summarizes all of the available critical material, and combines it with a synopsis of normal length. Five paragraphs of themes and reception is reasonable for a story that is twenty pages long.
I don't find the plot section over-long. Notability is established both by the critical commentary and by the awards cited so I'm not concerned on that front. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
" healer in society, and the relationship between a healer " repetitive prose.
Replaced one instance.
"responbility" basic typo.
Fixed.
A few basic notes, I'll review more when I have time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I welcome any constructive comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, as the article seems to be stable and all the requested changes have been actioned, I'm happy to pass this as a deserved GA now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Chiswick Chap. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've linked the artwork for the original magazine publication in Analog, as well as the  first edition of Dreamsnake. But it would be nice to have the artwork appear in the article itself, I'll put that on my to-do list, but will wait for comments.
Congratulations to the GA review team! Good work, guys. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)