# Talk:Time, Love, Memory

This review is transcluded from Talk:Time, Love, Memory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)