# Talk:The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five

Why was it listed as a "newest article" when it's definitely not? AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the other DYK rules is Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles.  This article met that requirement.--Captain-tucker (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This series seems to be a source of inspiration for Stargate's ideas of ascension and levels of being.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five/GA1. 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 [1] 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.[2] 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)


### Checklist
I'm working on the translation of this article to bahasa Indonesia. I found missing references in the article, from 3 to 15. Actually there are 9 to 11 in the 'Zones' section. But I'm not sure whether their reference numbers are correct or not. Can anyone please check whether this article missing a section(s) or it has been edited without reviewing its references section? Edra ☯ (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Edra You'll find references 3 to 15 in notes a and b in the Notes section. I fixed the Shinn & Richard references that weren't linking correctly to Shinn & Richard in the Works cited section. —Bruce1eetalk 13:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bruce1ee Oh, right. I found it. Thank you.
However, it seems that wikipedia in bahasa Indonesia has different kind of template, or something, so the references section in my translation page doesn't link to the note section. They were marked red with the explanation that they weren't used in the article. Do you have any suggestion on how to fix this problem? I'm new in participating to develop wiki, so I'm not used to this yet. Or maybe I should ask around to ask this problem in wikipedia Indonesia instead, right? Anyway, again, thank you very much for your kind response. Edra ☯ (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bruce1ee Problem solved. Thank you very much! :) Edra ☯ (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It's a pleasure. Glad you sorted it out. —Bruce1eetalk 16:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)