Talk:Shikasta
 | Shikasta has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Shikasta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johnfos (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a fascinating book. Article is nicely illustrated, thoroughly researched and well written. Broad in coverage with a substantial amount of detail also. Good referencing. Neutral and stable. Passed. Johnfos (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review this article and for the GA pass. Much appreciated. —Bruce1eetalk 06:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a fascinating book. Glennizen32 (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Excessively didactic novel
editI have admired Lessing for many years and read most of her novels. However, I have given up on Shikasta, after my fourth or fifth attempt over thirty years. This time I tried harder and reached p.179. There are some attractive passages but overall she writes like Jonathan Swift without his wit, imagination and satirical genius. This novel is mainly (at least the first 179 pages) a dispiriting rant. It is not the ideas that I object to, but the uninteresting ways they are mostly presented. I might add that I enjoy science fiction novels. I cannot be the only one who sees Shikasta as a failure and the article needs to address such criticism better. Rwood128 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shikasta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012225914/https://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2007/bio-bibl.html to https://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2007/bio-bibl.html
- Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Frx8VM9e?url=http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/14.3-4.Perrakis.pdf to http://www.bahai-studies.ca/journal/files/jbs/14.3-4.Perrakis.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Who says it's an allegory?
editLessing herself never did. Gray's review in 1979 says she was writing a "history of earth" (past and future). The interpretations that this is an allegory belong in the Analysis section, not in the lede or background sections.Martindo (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)