Wikipedia:Peer review/Mouthful of Birds (story collection)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive recommendations for ways to improve the page, and for it to be officially reviewed so it can be indexed.
Thanks, ANDROMITUS (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Some comments on both this article and Things We Lost in the Fire (story collection), as they are fundamentally similar.
In general, if you want to improve an article, it is often helpful to look at model articles on similar topics and analyze what they are doing. In this case, there is at least one Featured Article on a short story collection, In Our Time, and several good articles which might provide inspiration. As it stands, there is plenty about both Things We Lost in the Fire and Mouthful of Birds that I simply don't know. For instance:
- What are the stories about? What genre are they in?
- Are these collections of previously-published stories (as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is), or are they all originally published in the collection (as For Your Eyes Only), or a mixture of the two (like The Birthday of the World and Other Stories)? In both cases, we hear of two stories whose first English publication was outside of the collection, but it is not clear about publications of the stories pre-dating the Spanish edition of the collection.
- Basic publication information is unclear. Both articles give publication dates for both the original Spanish and the translated English edition, but only one publisher and ISBN in the infobox. It should be clear what information pertains to what edition, and publisher and publication date should also appear in the body of the article.
- Is there anything to be said about how the collections were put together? What links them? Is there anything to be said about the order of their arrangement?
A lower-level comment: in both cases, the list of stories published in a collection is presented as a table, but I really don't think that, as things stand, a table is an at-all useful way of presenting the information (cf. MOS:TABLE#Inappropriate uses). A simple bulleted list, or even prose, would be easier to read.