Talk:Pieces of You (short story collection)

Review
This article is fairly well written, though a bit choppy in certain sections and containing a number of gramatically awkward passages that, if corrected, would make it flow a bit better. The general layout is well thought out, the transition from overview through the various other topics being smooth. I might suggest having one large section devoted to "reviews," with two suptopics comprising the "Fans" and Critics" review sections, which would more concretely group the two review or "Perspectives" sections together. Furthermore, I feel a significant amount of citation is missing from the two Prospective sections, in each of which various reviews are mentioned but no specific ciation is given to verify the information for the reader.  Linking whatever blogs or book reveiw sites you are citing in your "References" section would help clarify what reviews you are alluding to, as well as give the reader a chance to look up specific reviews themselves.

I feel that it is probably unneccesary to add wikipedia links to Tablo, New York City, Tobias Wolff, and Epik High in the References section as all those links are provided in the main text of the article. If any of the sites listed in the External Links section are being used as reference material for information listed in the main article, however, they would be more helpful if cited under References and linked to specific inforamtion they are connected with in the main article.

Although Much of this article is very informative, I feel some of the information given in the "Critics' Perspectives" section is repetitive or generally not important enough to remain in the article. Obviously, the information given about Byung Ryul Lee's critism is quite relevant, however mentioning that a review printed on the novel itself is usually positive is probably not necessary.

You may want to consider creating a wikipedia disambiguation page for this article and others with the name "Pieces of You," because when just Pieces of You is searched the only page that comes up is an atricle about singer/songwriter Jewel's first album. This page will be easier to access if a disambiguation page is created.

Also in the final section of the main article you claim that "It is controversial how much this book contains its value as literature," however the information you give in the two "Perspectives" sections and in the opening stem seems to all be fairly positive. If there have actually been significant negative crticism regarding this book, can you provide some of it in the article with references?

A picture of the bookcover at the top in the information box would brighten up the page a bit, and a picture of Tablo at some point would also be a nice touch. Overall, great job! Barrettgholland (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Flow
This article serves as a good start for now, but much revision must be had before it can be considered an excellent article. The biggest weakness is the faulty grammar that disrupts the flow of passage (much of the faulty grammar can be corrected with spell check and thorough proof reading). In other words, the awkward syntaxes, ambiguous pronouns, and oddly structured sentences often hinder the reader's ability to absorb much of the good information this article possesses. Also, the overall organization may benefit from some reorganization. For example, maybe it would be more efficient to make a Perspectives section that addresses the fan's and critic's opinions and a Significance section that includes both the significance and value as a book in one section since they relate well to each other. As mentioned in the previous review, reorganizing the layout can help avoid sounding redundant as well. It is good that Andante and Break are briefly described, but the article may benefit from the addition of a brief summary of all ten short stories. As for citations and references, the book itself needs to be formally cited (and the same goes for wherever the critiques came from). --Hturley (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairly well
This article is well organized and well written. Would it be possible to add a few pictures to the page? Maybe things like a picture of the book and/or author just to break up the words a bit. I think you have given us a great background of how the book came to be published in English and a nice brief history of the author. I think that you need to add a few citation to the article, especially the book itself. It would also be helpful to add citations in the body of the article so the reader can tell where each piece of information came from. In summary, I think the article is nearing completion; the only additions I would make would be to add a few pictures and citations. Other than that, you are well on your way to creating a great article. Good Job. Dwhoyle (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
Peer review by Wei Xie

First of all, the article is well-presented and informative. But there are still some minor grammatical problems that need to be revised. This article is an introduction of a book called Pieces of You. The structure of this article is reasonable, but the topics "Significance" and "Value as a book" seems to be overlapped. They could be integrated into one part. The table on the right is a good feature that gives the general information of the book such as author, language, ISBN, and etc. A cover of the page could be a good touch to the reader. The book is currently published, so the information provided in this article is up to date. However, the article uses information from other resources that may not be credible. The external links provide book reviews by .com sites, personal website, and blog entry. The references for this article may be a problem, too. The resources used in this article are linking to other Wiki articles. This is an example of self-reference in Wikipedia. It is not appropriate do so because the articles in Wikipedia are subject to be edited and modified by anyone. The citation in this article does not follow the wiki rules. The cited information need to be clarified both in the text and in the references. It may be better to use the insert button at the "edit this page" page to insert a citation. The tone in this article seems to favor the author. So one could see some biases in the article. You could try to list more opposite opinions to make the article more neutral. Since most of the resources are available in Korean, you may need to do some translations if you find those resources. Usually writing an article about a book is not an easy job, especially when the book is quite new and lacks of credible resources of reviewing. But in general, the article is in a good shape. Wxie (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs work
This article needs a lot of work. Issues I found include objectivity, validity of citations/sources, irrelevant information, etc. I'm still new to doing anything other than actually reading Wiki articles, but I hope someone will at least check into these concerns to make this article better.

Here is a quick list of things I find objectionable:

1. Irrelevant information about the publisher in the first paragraph; this has nothing to do with the actual book. 2. Irrelevant information about Tablo's education at Stanford (2nd paragraph); again, the relation between the paragraph and topic of the article is not distinguished. 3. Irrelevant information and lack of citation in the second paragraph of the overview; it talks about the worth from a critic, but fails to mention who the critic is or what relevance it has to do with the overview. Also, there's no citation. 4. Significance section has no attribution/citation. The text of the seciont also has nothing to do with significance. What kind of significance is it referring to? 5. Fan perspectives section mentions literary critics; please separate the comment and include in the critic section. 6. Critics' perspectives section is biased. It discusses why the book should be read, not objective accounts of real reviews about the actual book. 7. Last section is also heavily biased. Citation includes a blog book review by a random person.

Also, many of the citations are in Korean, with no English translation nor equivalent citation, and the only English link is the review of the random blogger. I hope that people who are able to edit would look into these issues, at least, until I am able to do something about them myself. 125.131.144.175 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)