Talk:The Birds (story)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article needs an infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Short story task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia articles are not reviews
"The Birds' Alfred Hitchcock movie is what we all think of when we think "The Birds", but the fascinating book by Daphne du Maurier is completley different to the 1963 film starring Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor and Jessica Tandy:..." -- If that is not POV, nothing is. 1) "We think" Well that might be true for most people, but I don't think that can be justified for all. 2) "fascinating book" should be simply "book". And another thing: the article previously says that it is a "short story". So which is it: book or short story? MichaelSH 01:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely a short story. That's why it's in quotation marks. Anyway, we read it in Literature class and our teacher calls in a short story. Kickasskat 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)kickasskat
- No, It's a Novelette by current standards. I can't say for sure how the terms novelette, novella and short story were applied at the time of its initial publication, however.LiPollis 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Birds...
This article is a bit of a mess, especially the second paragraph. I'm going to try to fix it up a little, though. If anyone dislikes my changes, feel free to revert it to the way it was.
[edit] No structure, bad summary, interpretation missing
That article is a mess. It has no clear structure, a interpretation is missing and the summary sums up unimportant things. I think that summary should be rewritten completly and a interpretation, which follows all directions, should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.185.13.224 (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Not well written or accurate
I'll refine it a bit(more details addded). Added basic infobox. -121.6.224.104
I worked a bit on the first two paragraphs, hoping to fix the "not well written" part. If people are okay with my changes I'll do similar things with the rest of the article. Just small changes, but they'll make it more readable. Statusred (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] About "Radio Adaptations"
This segment is merely a single section. I believe it should either have more information added to it, or be removed. -70.20.127.71 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I removed the radio adaptations section, adding the information to the first paragraph, and added a link to the film version within the page. -70.20.127.71 01:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
