Daniel Mendelsohn translation has wrong reviews

[Thomas]

This edition's page shows reviews and comments from other translations (including a graphic novelization) rather than just the translation by Mendelsohn. I feel this is important to correct as several reviews specifically praise/comment on the translation itself, which is misleading in the cases where they are talking about a completely different text with different goals and techniques in translating.

[Scott]

All editions of a work share reviews.

[Scott]

The graphic adaptation should be separated though.

[Thomas]

Scott wrote: "All editions of a work share reviews."

Hi Scott, thanks for the reply. I think that the reviews should be separated when they have different translators (not just covers/formatting) since, for example, the 2017 Wilson translation is significantly different in style, length, word choice/omission from, say, the Fagles translation from the 90's (or indeed any other translation). The translation is a significant aspect of the work and these editions vary substantively.

[Shim]

That's just Goodreads' policy. Many others have raised this before, but Goodreads is not an academic resource.