Talk:Dog
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Dog.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies
| |
- See also: Dog/sandbox
Dogs are just generally badasses, and i love it when they shit on carpets ;)
--74.193.160.185 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC) why is my aunt's german sheperd so :dumd,stupid,clumzy,and finally A N O Y I N G!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you to whoever fixed the big pile of SHIT that this article used to be... please let's remember that these article are supposed to be FUNNY not just stupid nonsense.--Smokydoggg 00:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey![edit source]
It says play around all you like! When I push "Edit" I can't edit. These people are as crazy as cheese! – Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.226.122 (talk • contribs) i can edit this though mwahahahahaha
Turn God around - you get Dog! Don't you people get it? God is a Dog!
No! No! No![edit source]
your all wrong a dog is a type of flower – Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.242.29 (talk • contribs)
Dog kingdom (make one)[edit source]
I think you guys should make a dog nation or kingdom or something. (the cats already have their Cat Nation). or atleast make some referances of the Dog kingdom and i could try to amke it if no one else wanted to try.--173.9.239.217 20:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
K9Pu[edit source]
Thats incorrect. No atom wants to make any more bonds than 7. 207.63.174.142 18:05, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
Wow[edit source]
Maybe someone should redraft the talk page too. --Black Flamingo 14:30, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
Pee[edit source]
| Humour: | 6 | Right, your humour was enjoyable and I remember, when I read this one for the conservation week, being pleasantly surprised by the article's humour, it has some excellent moments and has masses of potential to be even better. However there are a few problems that I would recommend you take a second look at before you go anywhere else with this one. The first problem I noticed is that while some of the jokes are well constructed, you seem to have much less patience for some of the other jokes and I would recommend you go back and make sure you devote similar attention to all your jokes. A good example is "They have big annoying faces that you just want to punch, and all they do is eat and eat and never give anything back". I thought that one seemed rushed and nowhere near as effective as it could be, especially when you contrast it with a joke like "None of that now though. Sparky sleeps in the back yard, where he belongs - because he's an animal, not a person. He doesn't have a bed or basket or even a kennel. He sleeps outside, like lesser life forms are meant to". The main difference that I could identify is that the second one has a more stable structure to it, I really like the contrasting of Dogs with people and the statement of the obvious in a way that makes the narrative seem annoyed, but still presents the humour in a good way, whereas the first one seems more like the person writing is just moaning, and while he may be, you should try and keep an undertone of humour throughout. To break this down further you need to put something in to make the joke, being patronising is a good way to start or by simply using a running joke to compliment the ranting. You have a good running joke about Dogs being lesser beings and I would encourage you to explore using this in some of the weaker sections or to try pulling several of the more redundant jokes into a new running joke.
The other thing I noticed regards the underlying narrative about the wife of the speaking character, the joke in itself is fine and is a good idea which justifies the narrator's hatred of Dogs. I would, however, urge you to keep the joke consistent, since the joke seems to waver towards the end and you seem unsure whether Jane is dead or has simply left the narrator. You settle on her being dead later on, and while I realise you don't want to give away the fact that she is dead, you should stick to alluding to it, try to give the impression that the author knows what he has done but just doesn't state it or explain why Jane is no longer there until the very end. The reason the narrator has killed Jane also seemed quite weak to me and I would recommend you take another look at that part of the article, it seemed a bit rushed to me. |
| Concept: | 8 | Your concept is good and the writing style puts me in mind of this article. The tone is OK and reasonably consistent throughout and characterises the character well enough. The problem I noticed was that the narrative occasionally verges away from the entertaining diatribe about Dogs and uses profanity excessively or makes a dead-end point which brings the article's nicely flowing tone to a shuddering halt. I would recommend that you go back and try to remove anything that distracts from either the joke about Jane or the reasons the narrator finds to hate Dogs. Parts like this "Yeah Jane spoiled Sparky. She wanted a kid you see, the point of the dog really was just to fill the hole in her life where a baby should have been. Women are crazy like that" which have already been explained to the reader can go as they just slow the article's progression, in future you should be aware of repeating yourself, especially if you are writing at different times. You should also try to avoid using profanity out of the blue, try to build up to curses rather than writing something like "I hate Stormtroopers, they are always running around in their stupid shiny armour. God I hate those fucking assholes. They do all sorts of etc etc". |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | OK, your prose aren't too bad but you should be aware of your spelling and grammar. It isn't too bad but a final proofread won't do you any harm at all. The main thing you should remember is that the narrator's relationship with Jane is in the past and thus you should refer to it in the past tense "Just like I forget our anniversary sometimes" should be "Just like I used to forget our anniversary sometimes", try to avoid making small errors like this, you should be able to spot any other errors like this by proofreading. Your formatting is what needs the most work here. Part of the reason I was so surprised at the content of your article was that when I looked at it, it looked scruffy, this is partly due to the capitalisation you have done, but there is a relatively simple way to fix that. Simply place all the narrator's currently capitalised statements in bold, simple capitalisation is horrible to read in large amounts, putting it in bold differentiates it from the rest of the text, as well as making it easier on the eye. Your image formatting could also use some work, make sure your images aren't squeezing text or parts of the article between them, if you do notice this occurring then I would encourage you to try and spread out the images or make one smaller so you have some space to use. |
| Images: | 7 | Your images are OK, and I feel that what needs the most work here are your captions. You should try to make the captions relate to the text and also suit what the image is of. For example instead of using the caption "This ancient mosasic shows dogs have been popular pets for thousands of years. JANE I LOVE YOU!!!" you can try mixing in some of the authors anti-dog sentiment as this is far and away the best part of the article, something like "This ancient mosasic shows dogs have been causing pain and misery for thousands of years." may work better. You may also want to try replacing an image with another image that has something to do with Jane, the dress you talk about or something else that you can think of, take a look at what this article does with it's images note how they are only slightly related to the text, yet they still work. Experimentation is the best way for you to go, ask someone what they think of a new arrangement and then see whether they prefer a different one over it. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7 | My overall grade of the article. |
| Final Score: | 33 | I enjoyed reading your article, and rightly so. You do a lot of things right and the important thing now is that you focus on sorting out the parts you don't do so well. I really think that, with a bit more hard work, this article can be truly excellent. If you need any help or have any questions or comments you can reach me on my talk page. Good luck making any changes. |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 17:24, November 25, 2009 (UTC) | |
Yeah, I donno...[edit source]
... if this is an improvement or not... It's stronger conceptually and stuff but the pics and captions aren't as good. And you took a lot of funny shit out. Why'd you take out the Taco Bell dog drinking your fucking soda pic?!?! Or, like the line, "Dogs are know to live by the motto In dog we trust." I put that shit back in and added a comma somewhere. Basically though, fuck you. Just kidding. Or not.
Manosaurus 08:47, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Manosaurus, I am sorry to hear you didn't like the rewrite, however in response to your questions:
- I'm not sure I can recall the picture you mention, I guess it wasn't all that memorable.
- The in dog we trust line is silly and doesn't make any sense.
- Generally the old dog article was inane, inconsistent and overlong. It was also full of stupid pictures and annoying gifs. It was thus rewritten for Conservation Week and it has also been improved since then. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 12:22, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
Silly? Doesn't make sense? I think it is funny and cute to think of dogs, the whole of them, as living by a motto. They're fukin dogs! They don't know what a motto is for Dog's sake! That's why it's funny. Like they are in this little gang where they all communicate somehow together and have some code they live by. And that they all stick together and only believe in themselves. That's a riot! You're gay!
Manosaurus 01:01, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
... ... Right. What? I'd say the article, right now, is as good as it's going to get. It's amusing and it tells a story, and oddly enough, it's actually an article I read to the very end without editing once (Except for grammar, of course. You can't go wrong with grammar.)... I mean, I don't understand what you find funny about that. It is completely irrelevant to the article, and also, what's with the sudden jump to "You're gay", unless it's a joke of some sort? And anyway, how do we know that they don't know what a motto is? Personally, I think that they're the underlings of the mice, assisting with the experiments on Humans- why, i'd be surprised if they didn't even help create Deep Thought! And another thing...79.65.37.54 16:18, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
yeah...uhh..black flamingo..... U R A DOG HATER LOL----KReezy 7/18/10