HowTo talk:Build the Perfect Sandcastle

/kicks sandcastle down. Haha! Nerd! --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a meanie, big boy! I hate you. :( ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 20:51 15 April 2009

There, there. I'll help you rebuild it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But daddy said not to talk to strange men in case they want to rake me. So you better go because he'll be back soon and then maybe he'll rake you. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 21:13 15 April 2009

Do you want me to help you or do you want me to hurt your daddy? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

my daddy makes other daddies eat bugs 11:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well your daddy's gonna have to go to prison cause he's naughty. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 15:01 2 May 2009

From pee #1

Experianced reviewer, in-depth review, please. And don't tell me "this should be an UnBook" because I'm not listening. This does say how to make the perfect sandcastle, you just have to read it. Other than that, all criticisms accepted. Thanks in advance! ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 10:31 2 May 2009

You say this shouldn't be an UnBook, and yet the first sentence is "...this is a story..." —Sir Guildensternenstein 16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, my above commment seems sort of snide, and I didn't intend it to be so. Although, from just skimming the article, it seems (note: seems) that this would be better as an UnBook. If that's the case, I don't know why you have such an aversion to the notion. —Sir Guildensternenstein 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an aversion, it's just I like titles that suggest something else and deliver something slightly -- or compleatly! -- different. It's not that big a deal, please. Don't judge just because the title doesn't conform to your ideas. I thought this place was for creative (and of course funny) writing, not fascist namespace segregation. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 20:22 2 May 2009

Humour:	7.5	Hahaha, I actually enjoyed this quite a lot. The humor element of childishness makes for a really good kick. The only problem is there are no straight laugh-out-loud moments to savor. Still pretty good and respectable humor-wise.
Concept:	7	Very original and well-executed article conceptually. It went off the main storyline a lot though, but still solid and powerful here.
Prose and formatting:	3.5	This is where your scores start to dip. I know all the spelling errors and stuff were placed on purpose, but it gets really repetitive and annoying. Awful right here.
Images:	10	WHOOOOOOOOA! The images are truly amazing and phenomenal. They really helped tell your story and support it and they will be what I remember this article for. Wow. Just WOW.
Miscellaneous:	6.5	I don't do that averaging bullshit.
Final Score:	34.5	good, quality article right here. Needs to be classified as an UnBook, though.
Reviewer:	Tribbuca222 07:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 09:45 3 May 2009

From pee #2

Humour:	7.4	average of humor scores intro: 6 ok, you establish your direction: a narrative of how to build a sandcastle as told by a four year old. it works, but it's just the one sentence. i might add just a bit more to it, so it's a proper introduction. 'when daddy first tried: 8 this is some good stuff, i can see how you thought of it as some of your best. one concern i have is that the narration and the dialogue spoken by the narrator don't quite match up: it seems like the narrator's dialogue should be more juvenile. for example, 'Why are you pleased that God destroyed my castle!?' seems too complex for a four year old. other than that, this was good stuff. and then daddy tried: 9 again there's some great stuff here. the ice cream arc was really funny. the only thing i can think of to say is maybe to have a little more juvenile language interspaced with the dialogue. you do well with this in the first paragraph, with the run-on sentences and the easy words, but then the rest of the section is 90% dialogue. for example, 'he said in his warning voice' is begging for some sort of veiled reference to what comes next when the warning voice is not heeded. so then: 7 this section is also good, but not as good as the previous two. the gold part was good, but this one just feels like a narrative instead of a funny narrative. i hate giving advice this generic, but i think you should try to inject more humor into this section, with a few more one-liners or such. although i'm probably just being picky as the rest is so good! and then we went home: 7 a good ending. how will he get through school indeed. without anything but the dialogue it gets a little confusing as to who is speaking towards the end, and that's readily fixable. overall a decent ending, nothing special but certainly acceptable.
Concept:	9.5	5/5 points for a well-known subject worthy of parody. i can imagine this being a very boring guide found on wikipedia. 4.5/5 points for execution. i really liked the juvenile tone, it was very believeable.
Prose and formatting:	7	the formatting was fine. the different fonts were slightly annoying but probably necessary for the amount of dialogue you had. you had too mnay redlinks, you should make them nice and blue. you also had the least amount of whitespace i've ever seen in an article possibly!
Images:	9	the images are really a strong point. i think the first and last ones could have better captions, but i see that they're the same so if you want to keep them as they are then that's fine. the other ones had really great captions, but i wonder if you could get a better image of a gold nugget. for some reason the black background makes this like like an asteroid, but maybe that's just me.
Miscellaneous:	8.3	averaged via magic, plus 0.075 points for linking to A wizard did it.
Final Score:	41.2	my preview button tells me that your score is 41.2. this is an excellent article, and i look forward to supporting it on VFH. it's very nearly there, the only changes i'd be so bold as to suggest are perhaps adding 2-3 sentences to the introduction, getting a good gold nugget image, and deredlinkifying. great job, and good luck!
Reviewer:	SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 18:06 4 May 2009