Talk:Baby-snatching

If anyone has suggestions for improving the page, please put them here, or just change it and let me know.

How much I improved it

I put this article up for review a while ago, and I improved on it a lot. I'm hoping for more criticism, can't think of where to go with it. --The Man Of Led 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	9	Hilarious!
Concept:	9	A nice spin on a classic joke
Prose and formatting:	8	Great job, a few mistakes that didn't have much impact, but good overall
Images:	10	Much Better than I could dream of doing!
Miscellaneous:	9	Wonderful!
Final Score:	45	Hilarious Article, clean the grammar a little, but other than that it's great!
Reviewer:	Robertodole 10:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, thanks! I always hoped to get over a 40 some day, and you realized my dream! Feel free to nominate my article for featuring, if you really liked it. The Man Of Led 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Where it was...

I thought maybe it could use some more pictures, and maybe a couple more jokes to make it less stubby, and anything else your twisted minds can come up with.

Humour:	5.5	Ok start, weak middle and funny finsh, but could improve. Less huff jokes and random humour and more intelligent jokes.
Concept:	7	Good concept
Prose and formatting:	6	Good but need some sort of ending. Even though ending is funny it feels empty.
Images:	0	Get images dude!!!
Miscellaneous:	5.5	Needs intelligent humour and depth
Final Score:	24	Get Images and Read Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid again(Just to get ideas on good jokes). Good job if this is your first try. If you dont like my comments ask someone esle I'm still quite noobish as well
Reviewer:	--Mr.Huffy 06:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I worked on the page a bit, images might take a while as this is my 'first attempt' at an article. To anyone else out there, keep those comments coming, I really appreciate it! TheLedBalloon 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ur Welcum, if you need help talk to me. I'm loney and I need a friend >.<--Mr.Huffy 06:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 06:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh fuck!!! I fucked up the table someone help--Mr.Huffy 06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Phew, I fixed it--Mr.Huffy 07:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Moar Pee Review

Baby-snatching

I can't think of where to go with it. Perhaps VFH...? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	6	For the most part the humor passed me by. I think it waved, but I'm not sure. See endnotes.
Concept:	6	It's a concept.
Prose and formatting:	5	Needs work. See endnotes.
Images:	7	Appropriate pictures.
Miscellaneous:	6	Personally, I would wish this article took a slightly different approach. See endnotes.
Final Score:	30
Reviewer:	----OEJ 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Endnotes:

On writing style: Watch out for illogical and ungrammatical sentences. "Baby-snatching is believed to have originated in the 1600's in England, at first practiced by early witches and demons, such as Dick Cheney, Penguins (not to be trusted!), and Samwise Gamgee (The most evil of all!!)." How is Dick Cheney a figure from renaissance-era England? Why is "penguins" capitalized? And for that matter, why is the "the" in the parenthetical phrase "The most evil of all!!" capitalized? Likewise, "Republicans" and "Democrats" are usually capitalized.

"Taken place on a flat terrain of your choice, the babies are lined up on pavement, and are kicked maliciously by contestants" is a really bad sentence, my good fellow. I'm sorry, it just is. "The event takes place on flat terrain", perhaps. And the second-person "of your choice" makes no sense, because the rest of the paragraph talks about contestants only in the third person.

Yes, it's nitpicky to focus on these things. But one thing that separates a good article from a mediocre one is the clarity and polish of the writing.

On humor and concept: The first hurdle for the reader is that the opening paragraph talks about baby-snatching as an illegal activity, and most of the rest of the article talks about it as a sporting event. The article either has the wrong introduction or it has the wrong content.

Baby-snatching as a sport is a reasonable concept, but really...what's funny about it? As I read along I found I wasn't much interested in reading the various rules for snatching, fishing, and punting. I'm not sure why. Maybe the descriptions were just too dry; maybe they were too abstract. Maybe the weevils have finally eaten all the humor centers out of my brain -- I know they've been gnawing away in there 'cos I can hear 'em chewing.

I think that, for me, I wanted to read something different. Maybe highlights of a snatch-match, with kooky but lovable characters and not the same old meme-ones like Kerry and Bush. Or famous instances of cheating, like when the massive Australian snatcher Geoff Rumblethighs spread inflatable false babies around the playing field in Calgary -- but was undone when hungry starlings tried to peck out their eyes and punctured them all. I dunno. I wanted something funnier.

Good luck on this. ----OEJ 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Prosecution Rests. Rebuttal?

Basically, I want to thank you for the most helpful review I have yet to receive. You gave me a lot of criticism, which I will try yo incorporate when I edit the article, maybe tomorrow or the next day. What I was going for was the deadpan delivery of a ridiculous subject, the only reason a couple meme-ish names came up was because I couldn't think of any others that people might know/find amusing. Really, though, I feel like you're asking for what is essentially a rewrite, which I will probably not do. The article's pretty long, and I think if I just continue my "take crap out--put gold in" plan it will eventually work. Again, I really do appreciate the review, and I hope you like where the article goes from here. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is my first article (although somewhere around 2 more are also in the works) and I'm still trying to figure out what people on the site find "funny." Thank you for this shitload of work to do.

This is very, very good for a first article. Mine were much worse. The horrible thing is that humor is subjective, so you never can get a definitive answer to "what makes writing funny?" questions. All you can do is try to find your way. Twisting something in a way that is both clever and unexpected seems to be popular. This kind of thing: "If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised." (Dorothy Parker) There are other techniques. Many suggestions are listed on Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid, and I expiated 13 sins from my mortal role by adding the Prolixipaedia Manual of Comedic Writing to the database. (Only 398,128,254 sins left to go.) Hopefully most of the writing techniques listed in these articles are useful. Technique usually only works in the service of the Angel of Inspiration, though. The trick for many writers seems to be to keep plugging away until the darned finicky Angel sees fit to stop eating bon-bons in Fiction Heaven and pay you a visit. Which, as you say, is a lot of work. ----OEJ 11:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I saw what you said, and again, I appreciate all the help you've given me. I'm gonna work on this a lot, but I've been busy as hell lately (finals coming up; stupid school, uncyclopedia teaches me!) and might not get a chance for a few days. But it's a welcome distraction, so I'll get on it as soon as I can. Thanks again! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)