Talk:Ocelot

My bad....was not the page i was seeing when i rated....sorry, dudeness....--Dorianin says never play leapfrog with a unicorn. 14:30, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Ah don't worry! Your intentions were good. Let me know if you need any help with anything :) --Black Flamingo 14:52, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Humour:	8	Understated nicely, yet suitably ludicrous. Lovely.
Concept:	7	The 98% of people who've never heard of one may become confused....
Prose and formatting:	8	Looks like the real thing...should stick it on WP and see how long before they notice...
Images:	7	apt images...the photo of one could use explaining, considering the first bit...
Miscellaneous:	9	apology points. never review hammered.
Final Score:	39	Now that ive actually seen the article and am (relatively) sober, I am amused.
Reviewer:	--Dorianin says never play leapfrog with a unicorn. 00:29, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Humour:	7	Okay, so reading through this section by section, let's look at the humour. Humour, as a general rule, is the gags or one-liners. Most articles will have a joke per paragraph, which is a good ratio. Subtle humour does add to an article, but too subtle and the humour may be lost. Lede No quotes. Good. I hate intro quotes. Nice set-up of main premise. Jeffrey being an alien in the middle of the first paragraph tells me that I'm about to get some random humour. Dropping into first person means that I'm ready for the remainder to be in first person, and the fact that the narrator seems to be an idiot who believes in aliens, as well as knowing nothing with any form of authority on the topic that he is covering. This is quickly backed up by the claim that ocelots have seven legs and the hint that they shoot laser beams from their eyes. Now my major concern with the lede is that random can very quickly degenerate into stupid. Of course, this isn't always the case, but it is always a concern for me when I'm reading. And given the lede is where you need to capture your audience, this can be off putting. Given the overall concept, however, it's a good start. One thing I would do is break the paragraph at about it... Ocelots are. Leave the Jeffery thought in the mind for a half second before going elsewhere. Name Short section, but two good jokes there, and probably can't really be extended any further. I would italicise ōcēlōtl. About the only thing that could be added is something like ōcēlōtl (rhymes with xocholotl), which means... It's again a little random for me, but works within the context here. Appearance Again nice and short, and not much that can be added. The only issue, if it is an issue, is in the lede you refer to them as having 7 legs. Here it's not mentioned at all, and the photos of course give that away. For consistency I'd either remove the seven leg reference from the start, or mention that they have up to 7 legs, or something else like that here. I'm going to come back to this in concept, as there are a few other options. So don't make a change yet. Maybe. Behaviour And we become very random again. As I have said, random can degenerate into stupid fairly easily, but you teeter on the edge here fairly well. The Archbishop of Canterbury mention maybe a little over the line, but I actually like the joke, so I wouldn't mess with that too much. Now one thing that happens here is that you mention the smell of urine in a bedroom, but at this stage we haven't take about them living under beds. This is okay, as it makes more sense once the latter fact is known, but reading it progressively it seems a little odd. Unless the idea is simply trying to state that the person who sleeps in the room is not a bed wetter but is marking their territory, but without being a little clearer the joke feels a little odd at this stage. Habitat I love the idea of Ocelots hiding under the bed. As random as this article is, it's a very cool aspect, and takes this up a notch. This is where it pushes well outside of the realms of sanity. The mastubation joke is okay, but maybe there should be a little more paranoia here. . The underneath of beds is a perfect place for the ocelot because they love dark, dusty places where they can masturbate without any interruption, and it gives them the perfect vantage point to watch people in the room as they undress. Although this doesn't refer to the narrator, it shows a bit more depth on the narrators loose grip on reality. The more we understand the foibles of the narrator the more we will follow them down the rabbit hole, so to speak. Crossbow is a fantastic example of this kind of narrative done well. The bit about the Ocelots being endangered is a little off concept, assuming the concept of Ocelots being under beds and never being able to be observed is accurate. If we turn the Ocelot into a bogeyman type of character, then saying they are dying out doesn't quite for in with the narrator's paranoia. Depending on how you play with the concept, you may want to lose this part. It doesn't add a huge amount of funny. (Although it would fit in well in an article that is more encyclopaedic about Pandas, for example.) As pets The mention of Dali works well, and good humour here. Bringing Jefferey back at the end works well, as does his rather unusual qualifications. The part about the Moche people has a misspelling. Prey instead of pray. It made me think of the line The Moche people would all gather and pray to the tribe's ocelot, offering it jewellery and fabric. The ocelot deity would then prey on them with its laser vision as a reward. I love the little bit of wordplay there. Not a huge laugh, but a subtle one. Maybe a link to Homophones (grammar) would fit in well. Capturing the Ocelot A bit of a mild ending. There is nothing wrong with it, but you should bring in a reference to Jefferey again at least as an instigator to this. Something about how Jefferey has become filthy rich as a result of his work in capturing ocelots, maybe. I do love Barry (if that happens to be your name)... Good line.
Concept:	7	Okay, there are a couple of concepts that are at work here. I'm going to break it down into what I feel are the main ones: Ocelots are a kind of bogeyman It is impossible to see an ocelot The narrator is ignorant, and has questionable sanity There's probably a little more that I missed, but these are the ones that stick out to me. I've talked a bit about the first and third concept. The second one comes in at the start of the article and kind of drifts off into nothingness. This is a shame, as it's a good concept that works well with the remainder of your topic. Now what I'm thinking of is historical scientific documents. The first thing that comes to mind is Dürer's Rhinoceros. The idea that a drawing based on a sketch and a brief description became a scientifically accepted image is fantastic. This happened, of course, because there was nothing to contradict this in the eyes of the European scientific community. Another one is Physiologus. A bestiary that was considered as fact but included mythical animals. Playing with something like this would work in your favour. If I was using this idea I'd remove all images of ocelots from the article - despite the fact that they are very cute. I'd replace them with deliberately blurry cat photos - think of Loch Ness monster or Yeti photos - and pictures of habitat - the dark underside of a bed, for instance. Give them seven legs, or however many you like, and have an artist's impression of an ocelot. This should actually be done by hand, maybe on lined paper, and as amateurishly as possible without looking deliberately amateurish (ie, do it yourself). Make it out that this was drawn by your narrator. Avoid bad potatochops (photoshopped) images though. Random and bad potatochops equals stupid.
Prose and formatting:	7	Spelling and grammar are fine, other than the one I pointed out earlier. (I'm too lazy to go through a full spell check though. Make sure you do that. Format is fairly standard. I would, however, create a template similar to the Wikipedia one (like on here) as it gives you the opportunity to play with faux Latin and make a few dumb translation jokes. Also a stylised image of a bed with the underside shaded in green for the habitat (as a parody of the map). It just has a slightly more Wikipedia feel and can add a bit of funny.
Images:	7	I really like your images, but if you decide to extend the concept I mentioned above, they won't work. Which is a shame - they're kinda cute. The dead sister joke just fell flat for me. Otherwise captioning was well done. Especially the added mention of Jefferey.
Miscellaneous:	7	BF11, you're probably already aware that I pay absolutely no attention to the scores as I write these - they're only a rough feeling of like or dislike toward an article. As an overall though, 7 means that this is a good article, and possibly a feature. A bit of work and it's a fantastic article and definite feature. Dorianin, I hope you can get a better understanding of how a review works. For the moment, I'd make sure you have read HTBFANJS and the review guidelines (link at the top of this page). Don't worry if you don't read them enough to memorise them - you just need enough to have an idea of what your resources are, and how to get to them. If I was reviewing this for a newer user, I'd refer back to HTBFANJS a fair bit more. BF is aware of what it says, mostly, and knows how to find it. You'll also notice that I mentioned a few other articles (including one Aleister still hasn't moved out of his user space by the look of it), so knowing what makes a featured article, and what doesn't, is really valuable. Read through some of the features that we've had - especially the 2010 onwards ones - as that gives you an idea of what works well.
Final Score:	35	And now Mattsnow or Chief will read this and hopefully tell me it's in depth. BlackFlamingo11 will be grateful but will probably not add a {{Golden Shower Award}} to my talkpage. (Did my guilt trip work?)
Reviewer:	Pup 01:07 04 Mar '12

I love this article. Great job - Comicat1