Talk:Puppy

The Review

Humour:	4	I think that you are a puppy fan and enjoy talking about them and not making jokes. Your article has an orginal structure: the humorous sections are followed by non-humorous ones (not containing jokes at all). Here is an example: the first sentence is completely true. Of course, puppies are small versions of dogs, except for people can disagree with you about them being nemesis of kittens. Well, there are still no jokes up there. Your first sentence creates the impression that something extremely absurd would follow. But it does not. on the contrary, the second sentence is even more truthful. And in addition to that, "pups are cute" is something everyone is aware of. You have this type of problem in almost every section. This is your biggest problem and so I will just mention thearts that suffer from it: The third paragraph of the introduction: same thing but I think at ot can be transformed into a joke. What if you say that puppies generally weigh less than 30 lbs. And that's enough here. I hope you understand the joke. Paragraph number 5: about playing with other pups. The last paragraph of the Gender section: there seems to be a joke about the doggy style but it is not well developed. Instead of making something funny, after that you state something which requires a lot of logic to be understood: when puppies mate, it is called puppy style; another name for it is "two pups having fornication". What you say basically when two pups have fornication, they have fornication. The only joke I can think of to change this is to concentrate in the fact that pups do not marry but still mate (the word "fornication"). Then you can talk about moral issues, religion, etc. The first section of the Fur color and grooming has a joke about choice of puppies by their color being racist. And it is the only thing you say. You can write more about the racism aspect, but thenyou will probably have to create a History section. The next sentence about shaving is funny but I did not understand the final one. First, you day something untrue about owners depriving pups of their hair and then state something completely obvious: it does not look appealing. Make it a proper joke: say that it is a humanist action: to make pups look more like humans; or it is a neo-realist art movement. Just make it humorous! The same thong with the rest of the article. I liked several jokes but they still do not look developed.
Concept:	4	This is basically the same thing I said in the Humor section: you are writing this from the point of view of a fan, not of a clever comedian. You can make fun of anything, of wikipedia article about pups, of pup owners, of anything connected to pups. Your concept does not seem to be very uncyclopedic. You have some very good ideas, only you have to work on them.
Prose and formatting:	6	This has been achieved well. However, there are several minor language mistakes that I have noticed. I tried to correct them but you still need to reread the article carefully or ask for a proofreading. The encyclopedic style often gets destroyed as you admire pups. Be more serious in a formatting way, in oreder to achieve more humor. Several things that are not very encyclopedic are: The use of the first and the second person at the end of the last and the Grooming sections. "..., racist!" (Beginning of the Grooming). Where you are talking directly to the reader. You need to keep enough distance from him, not to adress him directly. Therefore, your jokes will be funnier.
Images:	5	Your images are good but they are often not linked to the text. This concerns the first and second one. The last one desperately needs a funny comment, otherwise, even though the reader will notice the face of the poor pup, he will not laugh at it. The second one also contradicts your text: you never say that puppies want to kill a human.
Miscellaneous:	4.8	Your average score.
Final Score:	23.8	I was very harsh with this article but I really think that ore work is needed. The main problems are those stated in Humor and Concept parts. A bit of proofreading should also be done.
Reviewer:	Anton (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)