|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:
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:
|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)|