Talk:Shopping list
From Pee Review[edit source]
Shopping list[edit source]
I'm quite pleased with this rewrite, so someone pull it ruthlessly to pieces and leave me a trembling wreck please. (Alternatively, be nice about it: your choice). --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | In short: starts out well, becomes less goodful. In long: "How it Works" is great. Beautifully constructed to be just the right mix of intelligence and humor (and stupidity thrown in for good measure), this is the high point of the article. However, when we get to "Cracking the Code" it becomes evident that you hit a wall on the piece. It becomes too convoluted for its own good. I would take a much more minimalistic approach to the idea. Don't make it such a gargantuan scientific phenomenon, but instead make it a nuanced portion of every healthy and unhealthy relationship alike. |
| Concept: | 7 | This is a very funny concept. Extremely original, and if properly executed has potential to be a real great little piece. See above for suggestions on the suggestion. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9 | Well formatted, and flowy prose that largely does its job very well. Unfortunately, in your quest to sound encyclopedic, you inadvertently make some sentences sound too similar and/or go on longer than they have to. An example could be "All codes employed are by necessity so fiendish that they would cause the average Enigma decoder machine to explode" which could just as easily be "All codes employed in the shopping list are so fiendish that the average Enigma machine would explode at a mere whisper of this dreaded name." This may seem just as, if not more, wordy, but sometimes more is less. Or something. However, sometimes when sentences are worded awkwardly, changing the idea of it can help. |
| Images: | 10 | I'm going to go ahead and make this one non-applicable at the moment. I love the first one (I'm a big fan of captions making an image funny). However, if you take my advice and remove the algebra section, the second one will be moot. Therefore, I reserve judgement. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | This article has quite a bit of potential. Well-written, deliciously odd, and coherent to boot! |
| Final Score: | 37 | Just take the advice I've given you and consider it. I don't expect you to take it all at face value (and indeed you shouldn't), but instead take it in stride, make it your own, and make this article the best it can be. |
| Reviewer: | Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |
Um... Taken from the above: "All codes employed are by necessity so fiendish that they would cause the average Enigma decoder machine to explode" which could just as easily be "All codes employed in the shopping list are so fiendish that the average Enigma machine would explode at a mere whisper of this dreaded name." His line is a lot more concise and funny than yours. The article wasn't very funny, it seemed like it was just a documentary of something that didn't exist. Oh well. --Johnfn 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
