Talk:Wallet moth
From Pee Review[edit source]
I'm going to add more stuff to this, but some criticism would be handy, so I'll know if I'm wasting my time. Nydas 21:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 9 | Dam' funny. And by "dam'" we mean very damned, and by "funny" we mean Grentley Quickfluttering-funny. |
| Concept: | 9 | A good, witty concept. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9 | Look, I have a reputation to maintain. I can't keep giving 9s! |
| Images: | 7 | There could be a few more images. I'll personally try to 'chop some wallets and moths. Do you like the black-and-white soft-focus look or what? Never mind, I'll do some in colour, it's easy to B/W and defocus later. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | This is a fine, fine article. See endnotes. |
| Final Score: | 42 | |
| Reviewer: | --OEJ 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |
Endnotes: I like this very much. It has a joke-density that Peter Cooke would envy. It makes funny faster than Groucho Marx and Dorothy Parker drinking highballs together at the Ritz-Charlatan bar. I would expand with care, though -- the subject is not, in my lousy opinion, suitable for a large Wagnerian Uncyc article. To put it in context, this is more a Grently Quickflutter than an Anderson All-weather Conqueror.
But a lovely, lovely bit of work. My best congratulations. --OEJ 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
--Late note: I am having Win-XP problems (something like "Windows basic services has encountered a problem and has to close, so you will not be able to launch any applications for the foreseeable future you pitiful sucker"). It seems to be related to Paintshop Pro. Therefore I'm not going to get to any image work for a little while. The moth pics will have to wait. --OEJ 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Bump. I've added a question and answer session with a big cheese in the world of moths. Any good?--Nydas 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)