I'd like Gerrycheevers to do this, if possible since he did the first one. -- oblivious Ape (abominate) (Riot Porn) 22:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|
This article is under review by
<font-weight:bold>Gerry Cheevers.
Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!
|
i will take another look at this today hopefully. barring that, definitely tomorrow. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
sorry i took so long ape, i wanted to give the article time to drift out of my head so i could read it over again and see how it's improved. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
| Humour:
|
7.7
|
:intro: 7
no improvement here; i'd still like to see at least two more sentences that convince the reader to dive right in.
- early life:8
no change. although a hair short, it stands on its own well enough.
- university:6.5
an improvement, but you kind of go over the top with the apple obsession. try a little more subtelty than 'apple-fucker', i think it would work better. excellent thesis title, though.
- private studies: 8
an improvement, i like the sudoku idea, and the orphan line. but i still feel like you could expand on it, and the section in general. the wikipedia article is teeming with information. maybe sections on newton's religion, views on the end of the world, etc. would fit.
- later life: 9
no change. really good.
|
| Concept:
|
9
|
5/5 points for a well-known subject worthy of parody. yay physics!
4/5 points for execution. i like the apple theme quite a bit, but i'd like to see more expansion of the shorter sections.
|
| Prose and formatting:
|
7.5
|
still some formatting issues. your images are gigantic, shrink them down a tad. there's still some confusing prose.
|
| Images:
|
7
|
good images, good captions. they work well, but again, they're really big.
|
| Miscellaneous:
|
7.8
|
averageific!
|
| Final Score:
|
39
|
your final score is a 39. i would say this is very close to being VFH worthy, but it still needs some tweaks. you don't want to nom too early and have people vote against, claiming "doesn't feel finished", and have to wait four months to renom. but that's a moot point as i see you've nommed it already. given that, would you mind if i gave it a once-over? i'll rearrange some of the confusing stuff and maybe throw in a few lines. if you'd rather i didn't it's fine, some users are pretty territorial, but i think i can add an extra touch or two that could put it over the top.
|
| Reviewer:
|
SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
|
