Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Spay and neuter
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why?:Spay and neuter[edit source]
RAHB said he'd review this. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:07, 18 Jun 2014
- Reviewing will commence after I've made some food and screw around for a couple hours. -RAHB 04:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- A few comments about whatever:
- This is one of my 'pointier' articles - that is, it tries to promote a specific point of view. I think of it as being sort of like Why?:Abortion is FUN in that it pretends to be promoting something but actually points out disadvantages, except that it's subtler, or at least uses a lot more words. It does need some tweaking as well as images, and I'll do what I can about it if I get to it. I considered doing it as sort of a list of 'myths' or misconceptions, giving each one a section in which it was 'debunked'; didn't end up doing it that way because I wasn't sure all the points I wanted to make could be phrased that way, but I could try to do that.
- Should have something on how 'intact' animals can demonstrate to children the 'miracle of birth' (and how it's unnecessary because humans can give birth too and they're better anyway because they have souls etc) - wasn't sure where to fit this.
- It doesn't have any images because I'm not totally sure what to put in. Considered a picture of a disapproving rabbit or something like that - thoughts would be appreciated. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 16:37, 18 Jun 2014
- I did a few changes and smoothed a few things over. Still think it can do without the
crossed outtext as it's not adding to the humour. Go really subtle in places rather than using strike out and ranting I suggest... The bit about being fruitful and multiply is very ranty and obviously written by a person who is POV against the issue. For this article to be awesome it needs to be written in such a way that an intelligent person who takes either side of the spray'neuter debate can not tell which side of the argument the author is on. If it can be funny, informative, not obviously pov, but still pushing a POV then that's awesome. Currently some of this is just a bit captain obvious. I suggest either going with the be more subtle route, or go a bit more silly and push the agenda the other way and take a far more extreme radical position for the fun of it. MrN
17:37. Jul 13
- I did a few changes and smoothed a few things over. Still think it can do without the
| Humour: | 6.12345 | Humor is good but not great. I gave you a few brownie points because you managed to keep the humor in there for if the reader decides to read through the article. See prose and formatting for further information. |
| Concept: | 7.666 | Can't really get confusing. I mean, you're explaining why you should have your pet be spayed and/or neutered. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3.14 | I can't really pick out why, but I for some reason think this article could be formatted a whole lot better. I'm sorry I may be mistaken. |
| Images: | 6.93224 | Three images are good but I'd move one of them to the left side. Maybe also add a funny image too that goes along with the last one? |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | Averaged the other scores together. |
| Final Score: | 29.86169 | Okay article as it is but a few touch ups in formatting could spice it up. Work on perfecting the jokes in here as well. |
| Reviewer: |  ŤäŁķ ¿Ș₮áłĶ?฿¡฿↓¡ography 02:12 9.01.14
| |