Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Watch Kitty Porn
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why?:Watch Kitty Porn[edit source]
Cheapinitreal 05:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This article was inspired by an episode of the Showtime series Weeds and my cat running across my keyboard late at night. --Cheapinitreal 05:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | The humour here, unfortunatley, ends up rather weak, as it's just a collection of definitions and arguments regarding a rather random topic that provoke a chuckle, but not much actual laughter-I mean, jokes about porn aren't exactly scant these days. One of the main problems here, I suppose, is that the article feels insubstantial-it's much too short (see the next section on how you could flesh it out). Still, it's certainly a start, and it shows that you have potential-keep at it. |
| Concept: | 5 | Ah-the concept's well and safe enough on face value-this sort of thing's never been very prominent on Uncyclopedia, which means it has the potential to end up as a new and fresh idea-but ultimatley you did very few of the things you could have done with it-the final product could be seen as a watered-down beastiality article. There are a lot of things here that could have been fleshed out-like the fact that the article is directed at a man living with other people or kids-but weren't. The overall concept, too, had a lot of potential that didn't appear. Perhaps you could have written 'Kitty Porn' as an independent article-you know, not attached to Why? or anything-and given it all the usual stuff-history, definition, controversy etc.-that appear in your average encyclopedia article. Ultimatley, the concept is good, but the final piece feels like a snippet of what it could have been. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6.8 | For the greater part, the article is actually pretty well-written, with a good and fitting tone and some well-used vocabulary. This bodes very well for your future endevours. However, there are a few minor hiccups you might want to touch on-mostly regarding slight misuse of capitals and commas (bracketed sentences in the middle of other sentences don't start with capitals). And no problems with formatting that I can isolate. |
| Images: | 6.5 | Some well chosen images-in this context, they actually look convincingly dirty! However, if you're any good at retouching, you might want to bring that in here-this is a 'retouched pictures' sort of article. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.6 | I knocked a few .0 points off the average because of the article's rather cramped feel-you might want to space the different sections more, perhaps shift the images around. |
| Final Score: | 28.9 | Not a bad article per se, but a shadow of what it could have been. You must certainly press on though, you have potential. I hope this helps. As a side note, by the way, you might want to consider putting a link to it on the Why?:Recent template-otherwise, the odds are that most people won't notice it. |
| Reviewer: | BlueYonder 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |
Thank You for the review and I'll certainly press on with the article. I was really fishing to see if the concept was good. I will continue fleshing it out and probably resubmit it for review when I feel it is developed enough. I'd like to see this ending up a feature one day. --Cheapinitreal 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)