For: 13
|
- SN +
 For. --  ŤäŁķ ¿Ș₮áłĶ?฿¡฿↓¡ography 21:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- ! —
 (talk) (contributions) Jan 27 2013 23:21.
- Jesus fuck! You dashed this off in a day? A small masterpiece. Just think what it would have been like if you took an extra day to refine and polish it!!! And why would anyone vote against this? Jeez. Aleister 21:57 28-1-'13
For. Man, I've got to vote twice for this one. Aleister seconds later
- For. -- Lost Labyrinth
 • (t) • (c) • (a) 22:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- For.
 (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 29, 21:12
- For -- Kip the Egg
 Talk Works 03:20, Feb. 1, 2013
- For. Overall, I enjoyed this article, but I agree with the comments below. Strainj1 01:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- For. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:00, 3 February 2013
- For. Auror Andrachome (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- For.
 Boner. -hipcrime 20:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- For. Boogedy boogedy. — SG1 [citation needed] 21:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- For. Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss
Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- For a saunter through the dark recesses of your mind.
 » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2013.02.07.05:09
|
| Comments
|
- Dispensing with my usual habit of not commenting on these pages, I'd like to address Aleister's question of why I voted against this article, and hopefully offer some constructive criticism for Sir Peasewhizz. Additionally, I will preface my comment by stating that I am not in any way trying to be malicious to anyone.
- Firstly, I believe that to nominate one's own article without sufficiently polishing it to ensure its readability is off-putting. This may not be the case, but it seems very complacent to me, as though Sir Peasewhizz believes his articles are of such quality that they are good enough for featuring even though their expression is quite irksome. Sir Peasewhizz, I suggest that you attempt to remedy this, if not with all your articles, then at least with those that you nominate for featuring.
- Secondly, none of the pictures' captions make them memorably funny or clever. A featured article should achieve this with its pictures and captions. Sir Peasewhizz, I suggest that you take more time with the pictures you use and their captions to make them more purposeful. In fact, you know how to do this, so there's no reason you shouldn't try to, especially on articles you nominate yourself.
- Thirdly, the quality of the humour. While I found some lines funny, I found the majority of the humour in this article mediocre, and a lot of it reads like outright filler to me. To illustrate this, I will use a sentence from the introduction: "The game's soundtrack, full of some of the most disturbing noises you will ever come across and let slither into your ears, is also available for purchase via iTunes, Wal-Mart retail, Best Buy, and the black market". Sentences like these (and the quality of humour within them) are abundant in the article, while there are far too few jokes like "... is a game released through Windows, both the computer and the opening that it was hurled out of". It is clear that you are capable of better and more intelligent humour, but you aren't making the effort to create enough of it so that it characterises your articles. Instead, your articles will tend to become characterised by sentences like the former. I suggest that you read through your articles and remove any filler and parts that are only mildly funny. One way to approach this is to make it your goal to ensure every part of your article has a purpose; either to be funny (more than mildly, that is), or to establish context so that the reader will better understand what you're satirising. This way, there will be no filler or attempts at humour that are only mildly funny.
- Sir Peasewhizz, each of these reasons relate to a lack of effort on your part. I'd really like to see you put more effort into your articles, because I know you're capable of writing some great material, having seen promise in your articles.
- However, if another of your articles shows up here, and it is of similar quality and shows a similar lack of effort, what choice do I have but to vote against it? As much as I'd hate to be seen as mean, pretentious, or the stick in the mud, I'm not going to vote on articles in a way that doesn't reflect my opinion of them. Feel free to ask me for advice if you'd like, and remember to polish, polish, polish.
- Good luck! --Equilateralperil 05:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but in no way did I intend to make you look dubious or mean-intended. I have no experience with the game myself, therefore I couldn't "polish-polish-polish" to the point the mediocrity was near-to-completely tossed out of the article's contents. However, I did spend multiple school days writing in my notebook before I converted it to Wikicode. Thanks for the advice, but currently I am looking for my "polishing" stages to come later this year, as I am only trying to get new funny quick content for the new year. Cheers! I hope this explains things.--Sir Peasewhizz de New York 20:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to Equilateralperil for his very detailed anaylsis of the article. I too have encourged polishing to Sir Peesalot, and saying "my polishing stages to come later this year" seems to say that you haven't tried to polish yet. To do so is to give something time to simmer in the brainpan, for weeks, months, years in some cases (me and Funnybony have polished for years sometimes, it's a living hell but someone has to live it). I liked the page very much when I read it, for concept and creativity, yet did notice room for improvement. Take my comment in the voting block with two grains of salt, because at the time I read it the page was excellent to me - I don't like to criticize someones writing because it's their style - and could be better. To echo the sentiment,k polish polish polish. Aleister 21:50 28-1-'13
|
ŤäŁķ ¿Ș₮áłĶ?฿¡฿↓¡ography 21:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
For. --
Against. 
2013.02.07.23:01