Why? talk:Is My House Mad At Me

Uncyclopedia:VFH/Why is my house mad at me?

Humour:	7	Hilariously eccentric. But it does have a bit of a "too many notes" feel to it, as if you're trying to cram one too many concepts into the article. Perhaps getting rid of the "schizophrenic" stuff and letting the house jokes speak for themselves, or trimming the schizophrenic aspect down to a one-liner. As such, the random references to shizophrenia made the article slightly confusing, at least for me...some of the sections, such as the "dangers" one, for instance, had this sort of "Wait...is the angry house real or not?" feel to them that kind of distracted from the humor. I think there's enough comedy in the concept alone, and that's why I thought the "What type of house do you have?" section worked best.
Concept:	8	Bizarre, but awesome at the same time.
Prose and formatting:	8	I didn't notice any typos or awkward-sounding things aside from the stuff I already adjusted.
Images:	6.5	The two pictures you have work well. Perhaps a new caption for the second one, and maybe a third pic somewhere near the bottom would be good.
Miscellaneous:	7	Yeah, I like it, just perhaps a bit of refocusing of the humor, with less emphasis on the personal insanity aspects and more emphasis on the "angry house" bits--perhaps a section on what makes a house angry? Visiting a therapist so you can work out your anger issues with your house? There's loads of potential here.
Final Score:	36.5	As I said before, the "What type of house do you have" section works best. The schizophrenic stuff works well in the intro paragraph (especially the pigeons and telephone polls. Loved that!) but you don't quite follow through with it in the rest of the article, so reshifting the focus would help it improve. I'd gladly help you out on improving this further if you like, I must say that it's captured my fancy :).
Reviewer:	--THE 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RE-REVIEW!!!

Humour:	8.5	Much better now. Chopping out the insanity stuff except for the intro was a good move, that way you can still keep the strong intro. The new pictures and section really helped improve the second half, as well as the new punchline at the end. I think you could expand on it even more, perhaps providing more examples of the specific things houses "say," but it's good in its present incarnation as well and it's at a good length, so expansion isn't essential.
Concept:	8	I liked it before. I still like it.
Prose and formatting:	8	I didn't notice any typos or awkward-sounding things aside from the stuff I already adjusted.
Images:	9	Much better.
Miscellaneous:	9	I forget what the template for an average of the other scores is, so I just assumed your average was an eight. A picky suggestion be to perhaps work on the "Dangers" section, which is weakest, though it isn't bad. That's the weakest point, so if you're still looking for ways to improve it to the max, target that section. A'ight, it's now much more consistent with the rest of the article. Score changed!
Final Score:	42.5	Yes, this has certainly improved, and I now know why my doorknob attempted to bite me the other day.
Reviewer:	--THE 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

House of Leaves

How can allusions to House of Leaves best be worked into this article? --Tepples 01:41, May 25, 2011 (UTC)