Forum:Whoring Time Folks - Let's Be Featured for a Change
Any and all comments about ADD may be removed for being completely off-topic, because certain people can't get it through their thick skulls that this is about featuring articles. Please. Get it through your thick skulls.
THIS ATTEMPT TO START A COLLECTIVE DISCUSSION FOR GIVING CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND GENERAL ADVICE TO INCREASE THE QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED.
UTILIZE THE MORE ELABORATE PEE REVIEW INSTEAD.
  FOR! |
You wanna get one of your articles featured? Or at least substantially increase its quality? Maybe you tried Pee Review, but you simply get lost in the enumeration of things wrong with your article, or you can't find any useful suggestions in there? You nominated it on VFH but it didn't get enough For votes (despite a fairly positive review despite your hopes people wouldn't agree with that horribly negative review)? Maybe you are trying to make your article better but are completely oblivious as to what you should do with it? You want to know the opinion of multiple users (including the ones that don't bother writing Pee Reviews)?
In that case, this might just be the right place for you! Yes, this is where notable and less notable users may comment on your article. This may (or may not) include some of the negative comment that could have been given if you nominated your article on VFH and it failed. But on this page, you should also get some simple suggestions for you to improve your article.
But, if you wish an elaborate review of your article, by all means visit Pee Review.
- Suppliants: Though the title of this page says whoring, you're only allowed to mention your article here and friendly ask others to support it if it would be nominated. Additionally, if you're planning to self-nominate your article, you still need to request a Pee Review.
- Commentators: Feel free to give your opinion, but don't be dicks. If you have any suggestions to add, please do.
Current entries
UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo
Okay people, I want to know why UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo shouldn't be featured. Give me some good arguments, and tell me what should be changed. I'd really like it to be featured and I need your help to make it so. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said before, maybe a bio or Ruffles would work. Since you're against doing that, try combining this with the first article in the series. The later ones are probably a bit outlandish to be part of a feature. The tiger dialog in the massacre one isn't that funny, without knowing what Ruffles said in the first one. --Mnbvcxz 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- My 2¢: The humor section of my brain went meh after the Tiger quotes in the first paragraph. It's almost like reading a childrens book at that point. Then when I get to "It all happened so fast... One moment, I was staring lustfully at some walrusses, and the next thing I knew some big orange furry thing leapt out in front of me and roared 'These obnoxious fools have plagued the Earth for too long; they must all be exterminated!'" my brain is saying to me "Steve, this writer isn't going to make you laugh. Wouldn't you rather be looking at porn?" (I actually got a grin after writing that) I think the whole B-movie "something revolts against mankind" angle has been overused in the past 40 years. The old Bert I. Gordon films The Food of the Gods (1976) and Empire of the Ants (1977) are classic low-budget examples of the animal-world-revolting-against-mankind-in-glorious cheese-o-vision genre. They're comedy gold because they were done seriously. The attempts to be yuk yuk funny fall flat and I wouldn't tread into that concept with that tone. Personally, I would write it with a straight-man serious tone but that's me. When I got down to the Elephant photograph and read the caption.......I know it probably seemed clever at the time but my reaction was similar to the feelings I experienced after reading "staring lustfully at walrusses". I apologize if I'm coming across snarky but it's an accurate representation of the sounds made by that wheel-running hampster inside my skull.-- 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- First off, I'd like to note that some of the content was added by an IP, and though his additions were funny in some silly way they clashed with the original style of the article. I was unsure as to what I should remove and what not. That being said, how about I remove the Sarah Anusson bit, and the two notes. Should I replace it by something similar but more serious or add some more content on Ruffles' conquest of the zoo? Anybody have some appropriate sentences in mind? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Normally, for that sort of article, the general consensus is that the primary author "owns" the article. Additionally, the general policy is to delete silliness that can clutter and overwhelm good articles. Except for maintenance stuff, if you not sure about an edit, go ahead and revert. If the editor doesn't revert your reversion or say something on the talk page, the editor really didn't care about his/her addition. If they do revert your revert or say something about it, then try to work it out. --Mnbvcxz 17:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- First off, I'd like to note that some of the content was added by an IP, and though his additions were funny in some silly way they clashed with the original style of the article. I was unsure as to what I should remove and what not. That being said, how about I remove the Sarah Anusson bit, and the two notes. Should I replace it by something similar but more serious or add some more content on Ruffles' conquest of the zoo? Anybody have some appropriate sentences in mind? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Loyola
I want to know why the fuck this article shouldn't be featured? I want it featured, and I neep your help to do so too. What should be changed in my article? Good or bad arguments, and nothing at the back of the motherfucking truck. 
|Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kyurem CUN|IC Kill 
| 05:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, its just not that funny, bad choice of subject matter. The article is above average, but I don't think it can be improved to featured quality. --Mnbvcxz 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Some General Advice
Some articles just aren't feature-able for one reason or another. You might want to try writing a different article. Everybody has some eccentricities in their sense of humor, and you generally find what you yourself write to be a lot funnier than it is. Sometimes, its easier to start a new article than to try to whore and fix an old one.--Mnbvcxz 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
But it is generally recommended to give some suggestions on how to improve the article, even if it has poor to no chance of getting featured. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Always worth checking out UN:IDEA also. MrN
Fork you! 23:24, Jan 9 - There are times when I tell people to consider cutting their losses on pee review and work on something else. UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo might (or might not) be improvable to VFH quality, Loyola probably not. Trying to whore and polish one article to VFH isn't the best way there. --Mnbvcxz 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes, you just have to let your children go. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 07:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is mostly meant for people to say what disturbs them in an article, like "I don't like this sentence "..."", or" I think this picture Image:Example.jpg should be removed from the article", or "How about inserting another paragraph saying stuff like "The tiger headed for the zoo's main compound planning to take out the zoo's management"" And if several users (and I hope among these are some of the users that would vote against or already have) say what bothers them, and others comment on this, this could be very helpful for the person(s) who contribute(s) to the article. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know this may sound a little radical, but has anybody just wrote an article for fun? — Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- On Uncyclopedia? You must be joking. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wrote an article? You must be joking. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 14:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but other users find those unfunny or outright disturbing :) --Mnbvcxz 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know this may sound a little radical, but has anybody just wrote an article for fun? — Sir Sycamore (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Normally, you can't minor edit an article into featurable quality. I'm not saying give up on the article, but don't spend all your energy whoring, polishing, and reviewing just one article either. Putting too much energy into one article can give you writer's block. --Mnbvcxz 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its not too hard to come up with somehting reasonble, we've got this: HTBFANJS and you don't need to write "one" type of article, theres UnBooks, UnScripts etc. Have fun, have a look at what the best do and see what they're doing - see what works etc:) — Sir Sycamore (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that minor editing is going to get it featurable quality, but I'm quite sure that it can help substantially. I'm also not claiming that one should focus on 1 single article, but if someone wishes to make this one article better, we should give some tips on how to make it better.-Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- One thing to think about is that not everyone wants to read a bunch of articles and make suggestions on how to improve all of them. They wanna do their own stuff, or goof off in the forums. It's hard enough to get people to do pee reviews. Second thing to think about, did I mention Pee Review? --UU - natter
09:00, Jan 11
- Well, if they don't want to, they don't need to. But people can just superficially judge an article by looking at it and reading a few sentences. Pee Review is good if you know your article is far from finished and need to add a lot, but if you want an article to be approved by a majority of people, Pee Review may at times fail to give a consensus view. Sometimes just a few small superficial suggestions can help you on the way. In relation to my own article, you said you couldn't find anything particularly funny. What should I add, what should I remove? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- And that's the thing. I don't find it easy to glance at an article and quickly say "oh, you can improve it thiswise". When I review an article, I take half an hour, minimum. I read it, re-read it, and try to pinpoint the bits that I think need tweaking. Sometimes it takes longer. I agree that pee review fails to give a consensus view, but if you're looking for a bunch of people to give tips on one article, that's one thing - looking to set up a page where plenty of people give tips on what could end up being plenty of articles? Don't see it happening, not for long. It's hard enough to get people to vote on VFH. If you want more comments from people who voted against on VFH, you can ask them, but you might not get too much back - I tried it once, and "can't be specific dude, it just didn't tickle me, sorry" was pretty much the gist of the answers. And it's pretty much the gist of my answer to your questions there as well. --UU - natter 19:06, Jan 11
- Very so. You don't have to read the Pee Review Guidelines before using Pee Review. The text on the UN:PEE page says that you can read the article, and just leave a brief comment. You don't have to spend ages over it if you want to, just don't fill out the Pee Review template, and the review is kept in the queue for someone else to review... Loads of people can comment, but it's closed when template is filled out. When People leave their comment (or even full review) THAT'S the time to do the whoring. ;) Engage other users in discussion, and encourage them to comment and edit your work. If someone can get away with it... A List of who is reviewing a lot right now, and in the recent past is here. If something needs whoring... It's this. MrN Fork you! 23:36, Jan 15
- Very so. You don't have to read the Pee Review Guidelines before using Pee Review. The text on the UN:PEE page says that you can read the article, and just leave a brief comment. You don't have to spend ages over it if you want to, just don't fill out the Pee Review template, and the review is kept in the queue for someone else to review... Loads of people can comment, but it's closed when template is filled out. When People leave their comment (or even full review) THAT'S the time to do the whoring. ;) Engage other users in discussion, and encourage them to comment and edit your work. If someone can get away with it... A List of who is reviewing a lot right now, and in the recent past is here. If something needs whoring... It's this. MrN
- And that's the thing. I don't find it easy to glance at an article and quickly say "oh, you can improve it thiswise". When I review an article, I take half an hour, minimum. I read it, re-read it, and try to pinpoint the bits that I think need tweaking. Sometimes it takes longer. I agree that pee review fails to give a consensus view, but if you're looking for a bunch of people to give tips on one article, that's one thing - looking to set up a page where plenty of people give tips on what could end up being plenty of articles? Don't see it happening, not for long. It's hard enough to get people to vote on VFH. If you want more comments from people who voted against on VFH, you can ask them, but you might not get too much back - I tried it once, and "can't be specific dude, it just didn't tickle me, sorry" was pretty much the gist of the answers. And it's pretty much the gist of my answer to your questions there as well. --UU - natter
- Well, if they don't want to, they don't need to. But people can just superficially judge an article by looking at it and reading a few sentences. Pee Review is good if you know your article is far from finished and need to add a lot, but if you want an article to be approved by a majority of people, Pee Review may at times fail to give a consensus view. Sometimes just a few small superficial suggestions can help you on the way. In relation to my own article, you said you couldn't find anything particularly funny. What should I add, what should I remove? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- One thing to think about is that not everyone wants to read a bunch of articles and make suggestions on how to improve all of them. They wanna do their own stuff, or goof off in the forums. It's hard enough to get people to do pee reviews. Second thing to think about, did I mention Pee Review? --UU - natter
I agree with U.U.
Fly by suggestions generally can only help you in certain areas, mainly basic, concept level stuff. This can answer questions like:
- Is my underlying concept viable?
- Is the article too random, or too dry?
- Does my formatting look ok?
- Is the article long enough, too long?
- Should I use pic A, B, or C?
- Do you think a change is perspective would work? ect
But, questions like "how do I make this article feature worthy?" are hard to answer. An against vote means the reader doesn't find it funny enough (or not up to featurable quality). Humor is an art, and there is no "method" to great art. Like U.U. said, an "against" vote doesn't need a reason beyond "meh", "because" or even "I'm not impressed with this enough".
That being said, I hope both of you try to re-work your articles if you have ideas. If you can't see how they can be improved or if you realize that they can't be raised to featurable quality, try working on something else. --Mnbvcxz 05:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with them users
But I had hoped that this would inspire some VFH-related enthusiasm. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hurrah? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Whore-ay? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- That pun was whore-ible. - T.L.B.
WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:50, Jan 15
- Indeed it was. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- That pun was whore-ible. - T.L.B.
- Whore-ay? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
