Talk:Drugs
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
“In soviet russia, drugs take YOU!!!”
New image
Could someone add this image to the "history" section ? 71.184.57.61 01:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nice suggestion! Sorry it took so long to act... --
TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 
07:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You know what would be cool in this article? A link to that anti-drug PSA in which a women destroys a kitchen, before saying "this is your brain on drugs." Or maybe the "Any questions?" egg frying PSA.
“I'm not hallucinating, they are just invisible when I'm sober!”
^ Fucking win. Also, this article needs mo4r Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
From Pee Review
I think it is sufficient, but I may add additional sections if and when they come to mind. Consider it done, but open to expansion. So review. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 9 | Very good, I thought. All around great humour, especially the "...media and culture" part (which is brilliant if mainly because it's so true). The "Miscellaneous" could use a bit more information and then converting to prose to gain its full effect, but that's the only section I can honestly criticise. The rest of it, I feel, is easily VFH material (extremely so during this current lull). The last section also ties the article up beautifully, with simple but effective jokes, and doesn't feel at all "tacked on" like a lot of final sections here do. |
| Concept: | 8 | A very, very good way of expressing the subject matter. Every heading seems meticulously planned, and feel like they should be exactly where they are. Your way of expressing the history of drugs is also a very good idea. If you feel like it needs expansion/additional sections, try exploring the angle of teenagers using drugs a bit more than that one little section, coming from an adult's "It can be good for them" POV, but I'm not that sure the article needs expansion, it seems more than fine as it is. |
| Prose and formatting: | 10 | Everything here is bloody perfect, as I would more or less expect from a multi-feature writer. Writing is top-notch, with nada spelling and grammar mistakes. Formatted extremely well, with images in exactly the right paces, good use of references, and the cheeky use of {{c}} at the end. The text is also bolded in the right places. Your prose is, frankly, brilliant, too. Nothing to be improved here. |
| Images: | 8 | Very good images, too. The first one isn't terribly subtle, but it fits in with the article perfectly and helps fuel the reader's imagination. The second image is made by the caption, which gives the image a completely unexpected feel - this makes it 'seem funnier. The other image is the best of the lot: It's an obvious joke, but it'll make more than enough people laugh to make up for that, and is the funniest image of the three. Everything's fine here. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8.8 | n/a |
| Final Score: | 43.8 | If you feel like this needs expanding, then go ahead and expand it. But right now, this should be good enough for VFH in my opine, and I know I'd vote for. |
| Reviewer: | –—Hv (talk) 21/03 11:31 | |