Talk:Kitty porn

1st Review

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)

2nd Review

Why?:Watch Kitty Porn (again)

This is the second review of this article (1st review can be seen of on this page). I'd love to see this article featured one day and have had tons of help with it from the community here as they seem to love the concept. Cheapinitreal 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?:Watch Kitty Porn is being reviewed by CajekHi! Your Source for Fine Scented Pee And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him

Wild Cajek appears! Wild Cajek used Review! (Thank you for that, Fag)   Le Cejak • <May 14, 2008 [18:14]>

Humour:	7.8	avg of each section intro -9- OMFG, what is wrong with you?! You should be deported. Also, the introduction not only (1) told an interesting and funny story, but (2) put weird thoughts in my mind. Thoughts that should never be mentioned again, except later in this article. So far, so great! I hardly ever give 9s! Warning: Kitty Porn Is Not For Everyone -9- I like the warning here, especially that part about pouring beer on your cereal. This article is pretty crazy and hilarious. Some people may not think this is funny, but they are too sheltered. I, for one, think this section is getting back to the roots of what a good article is: not complicated, just outrageous. Initial Reactions To Viewing Pussy In Porn -8- I liked this section too! Dang, you're a good writer! I keep thinking that, if this was on VFH, it would make it barely because a lot of people might just be turned off by this (also because the page is really badly organized, but I'll get to that later). This, like another thing I reviewed, is like Wooden Condom, and my own article HowTo:Sexually Stimulate an Ant. Acceptance and Benefits -7- It's an okay ending. I like the length of this article, by the way. It adds to the weirdness of it all. Possible Side Effects -6- Lists are lame. You should try to make this a full paragraph somehow. Even though it's not a bad list, we're shooting for vfh on this, and we need to redo this.
Concept:	8	When I read the title, and when you whored it to me on IRC, I was rolling my eyes. "Oh, great, another PRON article." When I started reading, I realized that this isn't stupid or badly written, it's actually pretty good. Your article is bursting with images and little did you know things down the side, though. You need to make your article pretty.
Prose and formatting:	7	The writing is not the problem, it's the images and templates. I like all the images, sure, but they should not be left-right-left (staggered) as some reviewers suggest. They should all be on the right side, to make it look more like an article and not a webpage. If it looks like a webpage, people will think it's noobish even if they shouldn't. You need to pare down your images and choose only three or so. Maybe only one of those "did you know" things would be okay.
Images:	8	I liked all the images and the captions, but it will be up to you to choose the best ones to keep. My favorite image and caption, in case you were wondering, was the one with the cat splayed out with the caption Look at this saucy little thing enticing you. Keep that one, and pick and choose your other images. Don't clog up the article.
Miscellaneous:	7.7	{{Pee|7.8|8|7|8}}
Final Score:	38.5	You really surprised me on this! Call me when you've redecorated your article, and maybe I'll nominate it for you! Check out Wooden Condom, and HowTo:Sexually Stimulate an Ant for ideas on layout.
Reviewer:	Le Cejak • <May 14, 2008 [18:42]>

Yay, reference to my condom article! - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 18:57, May 14

This article, and this review, reminded me of your condom. ...I mean, your condom article.   Le Cejak • <May 14, 2008 [19:02]>

Dude, move this to Kitty Porn

It would be much better over there, instead of in the Why? namespace.   Le Cejak • <May 15, 2008 [2:16]>

It's been moved.--Cheapinitreal 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is filth... good filth --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 07:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed the article DJ! It still has a few minor tweeks left to go before it is finished. It seems everyone digs the concept though and that's cool. I hope the rest of my future work makes the same impression. --Cheapinitreal 05:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody bats a thousand, Cheap: everyone screws up along the way to being a good writer.   Le Cejak • <May 16, 2008 [5:39]>

New Edit

Well I've added another short section. I am sure it is filled with grammatical errors and will need some help but let me know what you think. It is meant a bit more straight forward satire than the tongue in cheek feel to the rest of the piece. I'll check back later after picking my wedding music --Cheapinitreal 20:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Final Review

Thanks, Java, for taking a look at this. I thought it might sit forever.--- Cheapinitreal (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2008 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Java, would you like to nom it for our old friend, Cheap?   Le Cejak • <18:13, 28 May 2008>

I would like someone to nom it. I don't care who. I think it is ready to face the people. If it don't make the cut I can go back and work on it again using Java's advice. Thanks again go to Cajek, DJRev, RAHB, Blue Yonder, and now Java.--- Cheapinitreal (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Humour:	8.5	Damn, this was a nice read, actually got me laughing out loud. This article was almost believable, if it wasn’t for the absurdity of the subject (which helped the article!). The opening was not bad at all, setting up the tone and preparing for the punch line. (The jab about the oral sex of the Frenchies was well placed) The second section was beyond any doubt my favourite. The title (playing upon reference to the Vagina and comparing to a cat) had me laughing, well laid out, and continuing to set up a good joke. The addition of the image of the spread leg cat was good at reinforcing the point of this paragraph. I was glad to see that the reactions to watching Kitty Porn was not a series of lists, and was clearly well thought of. Definitely an 8.5 in this department.
Concept:	9	As I pointed out already in Humour, you have clearly thought your ideas through, and filled in quite a couple of holes. While no idea is possibly able to be completely unique, I will say that you came pretty close to it. For the usage of terms and description: in depth, comprehensive, and detailed For the applications of Kitty Porn: Nice, believable, humourous How about a history? I think that you could squeeze it in without the article being too long!
Prose and formatting:	10	See the above image… I can find ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to criticise in this article, so I have no choice but to lodge this 10 firmly into your lap. An exception, the last paragraph seems a bit off (comma usage, tone shift, first person to third, just give it a quick scrub!)
Images:	8	The first image kicked the article off rather nicely, the cover actually made it look like the article was full of cat pornography, which really helped set the tone. The second picture (was that a stuffed animal or a real one?!) got me to laugh just based upon the captions, excellent usage and delivery, especially when used with the captions. The third picture is definitely in violation of the “No Shock Images” policy, but is hysterical for exactly that reason. The caption comparing “doggy style” to being innovated by Cats rather than Dogs was very good, nice, and hysterical. I do think, however, this image would look better on the right to draw attention to it before the rest of the article. The fourth image was, by the standard of the other images, a bit bland. Have you, perchance, ever seen a picture of a Siamese cat, the nude ones? I think that a picture of that would look a bit better because, frankly, you already have a picture of two cats (lions) mating. Try to work in a caption that fits in with the “Side Effects” caption.
Miscellaneous:	8.8	Avg’d as per Pee Review guidelines.
Final Score:	44.3	You, sir, are one sick bastard, and it’s freaking awesome! A question for you… are you just making this Pee Review request so you can nominate this article for featured? That is certainly where this article is! Alas, from my POV, EVERY article can us a bit of improvement, so here is what I have for you. Review the final paragraph Move the Lions to the right using this code ( |right ) Get a nude cat picture, it can’t be hard to find! Nominate this article for VFH… unless I get there first. See if you can shove in a history without using lists. If you can't, don't worry about it! Thank you for the EXCELLENT read, best of luck!
Reviewer:	Warm Regards, Javascap

GENIOUS!

“ You're certain that cats have been coughing up balls well before the French claimed to have invented oral sex. ”

Pasta of Muppets 23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Homonyms

I don't know why this page is protected, but there's a homonym problem in the last paragraph (your should be you're) and someone who's able should fix it.