Talk:Miracle Science

Is this for the PLS? Please say no, please say no --~  17:10, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I won't be writing anything for the PLS as I'm already a judge. Besides, I started writing this a couple months ago, so it would be ineligible for the contest anyway. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:14, 27 January 2011

What? No juggalo references? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:02, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

You mean the Insane Clown Posse? I could probably incorporate a link to Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work? and redirect that to Insane Clown Posse. Would that suffice? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:23, 28 January 2011

Not from Pee Review, because I got kicked out of pee review before I could finish this...

Humour:	8	The more I read this, the funnier it seems to get, so either I'm getting rapidly more tired or you're right about the subtlety being a major player here, or some combination of both or something. Still, I plead denseness, and you could spell some things out more, you really could. Mind, it also seems to get less effective as it goes, like there's less actually poking at the miracle science itself as it goes - you've done a little to improve that already, but that seems to be part of why the article feels so disjointed to me, as well. Especially in the beginning, you use reasons for things - scientifical reasons, or what passed for such at the given times, and mocked those, but then they get more and more vague. The individual jokes are rather solid, but without any of the scientifical babble that went into the earlier parts, it doesn't seem to fit as well with the overall joke. Perhaps if you do just keep it consistent to that, the disjointedness might be resolved already, as it not only wouldn't feel so much like you're just glancing over the entries by the end of the list, but perhaps they'd fit with the feeling of the beginning more. For now, though, I'ma keep insisting that this just seems to me as if it has two disjoint parts - the general history and the introduction, and the biblical whatnot. And your introductions are so cursory - first the introduction to the article as a whole and then the introduction to the biblical section. Elaborating in the article on what you mention in a couple of the image captions would help, but also say more what it even is? You say that Miracle Science is a method of replacing religious explanations with scientific, it is the main source of theories, and has nothing to do with psyeudoscience... and that's pretty much it, since the one saying what it covers is entirely redundant with the following section. But where does the 'miracle' part come from? Why is it the main source? Just how is it different from psuedoscience? Don't be so subtle, and perhaps say more outright that it's different because the scientific community says so? Subtlety is good, but too much and points will be lost. Granted, I am incredibly dense, but... yeah. And perhaps this is indeed not such a good idea, but a 'Miracle Scientific Method' could also help intrduce, or perhaps transition between the two main sections of the piece. A part all about the process that developed over the years, and not just "Describe what's happening and call it a law," but blow that up into some overcomplicated holy method that folks followed to the ends described here, in some overcomplicated and silly manner perhaps parodying the usual scientific method (though differently than MacMania did). It could work. It could also wind up repetitive of what you're already saying, but it might bear consideration. Whatever you do, I really think you need to tie it all together better, though. Make the biblical whatnot more clearly Miracle Science instead of just bashing the bible with somewhat spontaneous and silly science...
Concept:	7	Poor scientists. Still, a lovely notion and implementation, really, 'sides the stuff I mentioned above.
Prose and formatting:	8	Eh, decent, well written, fairly consistent tone, though it's not entirely clear who is writing this, as it reads like an outsider commenting on the scientific community without actually putting that to use. So why don't you? Some of it certainly does poke fun directly, but some of it is just like the writer is making it up himself and pulling in support wherever, when he could be more specific toward the scientists, if that makes any sense. Also, it's not too long; don't worry about that, even if this is the longest thing you've written here. Length isn't an issue so long as what is there is good, which for the most part, it really is. General rule, the more good, the better, so if you've more to add, shouldn't be a problem so long as it really is more and not just repeating what you have.
Images:	7	You know I love the images - not only are they decently high-quality, visually appealing graphics, but they also tie into the subject of the article rather excellently, making pretty effective jokes along the way. I showed them to mym mum, and she laughed, which is generally a good sign. The problem is, the first three could tie into the article itself better... or perhaps the article could tie into them, incorporate them more effectively, as that might not only be more effective, but I see little other reason why you would want to mess with such effective individual captions - I'm afraid if you did, the replacements wouldn't be so good. Take for instance the first one, the psychadellic colours - you say literally nothing about alternate perspectives of the world, looking at it differently so that it makes sense like through the 'Miracle Science glasses', in the body of the article itself, that I noticed... yet that's a pretty good point, in of itself. So why don't you mention it? Bring that up in the introduction, that they look at things differently, still beating around and not actually saying out loud that they are on drugs or anything, but more hints wouldn't necessarily go amiss. I rather like the second image, though. *shifty eyes* But that it says more about the big bang than the section on the big bang does, almost, is a little odd. The third image... so everyone involved was hallucinating? I guess it's really mostly just the first one; they get better after that, but do mind to what it is that they are tying in, eh? They're rather lovely, after all, so you may as well take them to their full potential, or some such.
Miscellaneous:	8	So I just had that notion about astronomy - not just astrology, which is indeed pseudoscience, but astronomy itslef is pretty miracle-sciency, too, when you get right down to it. I mean, think about it. Folks are basing all these crazy theories and whatnot off light. That's literally pretty much all they have to work with, and yet they use this light to say eveything from the age of the universe to the mass of Pluto... And they might as well be drugged, for some of the names they come up with. Not to mention historical folks I know nothing about, like those ones deciding everything had to be perfect circles because they liked circles, but whatever. I'm completely digressing; the article is goodish and stuff and here's a number. Ta.
Final Score:	38	Apparently I ramble even when trying to sum up and explain bits of an IRC conversation. Oh well. Here's the somewhat more cohesive version; ignore or use what you will. Dunno if this qualifies for a VFH self-nom, considering the guy locked me out of the actual review, but all my complaining aside, it's probably worth a nom already. I'm just fussy and like things to be perfect, whatever 'perfect' even is.
Reviewer:	1234 ~ 02:07, 30 January 2011