Talk:Mountain Hunting
From Pee Review[edit]
What could this article change or add or whatever to make it better. All suggestions are welcome.--J. Fuckin Kyle (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
bumpzorz--J. Fuckin Kyle (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Great concept! Give it some more pictures for people like me who can't read or write.
--AmericanBastard 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have another picture and I guess that's all to make this article perfect unless anyone else has anything wrong with this. --J. Fuckin Kyle (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 4 | Diffuse humor: unfocussed and wandering. |
| Concept: | 7 | Hunting mountains is a fine concept. Alpinists "bag" mountains; some howitzers are called "mountain guns". The article to hand seems to think mountains are some sort of large mobile monster with blood and stuff. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | Not well-written. See endnotes. |
| Images: | 3 | Everest with triangle eyes and a scribbly mouth doesn't ring any bells for me. |
| Miscellaneous: | 3 | No internal links. No categories. |
| Final Score: | 20 | |
| Reviewer: | ----OEJ 00:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |
Have a look here: "This was done once when the mountain population began to triple human population of the area." What was going on here -- the human population tripled? Do you mean that the mountains somehow bred more people until they tripled the human population? Or do you mean that there were three times as many mountains as people?
We understand mountains to be piles of rock and, often, ice and snow. You have pictures of such mountains. But around the third section the article suddenly asks us to believe that mountains move around and bleed and stuff. You may have "mountain" confused with "Godzilla". This is a common mistake.
Look at this: "If you have a tank, then keep the mountain under fire until you can be hurt by the explosions the tank makes." Until you can be hurt by the explosions the tank makes? No. What you meant was "Keep firing until the tank shells injure the mountain."
There is an outside chance that this is meant to be an intentionally badly-written article, like Harridans. If that's the case then the bad writing needs to be funnier.
Just my opinions, of course. ----OEJ 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)