Talk:Necrophiliphobia
Support Group[edit]
(This support group is for those suffering from necrophiliphobia and related complications, and has been formed for obvious reasons. Also note that sockpuppetry is encouraged. After all, why should you have to depend only on the support of others?) --ThisStatementIsFalse 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, My name is Constance and I am a necrophiliphobiac. --ConstanceFear 13:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Constance! --TheLivingDead 13:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind. --ConstanceFear 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(Well, that didn't work out so well. Maybe it will get better. --ThisStatementIsFalse 13:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
From Pee Review[edit]
Hello, just looking for anything to make this article better. I'm really excited about this article (no pun intended), and think it has some real potential. Should I keep the English Psychiatry Society thing, or is that more annoying than funny for UKers? Do you think there's too many quotes at the top? Any general ideas for improvement? Thanks. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | Not a great deal of jokes, but funny, idea-wise, which is probably the more important kind. |
| Concept: | 8 | I like it. Perhaps, it would improve it to make it clearer that, of course, there's nothing wrong with corpse sex. But the basic idea is a winner. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Prose is fine. Perhaps the 3 possible ways of accidental necrophilia should have its own section. |
| Images: | 5 | Needs an extra image at the start. Also, if you're going to have an image depicting hypnotherapy, then you should expand the hypnosis part of the article to more than one sentence. |
| Miscellaneous: | 4 | You were right in your intro. Cut down on the quotes (but keep the first one) and the English bit is a little annoying to this UKer. I don't find it offensive, it just lumps together posh and non-posh language, thus sounding wrong. Plus, it isn't really relevant to the article . |
| Final Score: | 31 | A few little improvements needed, but a good effort, overall. |
| Reviewer: | -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |
Brilliant[edit]
I wish I hadn't been so busy lately so I too could've helped this get featured. Congrats! This article is brilliant!--- Cheapinitreal (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
XD I think I'm getting a stiff XD --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 
11:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)