Talk:Screaming Lord Sutch

Possible redirect

I saw SPIKE take you to task over the title to this, I think both are ok. One solution is to make a "Screaming Lord Sutch" page again, and instead of writing anything in it, put the following code:

#REDIRECT [[Lord Sutch]]

This means that anyone who searches for Screaming Lord Sutch will see the name appear, and it will be redirected right to this article. I did the same thing with my Pope Francis I article. Leverage (talk) 10:33, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

That is an unobjectionable solution; but do people over there actually refer to him as "screaming Lord Sutch" often, and consistently enough, to justify it? Spıke Ѧ 12:37 4-Apr-13

Yes! I would say it's actually less common to refer to him as Lord Sutch. The parody experts at Wikipedia have him as Screaming, too. Leverage (talk)

Here's the wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screaming_Lord_Sutch Al 13:04 4-4-'13

Thanks. I'll do that. By the way I got this page reviewed but the reviewer didn't understand that Lord Sutch is a real person and so didn't get the joke. To solve this I added in a Wiki link so people can see the wiki page. ScottPat (talk) 07:16, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Well that happens here, not everyone gets everything. I agree about the list stuff - try to clump things together under sub headings, I see a few that could go under foreign policy, and convert it into prose. Maybe have other policies as the last sub heading, for a few of the non-specific ones. I would read through the whole thing again, out loud too, cos there are a few typos and a few full stops in weird places. And finally, I would avoid the "Quote" template for the quotes surrounding his death, it doesn't look very encyclopaedic. Maybe pad that section out a bit with some made up stuff about with more details of his death, funeral, family left behind etc. Leverage (talk) 10:01, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ScottPat (talk) 10:54, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

The Pee Review of this Page

Humour:	6	This article is about political parties in the UK, of which I know next to nothing about. Thus, I don't understand several of what are probsbly insider jokes here. Still, there are some jokes here that I found funny, such as making the political party and the person sound ridiculous.
Concept:	7	Articles about fictitious persons have been done before, but this is the first one I've seen relating to a Lord in Parliament at the UK. I'm giving you credit for some originality here.
Prose and formatting:	5	Your article is rather listy - we discourage lists here, because anyone can come in and add something to the list that was never intended to be there and doesn't add to the humor. Lists tend to be magnets for old memes and cruft.
Images:	8	I love the image you put here - it is silly and fits the article well. The caption is great, too. I just wish there were another image or two here.
Miscellaneous:	6.5	Could use some improvement, but not as bad as some articles I've seen. On the whole, an average Uncyclopedia article.
Final Score:	32.5	I hope to see more contributions from you in the future - keep working, you will only get better!
Reviewer:	-- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 19:17, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

This is the pee review I got for this page. Notice in the comments section: "fictitious people" "first one I've seen relating to a Lord in Parliament." As we all know Sutch was neither a proper Lord nor a fictitious character. ScottPat (talk) 07:21, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

You have done the one thing you must do: used the {{Wikipedia}} to add a box directing the uncertain reader to Wikipedia for more details. You might want to have a second one further down the page: {{Wikipediapar|Screaming Lord Sutch}}. (Pro-tip: Decide on the location of these either to align with good points in the prose, or simply to break up the text to make the page more pleasant for the reader.) Spıke Ѧ 12:20 5-Apr-13

Thanks for the advice I will do. Also to anyone reading this I have put this article up for review again. If you experience and/or knowledge of Lord Sutch please contribute with a review. I know it sounds like I'm being greedy asking for another review but I've just spent the last two days clearing out the reviews up to December 2012. Thanks. ScottPat (talk) 13:51, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Changes made to this page

Thanks for the changes to the policies. ScottPat (talk) 11:40, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

New Pee Review

Humour:	9	Very funny and there are not many points of possible improvement. I didn't get, for example, what was the point of 'his mother leaving him at the end of the hospital bed'? Maybe it can be improved to show the connection between this joke and his life? You can say that that is why he became so sensible in future (just an example). I think that, as the OMRLP is sometimes funny by itself, so you can write a little bet more truthful article. There are three sections in your article that look almost completely made up (2, 4, 5) Choice of "Policies" is awesome: very good humour and shows well the 'state of mind' of the party members. The satirical tone when talking about other British parties can be developped more, as what you have done already is brilliant.
Concept:	10	Excellent. But Uncyclopedia has an article about MRLP to which you have made a 'see also'. These two articles sometimes contradict each other, especially in history.
Prose and formatting:	9	Looks like a serious article except for some minor details. The Legacy is not very encyclopedic. Domestic policies: pronoun "we" used destroys the impression of a real article.
Images:	9	All images are perfect. The only problem is that comments can be made even funnier sometimes. "Ban Monday campaign" just shows what the image is about and so the comment is not funny The first image is good but is the same as the first image on the Uncyclopedia MRLP page.
Miscellaneous:	9.3	Average note.
Final Score:	46.3	Your most important problem is the quarrel between your article and Monster Raving Loony Party one. Except for this, everything else is only peccadilloes. I think that the article should be featured.
Reviewer:	Anton (talk) 11:55, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sir ScottPat UnS CUN VFH (talk) 12:29, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

The Proofreading Service has proofreaded your article. Like it? Need more proofreading? Click here!

Not too many problems here. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 22:27, May 12, 2013 (UTC)