Talk:Ugliness

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ugliness article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

[edit] Pee Review

Humo(u)r:	6	The humor is really good, but I feel with a couple of improvements it could be put over the edge. I'd recommend toning down or preferably entirely removing the self-pity about the writer being ugly. Maybe add some medical jargon, increase the section on contracting ugliness, and prevention (or lack there-of). There's some randomness in the article which I feel hurts the cause and would best be removed, for example the Toys-For-Twats and the whole Support Group part in general could be reworked to play on real stereotypes. Suggestions could be Weight Watchers, Dungeons and Dragons, Nursing Homes, etc. Overall the humor is good, I think it could be made much stronger with one more rewrite.
Concept:	7	Great concept. The main thing which can improve it I think would be to focus the article's voice on the condescending, arrogant, pseudo-science personality and moving away from the self-deprecating part. As mentioned above I'd also recommend reconsidering the content of support groups.
Prose and Formatting:	8	Very well organized and constructed. Possibly a couple more footnotes, maybe in regards to Medical Journals.
Images:	8.5	Pictures and comments were priceless. The one thing that you might be able to add is perhaps a comparison chart between an ugly and beautiful person. The captions in particular though stand out.
Miscellaneous:	7.4	Avg'd your score
Final Score:	36.9	I think the article is very strong and shows significant work and effort. I think one more brush up would push it over the edge into VFH territory. I don't think either that it needs to be especially long, the length is pretty good now. Just a couple minor additions and reworking of some existing parts. I'll emphasize again though the primary concerns I feel would be too much randomness and the self-deprecating parts.
Reviewer:	Abraham 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)