From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|This article was nominated for deletion on January 28, 2007.
The result of the discussion was 'Keep'.
edit From Pee Review
I didn't know what this page was about so I put this here, feel free to remove. —Braydie 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that this article on Sissy shows promise, but frankly all these "s"'s have fried my mind. Constructive comments sought - I really want this one to turn out well. Dame 01:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||There are good jokes. There are also some that are strained by the alliteration.|
|Concept:||8||Yes, we need an article on sissies. This is a good way to go about it.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||Dammit. Dammit, dammit, I hate to say this. It hurts me right in my crusty syntactical soul. But the alliteration wore me out. By the end I was finding it obnoxious.|
|Images:||8||That is a funny picture.|
|Miscellaneous:||8||I like this and want it to succeed.|
|Reviewer:||----OEJ 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)|
PP, I just...You see, I....dammit. Alliteration is fun. And in the article Alliteration it is entirely appropriate, even though any sensible ideas in the prose are nearly illegible behind the straining after words beginning with "a".
But here I would find a way to abandon it after the first section or so. There are screamingly funny jokes to be told -- "Some call this cruising; so where's the ship?" -- and the drumbeat of s-words hinders the clarity of the prose.
You could simply say, at the beginning of the second section, "But enough of the S's" and continue without the alliteration. Or you could be ornate and claim that Uncyc editors have rebuked the authors severely and threatened them with virtual decapitalization unless they dropped the awful alliteration.
Or not. It is entirely your decision, and as usual you have produced a funny, way-above-average article. ----OEJ 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)