From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vietnam War article.
It's funny, but this article scares the shit out of me. Like 1984, but weirder. --20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
edit From Pee Review
Hmm, yeah. What do you think of this? how can it be improved? (the usual stuff). Anything is welcome. Thanks —Braydie at 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
|Humour:||4||So-so at this point. Captions are funny, and there are some chuckles, but there needs to be more.|
|Concept:||5||For a hoax article, detail is essential. Every paranoid machination should be inserted and described in the dryest tone possible. Talk more about how all this was pulled off.|
|Prose and formatting:||7||Writing and format are fine. No complaints.|
|Miscellaneous:||5||I like the footnotes.|
|Final Score:||28||Really, it needs to be longer. It's a good start -- I think the tone is just about right -- but make it sound more like a conspiracy theory, and get loony doing so.|
|Reviewer:||--Procopius 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)|
Thanks, (that was quick) —Braydie at 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Why has an article, which sucked a year ago (take note, 28 is NOT a good pee review score....) and has not been changed in any meaningful way, been AFD's and then featured? What is wrong with the Uncyclopedia community? Perhaps they should spend less time voting for articles that are good (clearly we are running out....) and more time writing articles that are good. The "top" humour wiki on the face of the planet, and the best we can offer is this school boy crap? I am losing faith..... 188.8.131.52 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with humour is that it is subjective, so what makes you laugh may not force even a titter from me. There are a lot of examples of articles that I would never feature that have made the grade, maybe that's because we cover a lot of tastes, who can say? Do you have a username, btw, your edits don't seem all that substantial for someone who has taken the time out to check the history of this article and to comment so passionately. --
Can we do something like "That's because it didn't happen." Maybe something in the third paragraph?
Hi, please add [[es:Guerra de Vietnam]] kthanxbai