i appreciate it, guily, but you reviewed this very article two weeks ago. i'd like to get the input of another editor. if you've got some quick thoughts, then by all means leave them on the talk page. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph gets off to a good start with a reference to a "Tibeten Titanium Tree", which made me crack a smile, but then in the next paragraph, you start out by messing up your own plural form "Cacux" With "Cactusses". I liked the idea of cactusses (cactux?) being a tool for six year olds to show arid climates, but the first picture and its description just didn't gel quite right with me. Though, the main problem I had with the article was the third body paragraph, which was kind of a let-down. It didn't really accomplish anything, and wasn't terribly funny. In fact, the whole article seems to run out of steam midway through. The footnotes are rather humorous, but otherwise, it just seems to peter out, with the sole exceptions of the third picture, which cracked me up.
It's a fairly good concept, but not one that's terribly clever. I think you've done most of what you can with the basic idea.
Prose and formatting:
Your prose flows well, but there are some instances where it's a bit rocky. You should probably change your "Cactusses"/"cactux" thing as well.
Your first image was "alright" your second was mildly humorous, and your third was good. Maybe you could change the caption on the first picture?
Overall a good article, but not one i'd nominate unless it got some serious revisions.
Drive by: Hum, way to miss the point, I think - FWIW I liked the fun you had with the cactus pluralisations, and enjoyed the article as well. A decent idea and pretty well executed, I'd say it has a fair chance on VFH in this state, although as you know I've been wrong before. --UU - natter20:55, Mar 30