I really like this article. The conclusion seems off, though. There aren't any pictures, but there probably will be by the time somebody reviews this. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 06:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
/me dabs sweat off of forehead! Okay, let me try this again. Now that I'm going to go over the article with a fine toothed comb, you may get a lower score for your trouble. -- Le Cejak•<-> 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
randomrandomrandom. Paul Eitranter? Arnold Lessener? Also, it only has one joke: that people who soapbox are annoying, which is true. Make the article shorter, I would say, by replacing the randomness. At first glance, it REALLY DOES seem random. Explain some things for me: Cicero-shamers?
It really is a simple formula, and we "get it" after the first two sections. Think about it this way: at the beginning, someone would say "Oh, yeah, that sounds dumb and interesting", but then the article comments on that comment by saying "this is a dumb idea, huh?!" Lots and lots of articles do that, which is why I VERY rarely give more than a 7. The part about putting family members in a soundproof box is more entertaining, however.
Prose and formatting:
Without pictures, it really is just a big box of text.
I know you put a request on UN:PIC, so I'm just imagining what that pic would look like. It would look like a wooden box in a room.
How was that? As an article, I would overall give it a C-, which is a 36/50.