I like this one and I think it's pretty close to being what I want it to be, even though it's concept is self-referential humour. Pupt 05:32, 24/07/2009
Bounce, bounce, bounce, CRASH!! Fear not citizen, Chief has arrived.--ChiefjusticeDS 08:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that you have had a good idea with this UnNews article and you have actually made an effort to give it some kind of grounding in fact. I particularly like the open letter at the bottom article which parodies the one from Twitter in a particularly pleasing way. What I feel is holding your article back right now is the execution of the humour in the rest of the article. You are trying to encourage the idea of things that would otherwise be abhorred being desirable on Uncyclopedia, obscenities specifically, however the way you are doing so leaves something to be desired. Personally I feel it requires some evidence for your side of this argument; if you are going to argue against censorship then why not include some kind of fictionalised example that has been censored. You could also include statements from users. Try and follow the example of an actual request for signatures in an actual newspaper or news website. These sites always include 'concrete' evidence for what they are arguing for, if you could do the same but regarding obscenity I think you could pick up a few laughs before the Open Letter actually begins.
I like it, but according to critics of my reviews I like far too much, so I hate it... but not really. You are really picking up a good tone for UnNews and it feels a lot more like reading an actual news article. Your problems are not all encompassing but occur occasionally where you just need to tighten things up. Remember that while the article should appeal to the reader you should make sure that you don't go too far down that road, the article is still making a point and appealing to the reader should revolve around this, not the other way round. This is far less serious than I make it sound but it's worth tightening it up. But, as I say to most people, on VFH tonal consistency and literary practice in different contexts fall by the wayside as people ask themselves "Is it funny?" so I wouldn't lose sleep over this.
Prose and formatting:
Disappointing, as you are usually quite tight on this. I was surprised to find several errors, but I do read your comments and you say you don't proofread before submitting for review, questionable practice, but I will point out a few errors for your benefit. Make sure you are using constructing sentences properly, basic, but easy to do when you are revising your work, get your tenses right, and, don't footnotes usually go at the bottom of the page rather than the section? You have plenty of images and your formatting is disgustingly OK.
Can't find anything to criticise you for here, the images are fine and they made me laugh. I quite like the idea of telling the story in pictures so idiots can join the cause too. The images are relevant and compliment the text very well. Nothing in need of a change here.
My overall grade of the article.
Another solid piece of work from you POTR, some minor difficulties in need of a second look, but this article does seem to have a lot going for it. A bit of work and perhaps some expansion for the sake of humour and you may be onto a winner here, though something does nag at me suggesting you may not do too well on VFH with this one. Maybe after some changes. Good luck with any editing.