Hopefully this doesn't suck. Maybe it does. That's what you're here for, though. Yeah, I'm a pee whore, now. - 00:33, Mar 26 Hey, I think you adopted me once. .../me holds breath... LED, IT'S ME, IT'S ME CAJEK, HI! HI, LED! Mar 26 (00:57) LED? Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...a long time... - 01:06, Mar 26
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pyromaniac
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Hopefully this doesn't suck. Maybe it does. That's what you're here for, though. Yeah, I'm a pee whore, now. - 00:33, Mar 26 Hey, I think you adopted me once. .../me holds breath... LED, IT'S ME, IT'S ME CAJEK, HI! HI, LED! Mar 26 (00:57) LED? Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...a long time... - 01:06, Mar 26
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Pcomment
| - The intro needs to be cleaned up. Get rid of those one sentence paragraphs, or integrate them somewhere else. Everything else seems ok though, as far as I can tell...
|
| Icomment
| |
| Pscore
| |
| Ccomment
| - A necessary article. A Led article. A good article.
|
| Cscore
| |
| Hcomment
| - Yes, it's me: The Awesome Cajek. We're studying pyromania in my criminology right now, and I want to see what my favorite Uncyc user has to say about the whole thing.
* Intro [8]: Definitely crazy, which is what you're going for. However, I could only give you an 8 because, although the intro sets the tone of the article, it is slightly awkward. I don't want to get too psych on you, but this article is starting to flip between someone who is defending fire as a right and a cleansing power and someone who simply wants to play with fire . I think that instead of saying "oh yes, oh yes" , you need to stay with the weirdo in Para 1 who is talking about cleansing the city. It would not be as coherent if it flipped between those two personas, you know what I mean? Oh man, I hope I made sense there. If you DO follow what I mean, get rid of the childish elements and the parts that don't really have to do with fire . If you DO NOT know what I'm talking about, forget it.
* 1 History [8]: Yes, parental viewpoint. It's more consistent and feels better than the first section, actually. I hate those one line paragraphs, they're kinda irritating. But yeah, above average job on this one!
* 2 Causes [8]: Sex! Sex with FIRE! to get a 10, add another paragraph of the same length. I wanna hear more about WHY this guy set his parents on fire.
* 3 Treatment [7]: I like the parental viewpoint, but this section is pretty short. This guy should be going on and on about how beautiful fire is, but instead he dispenses with it in a few sentences. I WANNA HAVE SEX WITH FIRE.
* 4 Associations with paranoia and bed wetting [6]: hmm. yeah.
* 5 Conclusion [7]: Expansion, please! I like it so far, and I like the switch from parental to childish at the end . This would be a good time to go more on the childish viewpoint.
|
| Iscore
| |
| Hscore
| |
| Fcomment
| - I don't think it's VFH worthy yet. Make it twice as long and THEN we'll talk! However, you're definitely on the right track. If you understand the parental-child thing I was talking about, I think it'll be easier to guide this article towards honors. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this, Led! Hugs! ...manly hugs.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Signature
| |
| abstract
| - Hopefully this doesn't suck. Maybe it does. That's what you're here for, though. Yeah, I'm a pee whore, now. - 00:33, Mar 26 Hey, I think you adopted me once. .../me holds breath... LED, IT'S ME, IT'S ME CAJEK, HI! HI, LED! Mar 26 (00:57) LED? Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...a long time... - 01:06, Mar 26
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)