Illogicopedia:Review/sheela na gig

See here for the review index.

sheela na gig

Please review this. I havent had a feature in a while |Fonchezzz| Quacking| 20:54, 15 Aym 2008 (UTC)

Concept:	4	Never heard of it, thought it was some nonsense word until I found out about her checkered past on the logical Wiki, needless to say I would be pretty shocked if I stumbled upon this thinking it was just the former 'o_o
Execution:	4	It's short, and too, ermmm... "grown-up" for personal taste. I like the birth description as it is, but the bully parts should have more science babble and stuff about how the statues were preserved and why they are so popular, maybe why she is smiling in some of them... Then I think you should talk more about Sheela's current life, what it feels like in my shoes, if she is enjoying the fame she got from being plastered on brick walls, etc...
Grammar and Formatting:	5	You forgot to capitalize "birth", left extra spaces after that section, and the pictures look messily put on.
Images:	2	Again, they seem thrown-on and are also rather disturbing O.O, read: "grown-up"
Miscellany:	3	This is kind of pushing decency, I haven't been around for quite a while but this is on a different level than PENISPENISPENIS entirely, and even that was causing a bit of controversy during my main time here.
Final Score:	18	Sorry, but I don't think this is good right now, if you decide to work on it more I think you need to take away the big vagina pic or at least cushion it with cleaner stuff. Also, remember the formatting errors!
Reviewer:	Mr. Briggs Inc. 23:29, 16 Aym 2008 (UTC) Eh?

HAHAHAHAAA this is funny. Thanks though. And uhm. I think you check out some past features. then youll see what some things counted as feature worthy. Really this isnt as bad as you think. --|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 14:58, 17 Aym 2008 (UTC)

Like really. look at DA DA DA--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 15:00, 17 Aym 2008 (UTC)

To be honest Dad Da Da is the only unworthy feature there is really. And that's because it was randomly selected to test if the feature system worked, so yeah. Point disproved :P --Testostereich • (ballsack) 16:14, 17 Aym 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Wasnt around back then. Still, some of those are not worthy.--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 22:01, 17 Aym 2008 (UTC)

That's a little harsh. I'll admit it's likely not every feaure is "great", but obviously enough people thought so to feature it. This whole conversation is based on opinion, which as a general rule, deems the debate redundant. In short, there is technically no unworthy feature, seeing as no one cheated. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 22:06, 17 Aym 2008 (UTC)

That means.... I have hope!!! Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:54, 17 Aym 2008 (UTC) Eh?

What do you mean you have hope. 'course you do, everyone does. Your articles are generally quite good anywa, or are you angling ofr a nom? :P --Testostereich • (ballsack) 23:30, 17 Aym 2008 (UTC)