Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Solvent (2nd review and minor rewrite)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
silicson 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
On face value decent article. Formatting issues: yes. Please remove the Oscar Wilde quote...seriously. I'll finish reading it later b/c you did a good job at pulling me in with the introductory paragraph.Projectjulio 20:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
|Humour:||2||Hey, Silicson! I see you haven't made an edit to the wiki in a week, perhaps because no one will look at your fucking article even after a month of sitting on Pee Review. Well, I'll see what I can do to help.
Looking at it section-by-section:
Quotes: 4/10. These are a little confusing. The first once, I'm unsure whether the pun on the "solvent-solution" is intentional. I guess it is, but it doesn't strike me as that funny. The second one is a bit obnoxious. And there's no reason to attribute them to Jesus or Oscar Wilde. The attribution should have a purpose and not just be random.
Lede: 2/10. I'm absolutely bewildered by the lede. I understand that your concept is that a "solvent" is a problem-solver, but honestly, I otherwise just can't figure out what the lede is talking about. The prose is so weird, and so utterly littered with subordinate clauses, that reading it becomes like trying to hack through a jungle with a machete. Keep it simple!
The History of Solvents: 2/10. The problem with the prose continues, in that I cannot understand what the article is talking about. I just can't parse these sentences. It's supposed to be effortless to read a sentence and see what the subject, verb, and object are. Here, I practically have to pull out a sheet of paper and make a diagram, and by the time I unpack the sentence, I've forgotten what meaning I was even reading for.
Early solvents, early buggers: 2/10. Same problem: I do not know what you're talking about. Honestly, Silicson, the article has been so confusing up to now that I'd be extremely surprised if any reader makes it past this point.
Middle solvents, old discoveries: 1/10. This section is terrible. Not only is it semi-coherent, but the bits I can understand are either fart jokes or recycled Uncyclopedia in-jokes from 2005. Really, those have no place in almost any article.
Now and the future of solvents: 2/10. This one doesn't have the terrible qualities of its predecessor, but we're back to my not knowing what the hell is going on. I've just read five sections and I don't even know what the article is about.
Applications of a solvent (all sections): 2/10. It looks, for a moment, like this section is going to start actually making sense, but then it doesn't.
Solving: 1/10. Now, I'm staring at a picture of some actual solvents, which makes me think the article was supposed to have been aware all along of what solvents actually are. And the prose continues to utterly bewilder.
|Concept:||2||I honestly have no idea what the concept of this article is. The word "solvent" actually means "a liquid in which something will dissolve." Here, the word "solvent" means approximately "problem-solver," but beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what the article is about. And I just plain can't find any jokes or humor or satire in it. I read the whole thing with a confused look on my face.|
|Prose and formatting:||1||The prose in this article is utterly incoherent. It is a complete disaster. You should consider reading each of your sentences out loud as you type them. Consider this one:
Now, I can't even begin to understand what this means. I start by looking at "saying innuendo relieves you from the stress". So that seems to be like a noun clause, like "saying that abortion is morally correct will get you punched in the nose." But if it is a noun clause, where's the verb? There's no verb at all following that.
So I start over and consider that maybe "relieves" is the verb and that "innuendo" should be in quotes. But that would lead to a sentence about the consequences of saying the word "innuendo," and that's just ridiculous. That can't be what you're going for.
Okay, so I don't know what the subject of this sentence is. But apparently it "culminates" in saying nasty things to old people - perhaps nasty things about their "richness in experience," or perhaps "richness in experience" is supposed to explain why they're respectful.
So at the end of the day, all the information I get from this sentence is that it has something to with stress and the elderly. It's an unreadable sentence. I have no idea what it has to do with solvents, either real ones or the ones you're trying to make up for this article. It's gobbledegook.
And most of the article is like that. It's not even really English. It's something else entirely.
|Images:||3||I guess they're fine. I can't understand what they're trying to illustrate. They're a little small.|
|Final Score:||9||I don't know whether you're a native English speaker, but if you are, my advice is this: listen to yourself talk. Record yourself into a tape recorder or on the computer, even. And then type what you hear. Because if you speak English, you're capable of producing sentences in English - but that just hasn't happened here. Good luck!|
|Reviewer:||22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)|