From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 14:49, December 18, 2007 by Cajek (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
link score /50 user lowest score date comment
Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Meaning31MrN9000Images: 511/27
  • He had an idea about a fight between the dictionary and scrabble which sounded interesting, but I don't get it.
  • Famous people on what "meaning" means... hmmm maybe...
  • "fixed" the images. I liked the idea of just repeating the Indian too, but some people don't like that.
Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Meaning40LauttaholicProse: 711/29
  • Repetitive, Repetitive, Repetitive. MrN9000 thought it wasn't repetitive ENOUGH with the Scrabble jokes.
  • Add "Demeaning", "Meaning" as in average.
  • Something's wrong with the formatting.
Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Meaning38.25Under userImages: 712/1
avg = 36.4 --- lowest = 6.3

Humour: 7 Hea! Actually Some nice jokes and clever ideas in there! I particularly liked the "scrabble" theme which you have going on, I'm not sure you can over play that one too much here! Add more of it! Maybe you could use the "dictionary" in a similar way? Have a battle going on between the dictionary and scrabble. Meaning this "the job" of the dictionary after all...
Concept: 7 Well it does not really have much meaning this, but hea! So long as it's funny, no problems from me. No seriously there is some clever word play in there, and you have taken advantage of a lot of the possibilities. How about various famous people giving their definition of "meaning", obviously don't just choose the obvious figures, what would God define meaning to be? How about the Wikideia? I'm sure you can take the wiki entry on this one, and do some seriously good miss information here!
Prose and formatting: 6 The language you use is generally ok, and most of the time you keep it consistent in that its being told in the first person, rather than reading like an encyclopaedia entry, but in places this slips back and forth a little. I would like to see a bit more consistency here. Make up your mind if its an encyclopaedic thing or "it's told like a story" and stick to it. I think you need to "tidy up" the sentence structure a bit as I think that in most places you could say what your saying with a lot less words. There are also a few places, where, you, have, a, few, too many commas! Try to sort this out. This would make it easier and more enjoyable to read.
Images: 5 I guess I did not get what your trying to do with the pics here. I thought you had something going on with the two pics of the "Indian" at the start, then... ??? Well kinda gets a bit random! Maybe that's the idea, but for me it did not work that well. Had it been me I maybe might have kept with the Indian all the way down, just having say some "wise words" or that sound really clever, but don't really tell you anything, then at the end for the last picture, make the reader think that he's going to actually tell you the real meaning of meaning, but then have him say something like, "Hea, don't ask me, I'm bloddy shit at scrabble". Just my 0.5 pence worth.
Miscellaneous: 6 (Averaged out)
Final Score: 31 Generally, I think you have a good idea, but there is a lot more potential here. It also needs a bit of tidying up and some more structure here and there. If you fancy doing it, I think your onto a winner. Hope you don't think I'm being mean! Go for it!
Reviewer: MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Humour: 8 I laughed out loud numerous times. The Scrabble references, though repetitive, added to the charm of the article. Outside of that, the circular definition of meaning, though repetitive, is a nice touch. I'd keep most of the jokes right where they are.
Concept: 9 With such a simple concept, you expanded on it very nicely. There are a few different avenues you could go with the wordplay, though. Meaning as in averaging (not to be confused with medianing), Demeaning ... not sure where you could go with that, but a play with definitions to say the least.
Prose and formatting: 7 A lot of people don't like first-person articles, but I think that works with this one. Formatting could use a little work with your images of meaning at the beginning and end (it's cutting off some of the text; not sure how to help you with that). As far as prose goes, I think there's a few tweaks needed. I saw a few passive--well I'm not going to get into semantics. Needless to say, I'd be more than happy to help you with prose. It's what I do best!
Images: 8 I wasn't really sure what you were trying to do here until I got halfway through the article. Repetitive, but once again, it works. Definitely better than the last versions I saw.
Miscellaneous: 8 I took the mean.
Final Score: 40 A really well-written article. A few tweaks on formatting and I think you have a keeper on your hands! Ironic that I used the phrase "though repetitive" three seperate times, isn't it?
Reviewer: El Jefé de Pancho 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, big early morning mug o' tea to hand, and I can't muster the energy to fix the ceiling - this one's mine, people... --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 09:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Humour: 8 Tough call, this. I like it, and there are, as ever with your stuff, some inspired moments. I like the way you include multiple "definitions" and don't come close to defining it, I also like the line "soiled my pants with feces of enlightenment" for some reason. But overall, I think it needs to come together just a little more, and I think I'm going to struggle to explain just how in the comments below. Still, I'll give it a shot!
Concept: 8 An interesting take on it, I think. The Scrabble thing helps, but it needs to be finely judged to avoid overkill. And the Indian guy feels good too. Comments below.
Prose and formatting: 7.5 Well done, in the main. I couldn't see any real problems with the formatting. Maybe a few lines that need a fix-up, but I'd wait until the article is finished, and then get someone like me or Lauttaholic - seeing as he offered - to have a quick whisk through with a proofread brush.
Images: 7 Ah yes, you and your interesting images... Right, I think the image has the right level of 'fake mystic' to work, my thoughts here are concerned with the captions. If you're repeating the pic all the way down, I think it needs to be captioned well to work. Either start every caption with "Wise Man Say:" or similar, or have the first one clearly state the wise man will help define meaning for you - that way, I think it would work a little better, explain why the image repeats, and so forth. Then the build up to the last one might work slightly better.
Miscellaneous: 7.75 Hnng.
Final Score: 38.25 This is a tough one to review, because I like the article, and it made me laugh, I just want to see it come together a little more, gain that crucial X-factor. And trying to help you do that is tough when it's a darn good article already. Still, I'll give it a shot in the comments below.
Reviewer: --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

First up, the intro. I think you spend a little too much time on Scrabble here, Just drop it in once or twice at the start, then the way it keeps creeping back on over the rest of the article betrays the writer's true focus - don't show your entire hand straight away. The repetition works well, and is a useful device for the humour of the article, but don't overplay it early. Maybe calm it down a little at the end of the first definition as well - build it up a little more subtly? Just a thought.

Next - the fourth definition doesn't really work for me yet. Fine idea, but - well - the word you're defining there is demeaning. So I think you need to specify the definition here as being the opposite of demeaning (not literally - I can't be arsed to come up with a definition) and then explain that the opposite of this is de-meaning, and then continue with what you have there. Saying it's a definition of meaning and then going straight in to demeaning doesn't feel quite right here, to me. Hope that makes sense!

A thoughts about dictionaries and such: There is an official Scrabble dictionary. Some of the words in it aren't in regular dictionaries, and hence have no definition that can be found. Does this mean they have no meaning? So can you use words in Scrabble that have no meaning? So what's wrong with the word I just made up that had a Q and a J in it and was on a triple word score? Does the Scrabble dictionary contain the remaining few of the made up words you allude to at the start? Does this prove that Scrabble is a stupid game and can we just call it a draw please? I don't know - if you mention dictionaries, you may want to consider that.

Don't make it too much longer - the length is about right. Don't try to add more definitions of meaning - maximise the effect of the ones you have already.

Oh, and link to Scraggle. That would improve any article that has anything to do with Scrabble. Or maybe it's just one of my articles that doesn't get out much and would like some company. Actually, ignore this.

Basically, I think it's a very good article, and it made me chuckle. It also made my tea go cold, as it's taken me so long to try and give a really constructive review. I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're after, but I hope it helps. If you want me to try and explain myself a little more, give me a shout - although I can't promise to respond straight away!

Good luck as ever. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools