Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/1,3-beta-galactosyl-N-acetylhexosamine phosphorylase

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit 1,3-beta-galactosyl-N-acetylhexosamine phosphorylase

“Is this "LONG CHEMICAL NAME: The sequel?"”
~ Cajek on this article, that I cannot be bothered to type out due to its length, ignoring the irony that this sentence is probably longer

Don't ask. Really. Don't. ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [17/07 20:19]

I'll piss on this--Sycamore (Talk) 20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were saving this for the PLS? I also didn't think Pee review was allowed. Or am I wrong somewhere? SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 21:14 18 July 2008
Nope, I had no intention of writing this for the PLS, thus I deliberately started it on the 12th. ~~Heeren ["Meh"] [tecħ] [kurk] [18/07 21:18]
Oh ok, well I wasn't paying that much attention. looks good, though I'll let sycamore do his thing. SK Sir Orian57Talk Gay flag RotM 21:27 18 July 2008
Humour: 6.5 Alright, would say that the whole thing does not work as well as it could. I think the focus on the actual Drug (the unpronounceable title) is a little off; you have a lot on the Host cooperation. For me I would choose a real life company, say like Unilever or Pfizer which has a wide reputation of this sort of abuse. I would take it more like a press report format wise. The encyclopedic look just does not seem as well suited. I would also bring in instances and cases quoting them with Cquotes for humour effect. And also a bogus analysis of the cases by he spokesperson, who could be identified as the narrator.

Throughout I would say that the article is consistent and reasonably well done, however none of the satire really jumps out - and it does not seem to flow as its all a bit in the air, I like the strike on we getting sued which is exactly the kind of unspoken messages these pharmaceutical companies give out - I would expand on this them in the "Galactosyl" section. Some of the other sections don't really come across as well, a good example is the "Betas" section, here there just isn’t really any humour, and some of the prose comes across convoluted i.e.

Cquote1 We have several quality control personnel, who work tirelessly to ensure that the nothing that we do is done to standards approved by the Procrastination Society. These people have been brought in especially, and we feel that this is their true calling, as they were rejected by all other posts that they applied for. It must be fate! Cquote2

This is a bit of a long sentence issue as well as a bit of a slow joke; it’s not quick off the mark.

Cquote1 We have the finest quality control within our company, they must be, we brought them in from Colombia and seem very professional. Cquote2

That for me is the kind of humour that sometimes works a bit better - and throughout is seems to be missing. I would normally go though sections individually, but here I feel most are pretty superfluous, most of the sections could be tagged with three === to keep the whole thing looking a little more balanced and would keep the whole article flowing a little more smoothly.

Concept: 6 The title for me is dodgy since I can pronounce it - However it's important to keep your ideas and thing. So I would personally move it to something like "The Report on 1,3-beta-galactosyl-N-acetylhexosamine phosphorylase" this immediately makes the piece seem more accessible. I really like the pharmaceutical company parody, and this is definitely an article to stick with - when it’s done it'll more than deserve a feature.
Prose and formatting: 7 Good, I mentioned the clunky jokes, you also have quite big paragraphs and it seems a little closed. Not many links/categories/images. I also mentioned too many sections which break the flow of the article, many of the ingredients seem related topics and don’t seem too integrated - some of the sections aren't too funny on there own either. I personally thing you could format this like a letter to the press/authorities - but maybe like a first draft written by Rick Mayal (I don't think that’s spelt right - the guy from Bottom)
Images: 5 For me this is a serious weak point, the first one looks too narrow and is a poor opener, the second one is a question mark - neither of the captions seemed too funny. I think these could be changed, there are plenty of pictures of Pills on the internet, or you could get something a little more themed at Radical X's corner - it’s worth spending time with these as I think that they will help open out the article a bit.
Miscellaneous: 7 Alright, I think with a bit of work this will be a really tidy article. I think it’s a question of spending time, although there are no glaring errors here, there just isn’t the time spent for glaring comedy - I think with a bit of patience this will work a lot better. Good stuff is always re-written, rather than just spontaneous.
Final Score: 31.5 If you need anything just leave a note on my talk page;)
Reviewer: --Sycamore (Talk) 14:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects