Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/500 ft tall turd monster

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(0|{{#ifeq:{{#rpos:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|(}}|-1||{{#rpos:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|(}}}}}})
 
Line 5: Line 5:
 
Put comments, requests, etc below this line - or even delete this whole part. -->
 
Put comments, requests, etc below this line - or even delete this whole part. -->
   
I took this article when it had an expand tag. Used to be some kind of weak parody of star wars/scarface (I think), I turned it into an article about the creature basing it off several wikipedia dinosaur articles. Looking to see if there is anything else needed and if there are enough jokes that stand on their own or if it needs more humour injected.
+
I took this article when it had an expand tag. Used to be some kind ofhttp://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page weak parody of star wars/scarface (I think), I turned it into an article about the creature basing it off several wikipedia dinosaur articles. Looking to see if there is anything else needed and if there are enough jokes that stand on their own or if it needs more humour injected.
 
[[User:Sequence|Sequence]] 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 
[[User:Sequence|Sequence]] 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
   
Line 11: Line 11:
   
 
{{Pee Review Table
 
{{Pee Review Table
|Hscore=
+
|Hscore= 7
|Hcomment=
+
|Hcomment= OK, you obviously intend that humour be derived from the encyclopedic tone in describing something ridiculous (see my comments on the tone below) and I think you do a very good job with this. The reason that I have knocked your score down to 7 is because the jokes are few and far between in this article. Even when you are describing something completely ridiculous you should be aware that, as the article goes on even the ridiculous can stagnate into the normal. While you have done a superlative job being serious about something silly you still need to find another way to hold the attention of your reader. You should browse through [[Uncyclopedia: How to be funny and not just stupid|HTBFANJS]] if you can't figure out what to use to make the reader laugh. The score is a bit harsh but you need to be aware of how much a humour deficit means to a large number of people.
|Cscore=
+
|Cscore= 10
|Ccomment=
+
|Ccomment= Your tone is fantastic and is one of the best examples of the encyclopedic tone I have seen used in an article. It is just like reading an article on wikipedia, and mid-way through I forgot I was reading an article on here, well done.
|Pscore=
+
|Pscore= 8
|Pcomment=
+
|Pcomment= Your spelling and grammar are acceptable, though there are some errors frequent enough in their occurrence to damage your score. Make sure you proofread thoroughly and carefully after any additions or minor edits. Make sure when you do proofread that you are using the correct words in the correct context. Also, your grammar is confused in parts and you should be sure to focus on this when you are proofreading. Your formatting is OK, the info box works well with the article and should definitely be retained, your formatting crowds in places, but not very much and you are alright without doing much to it. The images are fine for the amount of text. Bottom line here, sort your spelling and grammar out and deal with some tiny formatting difficulties.
|Iscore=
+
|Iscore= 9
|Icomment=
+
|Icomment= Your images are good and the one of Ayers rock has a particularly amusing caption. The only image I wasn't totally satisfied with was the first one in the info box, I realise Googling for "Giant turd" isn't a safe way to spend your time so I would recommend doing something similar to some of the other pictures. Otherwise no problems here, your captions are well written and save otherwise less than satisfactory images.
|Mscore=
+
|Mscore= 9
|Mcomment=
+
|Mcomment= My overall grade of the article.
|Fcomment=
+
|Fcomment= Overall I was pleased with this article, the tone was one of the best I have ever seen and your humour just needs touching up in the correct places. As an aside the article may prove too long for some, but do not feel compelled to edit it down because of that. All in all you should be pleased with this one and I hope to see more of your work in the near future. Good luck with any edits and well done.
|Signature=
+
|Signature=--[[User:ChiefjusticeDS|ChiefjusticeDS]] 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 
}}
 
}}
   

Latest revision as of 17:31, August 2, 2009

FAQ

edit 500 ft tall turd monster

I took this article when it had an expand tag. Used to be some kind ofhttp://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page weak parody of star wars/scarface (I think), I turned it into an article about the creature basing it off several wikipedia dinosaur articles. Looking to see if there is anything else needed and if there are enough jokes that stand on their own or if it needs more humour injected. Sequence 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got this one. --ChiefjusticeDS 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 7 OK, you obviously intend that humour be derived from the encyclopedic tone in describing something ridiculous (see my comments on the tone below) and I think you do a very good job with this. The reason that I have knocked your score down to 7 is because the jokes are few and far between in this article. Even when you are describing something completely ridiculous you should be aware that, as the article goes on even the ridiculous can stagnate into the normal. While you have done a superlative job being serious about something silly you still need to find another way to hold the attention of your reader. You should browse through HTBFANJS if you can't figure out what to use to make the reader laugh. The score is a bit harsh but you need to be aware of how much a humour deficit means to a large number of people.
Concept: 10 Your tone is fantastic and is one of the best examples of the encyclopedic tone I have seen used in an article. It is just like reading an article on wikipedia, and mid-way through I forgot I was reading an article on here, well done.
Prose and formatting: 8 Your spelling and grammar are acceptable, though there are some errors frequent enough in their occurrence to damage your score. Make sure you proofread thoroughly and carefully after any additions or minor edits. Make sure when you do proofread that you are using the correct words in the correct context. Also, your grammar is confused in parts and you should be sure to focus on this when you are proofreading. Your formatting is OK, the info box works well with the article and should definitely be retained, your formatting crowds in places, but not very much and you are alright without doing much to it. The images are fine for the amount of text. Bottom line here, sort your spelling and grammar out and deal with some tiny formatting difficulties.
Images: 9 Your images are good and the one of Ayers rock has a particularly amusing caption. The only image I wasn't totally satisfied with was the first one in the info box, I realise Googling for "Giant turd" isn't a safe way to spend your time so I would recommend doing something similar to some of the other pictures. Otherwise no problems here, your captions are well written and save otherwise less than satisfactory images.
Miscellaneous: 9 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 43 Overall I was pleased with this article, the tone was one of the best I have ever seen and your humour just needs touching up in the correct places. As an aside the article may prove too long for some, but do not feel compelled to edit it down because of that. All in all you should be pleased with this one and I hope to see more of your work in the near future. Good luck with any edits and well done.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects