Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Abnormality

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 06:36, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Abnormality

Simply put, "why does this article suck" and "what would make it VFH worthy" DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  13:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

Tell you what, I'll have a look. --UU - natter UU Manhole 19:55, Jan 9

Humour: 7 Ah, this is one of those articles that falls under the category a good read rather than laugh out loud funny. Now, there's nothing wrong with that at all (many of my favourite articles are like that), but it could mean it will find VFH going a little tricky. So what do I like about this?

Well, the misconceptions section is good, the picture helps provide light relief, and the section generally has a few giggles about it. I like it. Then there's the "Am I Normal?" test, and pretty much the rest of the ending. That's nice. Again, some good chuckles there, and it's good that it doesn't outstay its welcome - any longer and it would have dragged. No problems with these sections.

So what am I not so keen on?

The intro is quite dry - no real chuckles beyond a little creative linking. Now, often people will skim an intro and maybe scroll down a page to see if they think it's worth reading - a dry intro, followed by a longish section with no pics further down may well put them right off, and you'll lose readers, and possibly votes. Those who do read will be rewarded, but a more obvious crack in the intro, possibly about the "self-help" stuff that you refer to a couple of times, would probably help you there.

Then there's the "Your Brain" section, the meat of the article. This is oddly patchy, as some sections have little humour beyond the pun of the name (I do like puns though, so you got me there). It also seems, if you don't look more closely, to have little to do with abnormality - until you notice lines in some (not all) of the sections detailing the effects of abnormality in these areas. My suggestion here would be to change the approach slightly here - set them out in a similar style, with the explanation first, then a bold "Abnormality in this area causes:" with some amusing effects. Something like that, anyway. Give the reader something to look for, otherwise they may lose interest during this bit.

Concept: 9 Hum, interesting. Definitely an encyclopaedic article with much to recommend it. I don't really have much to add in this section, so I'll continue on.
Prose and formatting: 8 Formatting is fine, no problems there. Prose is mostly fine too, written in a style appropriate to the angle you've chosen, feels consistent throughout, good stuff. You'd have to be sad and picky to find fault with this.

Just a few little picky things from a really sad pedantic perspective then.

Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. "It's" is short for "it is", it does not indicate the possessive. That crops up twice in the intro paragraph and made me twitch. Sorry, I am that sad.

Under "dysfunction", "recently figured out how fucked up they are only yesterday" feels somewhat redundant, recently or yesterday, I'd suggest.

Also, I'd have thought the cockroaches in the "Celerybrum" section would be Madagascan, not Madagascar. Small but important difference.

Under "Cerealbellum", "preferring their product over the competition's" feels clumsy, "over that of the competition" would feel better.

Images: 7 OK, the images you have are good. They're nice and clear, well used, and the hand one is well captioned and got a chuckle (particularly as my own hand looks none too dissimilar thanks to the miracle of arthritis...). The bottom two could probably do with being in a thumb style with the border (not necessarily captioned, although it wouldn't go amiss).

The problem here keeping you from the heady air of a 9 or 10 is the middle section. In your Youth article, you sprayed too many of the things around. Here, you don't really have enough. I have a pretty odd resolution set-up on my monitor. If I can scroll for about a screen and a half's worth without seeing a pic, that's too much. You don't have to go for overload, but a decent distribution does wonders for an article, making it look more interesting and less off-putting. The whole section below the "this is your brain" image will put some readers off before they reach the end. And that would be a shame.

Perhaps a picture of the most incongruous use of sex to sell an unsexy product you can find (like the Simpsons classic "examine yourself for Ringworm") near the "Cerealbellum" section to illustrate the point about the shopping impulse, for instance.

Miscellaneous: 7.8 Averaged.
Final Score: 38.8 So, to answer your original questions, it doesn't suck, and it may play OK on VFH as it is. However, I'd suggest it'd play better with a few of the changes I've mentioned above. As it is - oh, you've self nommed. Well, I'd say a tweak or two would still improve your chances, as it's got one weak for, and my vote would be a pretty weak for right now too. Still, I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again, and a weak for is still a for, so it might make it without any changes, it's your choice.

Also, I'll just add two things about pee review: 1. A couple of weeks on the queue is not ages, one of my articles spent two months on here when I first joined. 2. You can always ask for a review - find a reviewer you trust, or an author whose work you admire, and ask 'em for a review (I asked The Thinker to pick up my first review after waiting for ages).

Finally, this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck!

Reviewer: --UU - natter UU Manhole 20:45, Jan 9
Personal tools
projects