Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Aerodynamic

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Aerodynamic

I came up with the idea, wrote about it and wonder what direction i should go in to improve the page. Thanks im Voraus.

TheGreenOne 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 7 This article provided me with a good read, I enjoyed your insightful wisdom under “The Basic Principle”, and I liked your jabs you made at Meteorologists using the whooshing sound around their house to judge windiness. Your attempt at saying that aerodynamics was also a bit humourous, but you were tripping over your own feet when you pointed out advantages rather then disadvantages.
Concept: 5 I am not really sure what to make of this concept. You did not leave much room for satire, and you are, from what I saw, trying hard to make puns from this concept. I would say that you could use an absurdity example to make your article a bit better (something along the lines of, I dunno, a computer coming out of a 53rd floor window)
Prose and formatting: 5 The text started off fine at the beginning, about average as to what I would have expected to have seen, but as you went on, it went downhill from there. The last section, in particular needs a lot of work. The list was tolerable, as you are listing questions, but some of them had NOTHING to do with the article in question. “Are you going to play Halo 3 tonight and kick some ass?”, as I mentioned, does not fit in at all.

A link check satisfied me, you have a decent amount of blue links, and not a single red link among them. The grammar check also came up ok, but Wikipedia is lowercased in the blue link. Your sentence structure is… sufficient to get the point across.

A little problem that I am noting here, you were talking about how if bricks were aerodynamic, all houses would look like airplanes. Problem is that no matter how aerodynamic a brick is, the house will not automatically become aerodynamic.

My final point for this section, almost the entire part of “Aerodynamics, Good or Bad?” was a run-on sentence. Consider adding a few periods.

Images: 6 I have seen that brick quite a couple of times already, and I really suggest that you make your own image of a brick from a different angle or something. As I really should have learned by now, once an image pops up too many times, it loses the kick. The second image does not make sense in its placement, because the link to Wikipedia is placed too low in the article. The placement and timing of an article is very important, so either change the caption, or place a Wikipedia link somewhere.
Miscellaneous: 5.75 Avg’d as per Pee Review guidelines
Final Score: 28.75 This article definitely has a good start, and like anything, can use a touch of improvement.
  1. Move the Wikipedia link to work a bit better with the picture.
  2. Work on that list, either remove it or tweak it (preferably option 2)
  3. Fix the run-on sentence in “Good or Bad?”
  4. Cite disadvantages if Aerodynamics are bad, and Advantages if they are good.
  5. Optional:Find a different brick picture.

I would say this article has a nice headstart, and I applaud you on that. Keep it up!

Reviewer: Warm Regards, Javascap

</div>

Personal tools
projects