Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/All of the Above

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit All of the Above

Help me out here. I haven't been featured in months, and I'm Jonesin' bad. Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 7.5 Alright, I'll go by section:
  • Intro: 6
    • The concept seems weak here. It seems like you're relying too heavily on the gag without making any actual jokes, or if they're there, there are too few of them. I noticed that there was a marked difference in "all of the above" density between this section and the rest of the article. Try extending it and not making anymore gags. In fact, try making those better. Perhaps rewrite the top section without any and then add them in post-writ.
  • How to etc: 7
    • You're starting to get more into the actual jokery of the article, though it still is a bit slow to start. I think this may be inevitable, so don't stress over it too much. However, the second paragraph delves right into the variation that I love to see. Greek philosophers are always a favorite addition, especially because it doesn't use them to sound pompous. Good, if a little short. Maybe try including "contemporary thinkers" like Isaac Newton or Dmitri Mendeleev.
  • Variants: 9
    • You get right into the absurdist humor, and I absolutely love it. "This is often an improvement on All of the Above since: a) there is no need to specify which two of the three are correct, b) it is easier for the teacher to think of two plausible sounding statements than three, c) if you leave a banana in the fridge for too long, it will turn into a zucchini, d) any two of the above." was an LOL moment for me. None of the above threatens to be weak, but you pull it off, partially because you have it at a perfect length. All of the below was just brilliant. "Some of the above, maybe, I don't know" could use an example of a question, perhaps as its sole contents. As it reads it seems like you're just throwing it in. The last subsection is excellent as well.

Then it just ends. It lacks a proper ending, which detracts from the article as a whole. Just some sort of conclusion is preferable to nothing. As an average, the Hscore would be 7. I'm adding .5 'cause you've got a pretty face.

Concept: 8 I absolutely loved the idea when I saw it on recent changes, and now it's still pretty good. It may have been executed as a one-trick pony by some, but you pulled it off deftly. Just see above.
Prose and formatting: 8 Prose needs no help.

As for formatting, it's just too much text. As will be elaborated upon below, there aren't enough images. Also, you may want to consider merging a couple of the "Variants" subheaders, perhaps by combining some of the shorter-ish ones under one thing called "a) Other Minor Variants b) Runts of the litter c) The writer got lazy d) All of the above". This would mitigate the need for the expansion mentioned above.

That doesn't exempt you from a conclusion. Sorry.

Images: 9 What's there is excellent. However, as I mentioned above, there is something of a shortage of images and whatnot. There's just a bit too much dead space between John Keats and the metahumour. Yeah, I reverted to your spelling for this review.
Miscellaneous: 9 It wuz gud!
Final Score: 41.5 It's pretty cool to be reviewing something by someone as venerable as Cap'n Ben. Here's hoping I don't alienate one of the people whose articles I read as a noob to spring upward.
Reviewer: Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Good suggestions, and I will be making editing the article in line with them. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools