Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Anonymous-Asshattery Paradigm

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Anonymous-Asshattery Paradigm

So! I made some modifications to this since the last one. I've got a request up at UN:PIC for a new graph at the top; aside from that, what do you think? (Old Pee at Talk:Anonymous-Asshattery Paradigm.) --Contestant buzzer Contestant CUN -- VFH NotM Buzz Ctrbs 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Don't worry, I do good jobs sometime. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Humour: 7 On the whole a generally good read. I think the article is too short for the weighty academic tone you give it. Maybe give each level of anonymous asshattery an example?

Also, to increase the length, maybe you could add a section about previous attempts at determining the relation between anonymity and asshattery. If Al Gore's postulate is such a breakthrough, what were the problems with previous theories? You touch upon this subject in the Impact section, but I think it would do better as it's own section.

Eliminate randomness. What do Napoleon Bonaparte and Oscar the Grouch have with the Internet? If they're not relevant, they shouldn't be in the article, me thinks. This may require you to rework your Impact section.

Your conclusion is weak. It's too short and doesn't wrap up the article in a satisfactory manner. Maybe edit it so that it shows concrete results of Al Gore's postulate, like:

"Since the formulation of the postulate, sites with problems with anonymous asshattery have required more and more means of identification. While this has reduced the levels of asshattery, it has also reduced visitations of the site. While Al Gore's theorem is a breakthrough, it provides no insight into reducing the asshattery without detrimental side effects."

That's just an example. Use it, if you'd like.

Concept: 8 I've seen this floating around the Interwebs before. It deserves Uncyclopedic treatment, and I could see this being a pretty good article. With work.
Prose and formatting: 9 Your prose is fine and dandy. Your formatting is also fine and dandy. You're fine and dandy, too.
Images: 6 Your images are totally meh. I'd change that graph up there to look more interesting. Make the text in the picture bigger and change up the line to look more jagged. Maybe add colors. It's so drab right now.

Outside of that, you have an image of Al Gore and Napoleon Bonaparte. Your Al Gore image is fine. Like I said above, I'd get rid of Napoleon Bonaparte.

That means you need more images. I think an image of the Great AOL War of 2002 would be appropriate, maybe as a 404 error on a browser window. Add a hilarious caption like "The Great AOL War of 2002 left servers across the world decimated."

You should get an appropriate image for the Impact section. I am at a total loss of suggestions on that one.

Miscellaneous: 7.5 This section on the pee review table should be removed. Scores averaged.
Final Score: 37.5 The article has potential. It can, in fact, be a very good article. Just needs some more work.
Reviewer: Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools