Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Aqueduct (2)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Horace Donald Westenchester 18:53, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I got this. --—John Lydon 15:59, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||I'm actually a little bit frightened by your extensive knowledge of all things aqueduct related. This article has an overwhelming amount of facts and I think I actually learned something. I wasn't sure how I felt about that. Now that we have that out of the way, let's get to it.
I really enjoyed the way you opted to go more of a serious route in this article instead of the oh so common, dare I say, overused method of random silliness. It was actually very refreshing to read and definitely makes your article stand out. Unfortunately there is a draw back to that writing style. The humor tends to be spread a little thin except in rare cases. I'm definitely not suggesting that you go crazy and start throwing Chuck Norris facts or Russian reversals into your article, but I do think you need to focus on some areas where you can spice the article up a little. The humor you do have is good, but I noticed a few spots where opportunities were missed. For instance, in the first paragraph, you have a lot of factual history type stuff and not much in the way of humor until the mountain goats part. The first paragraph is crucial because that's usually all the average reader looks at before they decide if the article sucks or not. Unlike you, my knowledge of aqueducts is limited to what I just read in your article, so I'm having a tough time coming up with suggestions to improve the humor. Maybe you could add a little something about why aqueducts were created. Maybe something about some crazy Roman emperor guy wanting to be able to hold wet T-shirt contests or have a freshly brewed cup of coffee in the morning. If you could open with a humorous paragraph or two like that, I think you would grab a lot of readers attention.
I felt like the rest of the article had solid humor mixed in with good writing. My only other real complaint is the last paragraph. You wrote the entire article from a fact based, dry humor style, and then in the last paragraph, you hit the reader with walking mushrooms and piranha plants. Why? Random humor can be funny but the way this just gets sprung on the reader tends to cause more confusion than anything. I would highly recommend cutting out the parts about the mushrooms, piranha plants, and the flame thrower. The rest is pretty good stuff on its own. You have a solid paragraph without all the random stuff, so I'm really confused as to why you threw it in. It almost feels like it was written by someone else. But enough about that. Overall, I think your humor is very solid throughout the article, except for the beginning and the end.
|Concept:||6||I have to say, I am nothing short of amazed that you were able to take a subject like aqueducts and turn it into an article at all. But you actually went one step further and wrote a fairly solid article at that.
The only reason the score reflects the way it does is because I really can't see a whole lot of people getting pumped to read an article about aqueducts. It's definitely original, but I just don't see it being a big draw. But you did do a solid job of creating a very good article about the topic.
As I said before, my knowledge of Aqueducts is extremely limited so I can't really throw out a lot of ideas for lengthening or improving on what you already have. I would like to see some crazy interpretation of why aqueducts were invented, but it would have to fall in the same factual style as the rest of your article does.
|Prose and formatting:||8||Spelling and grammar were never my thing, but from what I see, you don't have any problems in that department. I think the layout is fantastic and there really isn't much to harp on there either. I'm not sure about the quotes at the beginning though. I've never been a big fan of quotes in articles and I really think that with the sort of school book, factual writing style you've chosen, they really clash with the rest of the article. But that's just me. It's your article, so if you like them that's that.|
|Images:||9||The images were very well done. Many times authors try to force a funny image that has nothing to do with the subject into an article just for the sake of humor. What they should do is find a relevant image and try to find a way to use it humorously (is that even a word?) Which is exactly what you did. The first two images are bland at best but the captions actually made me laugh. Very well done. The last two images are a stretch but they do have nudity so they receive a pass. In all seriousness, they are pretty decent as well. I definitely think the images are one of the strongest parts of your article. Kudos, bravo, and other accolade type words.|
|Final Score:||36.3||Over all, this article is just a spit shine away from being VFH material. It's well written, flows nicely, and has solid humor. The two biggest factors hurting this article are the opening and closing. If you can spice up the opening and tone down the closing, there's no doubt in my mind that you'll have a winning article on your hands.|
|Reviewer:||--—John Lydon 22:44, July 16, 2010 (UTC)|