Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Balloon Animals (VFH Prep)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 19:54, March 23, 2009 by Gerrycheevers (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Balloon Animals

I have been noticing a little decrease on the amount of noteworthy content on the VFH page. So I am going through some of my old stuff and trying to improve some of it. Anyone can review this, even Projectmayhem seeing as you have improved your reviewing skills dramatically since I first had this up. ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is under review by
Gerry Cheevers.

Sayeth Gerry: shotgun!!

i swear to god i had an idea for this article come to me not two days ago. i see you have beaten me to the article. in retaliation, i will now review this article....muahahaha, HAHAHAHA, HAHAHA*coughhack* SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 6.6 average of sections
  • intro: 7

okay, a good start, i think i can see where you are going with this, and i definitely am drawn in and want to read more. one thing is that you have a ton of links in this paragraph, making it difficult to read. if you are indeed taking the track of 'balloon animals are real animals', then maybe make it slightly more obvious in the first few sentences.

  • the first balloons: 6

hmmm, the veiled references to sex seem a little immature, such as "the first to get it on." i really don't think they add much to the article. i think a little more detail about how the first balloons formed and how they first formed the first multi-baloon balloons would be good. i do like the way you're going about it, but more of an encyclopedic tone (rather then passages like 'All that simply happened, is that instead of holding one molecule of water, they held three' could sound much more professional).

  • age of the bloonosaurs: 6

okay, i really like the idea behind this section, but i'm not a big fan of the way you went about it. the balloon puns (jurplastic, bloonosaurs) get old rather quickly, and i think you'd be better off just dropping most of them. you say the age of the dinosaurs is one of the more popular eras...popular with who? the descriptions of dinosaurs and the theories on how they died out are good things to wrote about, but again, the sex reference feels a bit out of place.

  • birdoons: 8

ha, i really liked the bird balloons being filled with helium, that was great. i really don't see much wrong with this section, it's rather good. you say birds can pop easier, but then leave it at that. i think you can expand and throw in a few more bird jokes.

  • mamloons 6

well, i feel you could have ended more strongly. the tough skin is good, but i'm left feeling unsatisfied by your wrap-up. maybe describe the wide variety of mammal balloons and things of that nature. and once more, the sex referencs just seem a bit immature and really don't add to the humor of the article.

Concept: 7.5 5/5 points for a well-known subject worthy of parody.

2.5/5 points for execution. you had a great underlying idea and some excellent ideas to build off of it; i feel like you can turn this into an incredible article with the proper trimming and sprucing. the following is my opinion of how you would accomplish that. get rid of most, if not all, of the sex references that are thrown around; they often show up without any relevance to the section and don't help with the theme you're trying to stick with. try to go with the most professional tone you can: describing the history of the evolution of balloon animals is serious business. flesh out a few of your underdeveloped ideas, like the bird paragraph. i really think the whole 'mamloons' business and other balloon puns take away from the tone you're trying to convey; i think just 'balloon mammal' works better.

Prose and formatting: 6 your writing style is a bit inconsistent in places, try to be more encyclopedic. for example, starting the last paragraph with 'Finally, where we are now.' that's not a sentence, and it's the first thing in the section. your lead sentences should draw the reader in to each section. i feel you had too many links, and i've never said that before. cut back on some of the unnecessary ones. your formatting and paragraph breaks were fine.
Images: 8 a strong point. your captions could be a little better, but the images really drive home the concept, particularly the jurassic park one. i think you could add a bird image without cluttering up the article too much.
Miscellaneous: 7.1 averaged via magic
Final Score: 35.2 this is a good one. my preview button tells me that your finl score is 35.2, placing this right at 'adequate article' territory. faced with this on VFH, i'd say that right now i'd vote weak against on the grounds that it could use a good polish. however, with a little work, you could easily push through abstain terrotory and garner a for vote from me and enough other voters to make this a feature. i look forward to seeing a touched-up version of this sometime soon. good job and good luck.
Reviewer: SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects