Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Bible

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 16:28, August 8, 2009 by ChiefjusticeDS (talk | contribs)

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


edit Bible

Well? --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 19:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well indeed, I've got this one.--ChiefjusticeDS 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 8 I thought the humour displayed here was pretty impressive, and it is close to being as good as it can reasonably be. One of the few problems that hold you back is that sometimes the humour tries to go too far. If you are satirising a well-known work, regardless of it's real-life status, then you should stick to satirising what is actually there. It is better to say "Darth Vader ran the death star because he had the shiniest boots" because Darth Vader does run the Death Star and he does have shiny boots. But is would be pointless to say "Darth Vader ran the death star because he was the Emperor's whore and his price was to be allowed to run the death star". While the examples may not be at the apex of comedy the point still stands; if there is a quote or some material from the bible that would work you should use it rather than making things up. My second point regards some of your punchlines, while the jokes are very well formed and the premise is excellent, the finish is occasionally flawed. You should avoid including kitten huffing in punchlines and you should make sure that punchlines don't confuse the reader.

My final point would be to reconsider the Bible quotes in the Losers section. While these quotes are relatively amusing a couple veer too close to being pointless for me and should therefore be edited or rewritten. The section is generally fine, but some minor edits would make it infinitely better.

Concept: 8 The concept is very good and I have always liked the joke that the bible was intended to be a work of fiction. What loses you points here is your tone. While your encyclopedic tone is good in general you should make sure that it remains consistent throughout. This means that you should avoid expressing an opinion about anything. My recommendation would be to read the article very carefully and keep an eye out for colloquialisms, words like I, You and anything else that expresses an opinion outside a quote.
Prose and formatting: 7 Your prose are reasonable, though you should proofread again and make sure you have your spelling and grammar completed to a reasonable standard. Currently you are running into problems with tenses and, occasionally your syntax. What you should also do is look out for missing words, as words can easily be missed out when you are writing in full flow. Your formatting is reasonable though I would caution against the length of the preamble. Remember that this is the first thing readers of your article will see, huge blocks of text don't really make for a good time in the mind of the average Uncyclopedian. I would also suggest another image, the template doesn't really qualify and it would be nice to have an image in the later stages of the article. The sizes and formatting of the current images is fine and no work is needed there.
Images: 9 Your current images are pretty good and the captions are fine. The only thing that prevents you from scoring perfectly here is that your formatting needs some work and you need an extra one. I feel it is unfair to award a perfect score for images that have formatting issues so you score 9 for this one.
Miscellaneous: 8 My overall grade of the article
Final Score: 40 The article is pretty good as it currently stands and only a collection of minor issues prevent you from attaining a better score. What you need to do is simply apply yourself as you already have to the parts I mention above. If you have any queries or comments about what I have said in this review then feel free to drop by my talk page and let me know. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 16:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools