Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Binary

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 11:45, August 4, 2009 by Nameable (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Binary

InMooseWeTrust 01:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing about Pee Review is that it's meant for articles that you write--not just random articles you find funny that you had no hand in creating. I'd remove this from the queue myself, but that's best left to either an admin or someone who frequents the Peeing scene more than I. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we had a discussion about PEE some time ago and decided it can be OK to submit articles written by other people onto the queue, true it is best to submit your own work as that way a reviewer knows their time is well spent, but other people's work is generally alright (though they may take it as a sleight on their writing ability). I'll take a look at this one, and if it needs reviewing then I'll do it.--ChiefjusticeDS 07:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
What Chief said. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 07:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol abstain vote As per chief. zh I hate me new sig 07:44 August 4
I'll do this one, thanks. Nameable mumble? 10:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 4 This isn't your work, obviously, but I'm just going to pretend that it is for the sake of this review. I don't quite know why I'm giving this such a high score. The article relies on one joke - writing everything in binary. And if I'm honest, that is nothing more than you would expect from an average Uncyclopedia article on binary. I also understand, through scrolling the extensive talk page, that it actually translates to something. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually translate to anything funny as far as I can see. Jokes about the reader being sad. She sells sea shells on the sea shore. A whole host of incomprehensible stuff. Great...Thing is, you have two ways you can take this. Either leave it as fully binary, but make it translate to something funny (i.e. So, you think you're clever, using the Internet to translate the binary? Actually, that is fairly clever. I wish I'd thought of that. This has taken aaggesss...). If you did that, though, please put a translation on the talk page. Or, alternatively, and this would be better, in my opinion, though you would be hard-pressed to persuade others to agree, get rid of the binary. Replace it with real text, talking about the history of binary, uses of binary, etc. This would also obviously be harder, because binary isn't naturally a funny subject. So, it's down to you. You can either keep it how it is, similar to AAAAAAAAA!, but hopefully make its translation funnier, or completely rewrite it (in English), to throw people off.
Concept: 5 Again, I don't know if that's the right kind of score. But, honestly, your concept (their concept, I suppose) is - write it all in binary. It raised a smile on me, but unfortunately nothing more. If you stick to the "Everything-In-Binary" theme, that's fine. It would probably be an average article. But to make it a better article, talk about binary in a way no one would expect. For example, the article about Cheerios talks about them as though they are an illegal drug, which is funny. If it were my article, I know that I would base it around a wacky idea about binary being absolutely useless because computers can understand English anyway, or binary being the language of the future, to save us learning French, or binary being invented by someone with OCD when he was 010 years old. Those are just rough off the top of my head, but you could make it into a decent article, rather than a one-joke piece.
Prose and formatting: 2 I don't know how to score you (them) on this, because it's all one big pile of numbers. It's a low score, though, because I don't like all the messy templates. Not needed. It's also too long. Yes, binary does take longer to write out, but cut out the unfunny crap and make it look nicer. At least AAAA looks fairly decent. Things you should cut out:
  • The Jesus template
  • The not-safe-for work template
  • That one with the eyebeams
  • Half the quotes
Images: 4 OK, so this is a MUST. Please get rid of the gallery halfway through. I don't know why it is there, or what. If you like some of the pictures, move them somewhere else. But otherwise, it serves no purpose, and is just useless. Apart from that, you've got several images with captions. The pope one and the one below it raised a smile, mainly because they are of course completely random and I had no idea what they were doing there. If I were you, when you rewrite it, keep these and maybe some other photographs (say, the cow) and stick them at random points in the article (where they do vaguely relate to the text). This will also break up the big binary text lumps in the middle. You need more images if you stay in binary, but obviously if you go for the English rewrite, you will have to get related versions.
Miscellaneous: 3 I saw it, and thought "I bet I know what this is like." I was right. I did smile once or twice, but never laughed. So it gets a three.
Final Score: 18 If you want help, you can talk to me. I'd just like to put a word in for a complete rewrite of the article though. As it stands, it is merely a one joke pony. If they exist.
Reviewer: Nameable mumble? 11:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects