Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Border Gavaskar trophy

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 03:08, December 22, 2008 by Mnbvcxz (talk | contribs)

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


edit Border Gavaskar Trophy

Avantika sharma17 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shall I nominate this article?

I'm not going to review it as I feel I won't produce a much favoured opinion of a user enlightened with the rules of cricket, but having read through it, there are several factors that prevent this from even being close to a VFH nomination:
  • Cricket isn't generally known. That said, one of the reasons Age of Umpires is popular because it's also a joke about a very well known videogame as well as cricket. Any article about cricket standalone will not serve well with most users, in particular the American conginent who play baseball instead.
  • Short sections. Quite embarassingly, two or three of the sections in this article comprise of a single one-liner, when other sections boast word-after-word of constant prose.
  • Lack of sufficient images. Of the two supplied, only the first one means something because, well it's a picture of a trophy. Other than that, the two images aren't humourous and certainly aren't enough. For an article of this length, you could do with two or even three more images.
  • Awry random humour. One of the sections goes on about a Symonds going on a "streaker killing rampage". Kills the article.
  • Problematic prose. Numerous issues: You don't need to put asteriks in swear words, you forget to capitalise some words such as Uncyclopedia, there are some random spaces in sentences, several typos such as "refree", also ugly use of exclaimation marks (one "!" is enough, unless it's satirical), I could go on.
However, that said, I don't know much about cricket to warrant a review from my own fingertips. --Nachlader 12:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Screw what I said earlier. A review from my fingertips was requested by the author, which will be done tomorrow. --Nachlader 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
... Which will be done later this week. Last week of school involves several essays I need to work on. Meanwhile, any other reviewer is welcome to take over. --Nachlader 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
... And now I must admit I cannot complete this review. The Christmas period just gets too busy and, thinking about it, I want to concentrate on articles for the time being. Mnbvcxz is more than able to handle the PEEing that I'd usually contribute. Again, I'm sorry Avantika. --Nachlader 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to review this tomorrow if I have time. It looks like Nachlader has enough comments to aleady to complete a "good enough" review. But, he probably doesn't risk losing his 100% good review score, so I'll steal finish this review.--Mnbvcxz 04:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thats alright. I will look forward to your comments. Avantika

Concept: 4.5 First off, if you write about an article dealing with a minor nation (and by minor nation, I mean any nations besides the United States and maybe the United Kingdom), you run the risk of your reader not knowing much about your subject matter. Therefore, you article needs to explain it enough that the reader gets the joke. Cricket is a rather obscure sport in America, most Americans really don't know anything beside the game other than its sorta like baseball. In the future, you should generally ask for minor nation specific articles to be reviewed by a person from your country, or at least from the British Commonwealth; otherwise, the reviewer might miss a lot of humor.

Your article also suffers from too much randomness. Saying impossible or random things is not funny and is not a substitute for humor. You should also avoid excessive implausible hyperbole, it only confuses the reader and makes it hard to follow, and it tends to generate inconsistency. One liners are funny if used sparingly, but they can ruin the article by destroying consistency and follow-ability if overused.

Random big numbers are not funny, and are even less funny when you don't separate the digits with commas.
Prose and Formatting: 5 Issues include:

Lack of links. You should have at least one or two links per paragraph, maybe more. Link to related topics and proper nouns if you can. Try to also link to a proper noun the first time it appears, and again later if you need more stuff to link to.

Lack of commas in numbers. You shouldn't have too many numbers with 4 or more non-zero digits anyway to begin with, as I said in the comments section. Second, any number with 4 or more digits should have a comma, except dates that should have a comma after 5 or more digits.

Asterisks in swear words are not needed. Either change the worse to less profane ones, or if that doesn't work, write the swear-word.

Too many level 2 headers. I fixed these by demoting some of your headers to level 3 headers, generated by === Title ===. This is more of a cosmetic issue. Even if you think a section is important enough for a level 2 header, but its short, you might want to demote to level 3, if it was that important, it would have enough text to justify the level 2 header. Additionally, some of your sections are still too short, often being only two lines.
Images: 5.5
William Howard Taft, 27th president of the United States, had a tornado for a body, spoons for facial hair, and wore a 1980's arcade game for a hat. With an image to back this up, the statement is made significantly less stupid
The images are appropriate, but nothing stands out. You should generally have an image of the subject matter, which you do, but that is about all you have. The image captions are a good place to but one-liners, an absurd statement is more believable when its backed up by an image. I keep atleast one of images that you have, and find one or two more funny ones.

Also, try to space out the images as evenly as possible, you have only two and they are almost on top of each other.
Humour: 3.5 I really didn't find this article that funny. It had too much randomness, and I don't know that much about cricket. I was a little generous here because there may be some humor that I didn't catch. This article does sound a little fan-crufty (fancruft its too full of jargon and topic specific knowledge to be funny to anyone who lacks near-professional knowledge in that topic) to me, but that might be because I'm an American.
Improvability Score: 5.5 I really don't know enough about this topic to tell you how to improve it, and I really can't judge how
Final Score: 24 Work on this, then get an Australian (or at least someone from a nation in which Cricket is played) to review it. I wouldn't have reviewed this one if I Nachlader didn't abandon it.
Reviewer: --Mnbvcxz 03:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools