Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Buddha Article Revamp

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit User:Rbpolsen/Buddha‎

Rbpolsen Icons-flag-us.png 03:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'll review this — Sir Sycamore (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but I will not be able to review this one, I will try to come back at a later date though. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

OK, let's see what's what, what? --UU - natter UU Manhole 19:35, Nov 5

Humour: 3 OK, am I missing something here? You say article revamp, but it looks like a bunch of templates and no article. That large template at the bottom appears to be the point of this, but that's just it: it looks like a template, the kind of thing you find at the bottom of other articles, to link you to related articles. As a template of that sort, it would be adequate if wordy (most of them contain little more than the links); as an article, it isn't one.

As for humour, I'm struggling a little. You've got pen pics of various versions of the Buddha, which aren't all that, to be honest. They're like potted versions of the Jesii articles, which are overdone themselves. You've overdone the fatass references as well - OK, we get it, the Buddha's not a slimmer. Great. Anything less obvious you can tell us?

I kind of like the friendly style of the way you've done it though, reminds me of the prose of Robert Rankin, an author I'm quite fond of, and it lends it an approachable air that makes it feel kinda fun, so points for that. And I kind of liked the Golden Buddha bit. But beyond that, there's little here to rate on. Sorry.

Concept: 3 I can't see on, unless you were intending to create a template, in which case you don't really need a review, and you don't need the other templates on the page.

However, assuming you're actually trying to create an article, actually having one would be a start. There's plenty to work with - if you want to stick with the "multiple Buddhi" concept, then explain how they came to be, the benefits offered by a multiple choice religious figurehead, the differences between the versions, how their differences affect their philosophies, teachings and their versions of Nirvana, and so forth.

Alternatively, you could just try to parody the Buddha in a more biographical style. But whatever, if you intend an article, create one.

Prose and formatting: 5 For something so short, there are waaaaayyyyy too many templates. Templates should be used sparingly, if at all. So cut 'em down. Also, there's a couple of typos: "Captin's Coice" and "Sacrad".

Your wikiformatting is fine though.

Images: 2 Aside from those in the templates, there really aren't any. And templates don't really count. So if you do create an article, get some images. relevant ones, for preference.
Miscellaneous: 3.3 Averaged.
Final Score: 16.3 Well, this is a little tough to review, because I'm not sure there's much to review. Not a good score - I really don't see the point of this - particularly as everything in the template is a red link anyway - or are you planning to create those articles too? I'd say change this to a template and leave it at that, but there's no real need for such a template, nowhere to put it, and it serves no purpose without articles to link to. So if you want to create a Buddha article, go ahead and create an article. Have fun with it, but write stuff.

And lose some of the templates.

Of course, if you feel I've missed the point entirely, and I might be more inclined to give a better score if I understood your intentions, let me know on my talk page and I'll take another look - I'm happy to reappraise in the light of new information.

And finally, this is only my opinion - others are available. And good luck!

Reviewer: --UU - natter UU Manhole 19:57, Nov 5
Personal tools