Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Cancer (constellation)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- I guess I'll review this. Later. Tonightish. Cheers. -- 20100827 - 04:44 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Ah, humour. So important, and such a ruddy pain to poke, but fortunately this article does not lack humour. It could use more, perhaps, but as could most. Overall it becomes more a matter of better defining and emphasising and effecting what is there.
In the introduction, well, the intro serves its purpose well enough, but the individual sentences are a mite odd. It seems like some are strangely redundant with each other or themselves or... something. It quickly gets to the point of the cancer joke, at any rate, which is good. I like the bit about it going on to infect the ones around it... shame there isn't more later on this subject.
|Concept:||6||Cancer as cancer... literal interpretations of thing can certainly be odd enough. Anyhow, as an idea it has much potential, some of which is achieved, even then some, and some... not so much. But I suppose this is probably mostly reiteration of whatever I'll have said in the humour section. I'm writing this backwards for some reason, though, so I'm not actually sure. Really not sure why, either.
But it also seems to me that a lot of this is just repetition with little, shall I say, depth to it - Cancer is cancerous. Cancer infects stars. Cancer was named after cancer. Cancer looks like cancer. Only when Hera attempts to use Cancer on Heracles does more depth of the literalism or metaphor or whatever this sort of thing should be called come out. It is the latter option - Cancer attacks the guy, but is defeated, not unlike how the local woman apparently defeated cancer some years later. Yet Chemo, god who did the defeating, his damage here does well to reinforce the idea of this thing, adding depth. And Palliative cleans up after that...
|Prose and formatting:||5||Tone consistency seems to be your main issue here, perhaps along with sentence fluency. Fortunately the latter should be solved simply enough as a side effect of fixing other issues and a proofread, probably. At any rate, check sentence transitions and how the article presents itself from section to section - if they don't fit together well, not a good sign. It seems to go from a choppy but rather technical definition to being almost conversational at times, which is not helped by the rather sudden change in direction to using the second person on two of the sections after the professionalism of the directly preceding ones.
And as I already mentioned, you'll also probably want to give this a proofread in general. Watch your its and it's, your commas and whatnot... and possibly some other stuff, but that's most of what I noticed. Anyhow, it should help the read too. I know I keep tripping over that one 'it's' every time I pass it...
|Images:||6||The first two images tie well to the idea of Cancer being cancerous, between what they are and their captions. They bring the two sides together, and all the better that one operates in one direction, starting with the cells as the image with the caption relating it, and the other the other way around. The problem is that they are not overly funny - the frightening discolouration made me smile, but the second especially does little more than inform. If you could add something more to bring out potential humour of the constellation image, perhaps how it resembles said cells or some other commentary, it would help.
The last image just feels entirely out of place, even with the section there (which also feels out of place to me). It just seems almost as if the section was wrote just for an excuse to pull in a guy clutching at his balls, save for the fact that the section never mentions anything these literal cancerous crabs going for one's testes in the first place. Either tie this in somehow and justify the image's presence (and the section would need to seem less out of place as well for this), or you should really just remove it altogether. Replace it with something more applicable.
|Miscellaneous:||6||It's a number, resultant of careful consideration and vague estimation of what an average could be in an entirely integer world. Also, I have no idea how to actually average things. Don't hurt me.|
|Final Score:||30||This may be a strange way to put it, but I tried to find as many faults as I could with this so that perhaps you would have that many more things to approach... unless you disagree with them, in which case I suppose you'll probably just ignore them, but that's not really the point. Maybe this'll make it more of use, though, to result in a better article thingie. Or something.
Anyhoo, hopefully this helps. Good luck and sweet Nightmares; the madman is gnawing on my head again and I must depart.
|Reviewer:||-- 20100828 - 07:57 (UTC)|