Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Carebears

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Carebears

This stinks, and I know it stinks, but it's the first article I wrote from start on Uncyc, and I feel obliged to either fix it or VFD it. So if you think it can be fixed, then throw me a few of your ideas. (It also happens to be my partner's favourite article I've done on here.) Pup t 02:15, 31/07/2009

Yeah, I'm here, or at least will be in the next 24 hours, obviously I'm here now as I'm writing this, but I won't be here soon, so... er yeah, 24 hours.--ChiefjusticeDS 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 7 OK, first of all I don't think you should VFD the article, it is reasonable as it is, though it could be much better. The first point I noted on your humour was that all the jokes are very standalone, it is often a good idea to have a running joke in an article, it just makes it easier to refer back to. You have started with a reasonable joke in the first half of the article, but it disappears as you reach the types of Carebears, while the jokes in this section are reasonable I would have preferred to see what the original application of these bears had supposedly been in Shakespeare's work, your Macbeth joke with the quotes is one of the more amusing ones, you should take advantage of this. You have probably noticed that a couple of sections are classic violations of HTBFANJS and you should work to amend these. On the point of HTBFANJS, you should pay close attention to the final section and some of the descriptions, a couple of bits in the introduction could do with rewording in a slightly more amusing way.

Otherwise the humour is quite good, it made me smile a couple of times and just needs some polish to be as good as it can be.

Concept: 8 The concept is nothing if not original, I can confidently state that it is the first Carebear article that I have come across on Uncyclopedia. What I think is missing here is the tone and execution. You start well but the article falls down later on as you slip from the encyclopedic tone. Remember to exploit this tone appropriately, you are one of the better regular writers at doing so, so get to it! My views, regarding the tone, are, mostly to keep it consistent rather than dropping in and out, and make sure that while what you are saying may be total nonsense, that it retains some kind of a basis, this is especially important when the article has a real base to work from.
Prose and formatting: 7 Your prose are fine, but in need of extension, I thought the article ended very abruptly. There is a lot more, in my opinion, that you could add to the article. Consider an extension of the early part of the article by including a section like "Carebears in modern times" or something along similar lines. Your spelling and grammar are without obvious problems so, a quick proofread after any edits would be sufficient You have lost most points because the image to text balance is off by a whole lot to zero, but I suspect you knew that.
Images: 0 There are no images, you knew this was coming, use your initiative and I'm sure you can Google for a decent image, or steal one from the Wikipedia, or even make your own if you feel comfortable. Remember, if you need pictures making and don't feel confident doing so then you should nicely contact Sonje who can help you out. Remember that as a general rule you should try for at least 2 images in any article, that number is about right for an article of this length, 3 maximum.
Miscellaneous: 5 My overall grade of the article (I don't think the article is bad, but 5 is the most I give if you score below 2 on any category).
Final Score: 27 You have a promising start here, some expansion and some polish is all that is needed to make this into a perfectly solid article. If you have any queries, questions or qualms you know how to get hold of me. Good luck with any editing.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools