Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Carthage

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 16:35, October 16, 2008 by Necropaxx (talk | contribs)

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


edit Carthage

Dave 00:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 3 When reading this article, I kept wondering why it hadn't been deleted yet. Then I noticed the ICU tag at the end, which answered my question quite nicely. This article will probably be deleted in four days because it is not in the least bit funny. But, just in case you can work a miracle of article writing in less than four days, I'll tell you why it's not funny.

Quotes and the What is Carthage section - Okay, you get off to a bad start with the quote. You didn't use the wiki formatting correctly, so it comes out wrong and looks retarded. Plus it's not a funny quote, either. The right way to add a quote (however unnecessary it may be) is to use {{Q|Quote text|Person who said the quote|subject he/she's talking about}}. Hope that helps. On the What is Carthage? section, you really kill the article. Your approach is bad. You can make Carthage whatever you want it to be, like "the man who really painted the Sistine Chapel", or "a band that formed in the 1950's," or what you finally went with, "the Greek god of live, sex and fertility." And "live" should be "life." What you do in Carthage by not making up your mind about what the heck you're talking about is kill any funniness one of the concepts you listed might have had. Here's my advice: Pick ONE subject and stick with it. Or, in other words, PICK ONE SUBJECT AND STICK WITH IT. This is the main problem of your article. If you fix only this, you will still make it far better than it was. Another issue I have is with your headers. I am not a fan of conversations between the headers and the article text. It is not as effective as a satirical point of view, IMO. And remember, Uncyclopedia is a satire wiki. Plus the conversations you have are stupid, and unfunny to boot.

History of Carthage - Alright, you gave up that terrible writing style in the first big section, which earned a big sigh of relief from me. However, you start to kill the funny in a different way - randomness. Random writing like bringing Al Gore and Mormonism into the article isn't funny and distracts the reader from better in-context jokes you may have. Random humor isn't always bad, like in I Think I'll Call It "Peach". However, the way you do it is wrong, and I advise you to get rid of the random stuff. Moving on, the writing doesn't improve. The "Pubic Wars" (original, that) are littered with dumb sex jokes. Uncyc is famed for its appreciation of sex humor,[citation needed] but has to be good sex jokes. You need to improve your writing. Also, try an Encyclopedic tone when writing, instead of being subjective. Subjectivity doesn't work out in your article.

Concept: 2 I gave you such a low score because there is no discernible concept until more than half of the article is done. As I stated above, you need to pick ONE subject and stick with it. In other Pee Reviews, the concept score is usually higher because no matter how bad an article is, if the writer sticks to a topic, it will be exponentially funnier than random humor.
Prose and formatting: 4 Very bad writing style, poor wiki formatting with the quote, there are a few red links, and I'd get rid of the Table of Contents (use _NOTOC_) because of the massive ugly white space created by it.
Images: 0 No images. The least you could do is steal something from Google Image Search and paste in somewhere in the text.
Miscellaneous: 2.3 Averaged your scores.
Final Score: 11.3 Good luck. You're gonna need it.
Reviewer: Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:32, Oct 16
Personal tools