Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Chicago transit authority
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Wuhtdafuk 23:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
If the future, you should expand your articles before you place it on pee review. It is currently only 1.2 kilobytes, anything under 4 kilobytes in normally considered a stub, i.e. too short. A reviewer would need more material to work with to be able to give you suggestions on how to improve it. As this one is already on pee review, you should continue to work on it while it is in the queue, it may take it awhile to be reviewed. If you find that this article is difficult to increase in size, you might want to consider user spacing it and working on a different topic.--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Intro: I'd suggest a more deadpan entry, the leaving of deadpan an normally get a chuckle in itself. Also, I'd suggest getting rid of the header quotes. Header quotes often start your article out to strong.
Rest of the Article Some of the material is slightly funny, but because its too short, it has a strong "collection of one-liners" feel to it. Whenever possible, write in paragraphs and avoid lists.
|Concept:||3||Its only been two days since I but the expand suggestion, and it is a holiday weekend, so you may have been busy, and haven't had time to edit the article. You can always put it on pee review again after you add more content. This review is going to be harsh, but your article does need some serious work.|
For off, the good points. Your article does tend to make sense, and you appear to be able to obey the laws of spelling and grammar.
The first problem with your article is that it is too short. Any article should be at least 4-5 kilobytes in length. If you can't get that much material, its probably not a good subject for you to write on. Your first concern would be to increase the amount of content then see were your at then. Its hard to review really short articles, many potential issues that may or may not will arise can't be discerned at this stage.
Your article also sounds a bit too attacky. Graceless bitching about the subject matter generally isn't very funny. You either need some "straight man" material to balance it out, or write your article from the "perspective" of the subject matter (or a friend of the subject matter, espcially if its an inanimate object) that insults itself accidentally. Also, your article should start more restrained and go more Wilde as the article progresses. Backhanded compliments, innuendo, and the like don't work after "bashing" the subject.
In addition, your article may be about a subject that is too local. This is often called "towncruft". Granted, Chicago is a large city, so its not as bad as some of the articles on here. Try to reveal as much information as possible, humorously, when you write an obscure subject.
|Prose and formatting:||4||Spelling, grammar, and red link avoidance is ok. However, your article has the following issues:|
To many headings for the amount of text. This may go away if you expand the article. Generally, don't use all level two headings: ==Header==. These are also called section headings, as opposed to subsection headings. Use some level three headings ===Header===, for subsections, they don't stick out as much. If your article still looks header-heavy after a fleshing out, its sometimes better to demote headers "semi-randomly" to sub-headers than have too many headers.
You should add a see also section at the end for a list of related links. This adds length, and is generally needed in most articles.
The image is too low on the page. As a rule, you should never position images where they will create excessive white. Often, this means don't put images at the end of articles.
|Images:||5.5||You have a image of the subject matter. However, you can clearly see that it is an image from India. Generally, the closer something is to the truth, the funnier it is. If you can find an image of an ox-cart in a more western setting, it would be more funny. I'm not saying get rid of the image, but it could be better. Also, you should generally have a pic of the subject matter at the top, generally on the right.|
|Miscellaneous:||3.5||(I use improvablity score instead of misc, misc is used by other reviewers as a "fail safe", and is most often the average of other scores)|
This article shouldn't be too hard to improve. However, you still have alot of work, hence the low score.
|Final Score:||18.5||NEED MOAR CONTENT!!!1!|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 15:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)|
Overall, you have a decent core to this article. However, I'm not sure how it will turn out when you add more content. I have seen some potential good stubs languish as stubs despite (apparent) attempts at expansion by their authors. I'm normally hesitant to give out high scores, even if the "potential" categories, or articles that are still this deep in the stub phase. --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)