Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Crescendo

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Crescendo

I dunno about this one. You tell me about it. Depth recommended. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 09:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 09:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on my way, expect it soon (within 24 hours of this comment). I'm trying to deal with the queue almost on my own at the moment, but you are next on my list. --ChiefjusticeDS 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 9 It's pretty good, as I read I can certainly say that I didn't see the end of the article coming. I think the best thing for you to focus on is to at least make sure the article is well bound to the subject matter, you do this successfully a lot of the time but it is still important that you keep referring back to the crescendo. If you are going to use the Crescendo as the world's biggest metaphor you have to ensure it is always there and not far from the readers mind. Otherwise all you need to do is sort out a couple of jokes, you go through a quick change from subtle to overt as you reach the end, make sure this change doesn't confuse the humour. Try to avoid just suddenly going into expletives and profanity without showing a steady progression, the way you do it now is OK but you should make sure that it is reasonable. These are very minor problems and you will probably be alright without sorting too much here.
Concept: 8 You have the right idea, and your writing style executes it well, this is a superb way to have done the article, especially as it could have gone wrong in a lot of other ways. As far as tone goes, it is very difficult to score in that regard, but it is where I feel you deviate ever so slightly. Yup, this is another Chief "STOP! In the name of consistency" point. You have selected the first person for the article's conclusion, this is not consistent all the way through, just make sure that you keep the same tone throughout, If it is a person talking then try to make this clear, even if it is with just a sentence. This is part of the reason I didn't see the end coming, I didn't realise that a person was supposed to be relating the information until the third section. Perhaps I'm just a bit stupid, but it would be worth making it slightly more accessible. Again, nothing too serious to sort here.
Prose and formatting: 10 Your prose are generally pretty good and your grammar leaves virtually nothing to be desired, but, because it will be good for you, you should proofread one final time to be sure. Your formatting is pretty good too, especially as it could have been much worse considering the joke you use it for. I can't find anything wrong with the prose or the formatting, besides one red link, well done. The images are fine and they fit well enough, and there are enough to keep the text from getting dull.
Images: 9 The image joke is a particular point of ambiguity in your article, namely it is a good joke and it deserves a high image score, but there is something that I cannot identify missing, and the joke doesn't have the intended effect, on me at least. But besides that the images work well and carry on the central joke of the article with some style, but perhaps another look would be a better idea, it wouldn't do any harm and you may identify something that I couldn't
Miscellaneous: 9 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 45 Your article is good material, and definitely deserves praise. A quick note however, something nagged at me all the way through this review, while it amused me and your technique is near flawless, I would not recommend that you take it to VFH, I feel that the article does not possess that laugh out loud quality that is needed for huge support and that ultimately it is too subtle and the most overt laughs are all at the end. This is just my opinion however and you may do whatever you like with your article. Well done from me.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects