Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Depleted Kitten
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I know the original was huffed. But please at least look at my revamp.
Ryuinfinity 20:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
|Concept:||3||This article's subject matter is what dooms it to low quality. Basically, its going to turn into one of those rambling fictional articles that lacks humor. It will probably be difficult to inject humor into this article, and it will probably turn into an unfunny description of the subject matter.|
In addition, this article is far from consistent, not in incoherent or contradictory way, but it a "data is not laid our right way"; it introduces new ideas late in the article, which don't quite contradict what came before, but it still gives off an inconsistent feel. This article is still at stub level, at only 2.7 kilobytes. I added a see also section to make it look a little longer, but it is still a stub. Its going to need a lot of fleshing to make it a good article.
Generally, you shouldn't put stubs on pee review, if you can't get it to "first draft" stage by yourself, your not going to be able to write a full article with help. And, the reviewer will probably assume you can't get beyond the stub stage and give you beginner level advice. Additionally, you shouldn't start articles in mainspace unless you can get it (almost) finished in one sitting. You should generally start articles in userspace if its going to take your a while to make a good article.
|Prose and Formatting:||5.5||The main issue is too many headers for the text. I don't see any major wrong with the text; your spelling and grammar looks ok, but I'm hesitant to give stubs high prose scores, as there is not much to mess up. Also, I'd probably put the image on the right, so it doesn't move the header over.|
|Humour:||3||I just didn't find it funny. Basically, its too disorderly, and the subject matter doesn't really lend itself to funniness, or what I said in the concept section.|
|Improvability Score:||3.5||I wouldn't say this article is so bad that its beyond redemption, but its close. Unless you have more ideas floating around in your head about this article, I'd probably userspace it.|
|Final Score:||19.5||I'd advise working on something else unless you have more ideas. A reorganization and fleshing out will help this article, but it will be hard to get it to "good article" quality.|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 18:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)|