Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Depleted Kitten (rewrite)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Author's note: I know I am putting PETA in a mostly positive light, and that is inconsistent with the rest of the site. Please don't dock too many points for this.
Ryuinfinity 12:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll review this thang before the week's over. In a couple of days, maybe? --03:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||3||In-jokes. I dunno. I love a good in-joke as much as the next guy, but as writers it's not something we should encourage, unless it's, like, really funny, in which case we feature them. Kitten huffing is really old as Uncyclopedia in-jokes go, which makes it a classic, but at the same time makes it kind of stale.
I don't like giving low scores, especially when it's obvious that you put a lot of thought into this, but what's funny about it? I'm not trying to be a dick, but seriously, where are the jokes? Ask yourself this. Comb through it and highlight all the setups and punchlines. I think you'll find, like I did, that there isn't a lot to mention. I guess you could say that the whole article is one big joke in that it spins an encyclopedic yarn about a ridiculous subject, but that's more being random than being fresh and original. Pages that only have randomness to offer tend to end up on VFD. (Fortunately for you, this isn't over-the-top random, and it's kind of protected from deletion by being an in-joke).
Honestly, the only thing that I got a rise out of was the link to PETA's free internet huffs, and that's way at the bottom. Things that are plainly unfunny include the sailor who was caught huffing a depleted kitten. It really feels like you left that hanging, and it doesn't segue well into how depleted kitten huffing spread well at all.
|Concept:||4||Sometimes giving too much detail to something can kill it. It stops being magical. Like when they make a movie out of your favorite childhood book and it's not at all how you imagined it. I was never a big fan of kitten huffing, and the article right now is in a sad, bloated state compared to when it was featured (I actually started reading it so I'd have a context to rate this article, but gave up halfway), so I don't know what good can come of exploring it further. Maybe if a huge kitten huffing fan comes through (although I don't know anyone like that), he'll really appreciate your article and the expansion you've done on the subject. It's kind of like you're continuing a classic, but at the same time it's like you're beating a dead horse.|
|Prose and formatting:||6||It's written well enough, although there are still some spelling errors (srsly, use Firefox's built-in spellchecker or run your article through MS Word or something), but my main complaint is with the tone of the article. It's pretty much dry and encyclopedic all the way through, but the huffing methods section confuses me. The lead is ambiguous (the huffers are inhumane? The kittens? What?) and while the top half of the article seems to condemn the practice, the bottom half seems to support it, giving detailed descriptions of the best methods. Be consistent, or if you're going to intentionally break consistency, make it funny.|
|Images:||5||MOAR! There's nothing wrong with the pictures and captions you have, but they're unremarkable and unoriginal. I suggest adding more to better break up the monotony of text. Maybe you could try something like Yellow Fever where you distract the reader with cuteness and/or pity for the huffed kittens. No? Just an idea.|
|Miscellaneous:||4.5||I was going to take off, like, 50 million points because the article is pro-PETA, but then I decided to average instead.|
|Final Score:||22.5||I glanced at the first review for this, and it doesn't seem like you've really made a significant improvement since then. I would consider taking Mnbvcxz's advice and leaving this article for newer and better things if I were you. Also, read HTBFANJS. If you've already read it, read it again. It's good, trust me.|
|Reviewer:||--04:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)|