Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Destroy All Humans!
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Third article I've made, making fun of the First Destroy All Humans! game. WARNING. Some of this article's jokes are based off the game. You are advised to play/watch a walkthrough/read the wikipedia plot summary before reading this article, or face head asplosion. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is mine
but I'll be here a little over 24 hoursPup 04:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is mine
|Prose and |
The writing style,
layout and overall
|4.5||Okay, this is a slightly different PEEReview table to what is normally used, however in the case of this article I thought it best to put this up first, as this is the first thing that is letting you down.
Your spelling is pretty terrible. If you're able to write an article in WikiMedia then you're able to use a spell check, which doesn't appear to have been done. Grammar I'm not as concerned about, but the one thing that I did pick up is that it started with a much tighter, more controlled writing style, and then became more scattered and sloppy as it progressed. That says to me that this has been written in one sitting. I have no issue with someone sitting down spinning a fantastic article in one sitting, but I'd always suggest proofreading and spell check and grammar check. (There isthat have attempted to monopolise all computer software that came out with a word processing package that runs on a GUI interface that has a grammar check. It would tell me that that last sentence was too long, and I should consider revising.)
Layout - you're guilty of the two biggest sins that appear regularly on Uncyclopedia. The first is template overkill, the second is lead-in quotes overkill. Templates are not always fun or funny. Lead-in quotes are rarely fun or funny. The templates here are okay, but they bulk up the start of the article. The quotes fall well short of getting a laugh.
Remember that you have a total of three seconds for someone to look at your page before they decide if they want to read on. The first view (one view = one hit of the page down key - first view is when the page first opens) gives me no content. The second view gives me the quotes, lead in paragraph, the infobox, and the TOC. The third view gets me into the story.
One other nit-picky thing I will say about the templates that you've created. Either save them to another page (especially if you're likely to be doing a series on these) or remove the <includeonly>[[Category:Whetever category you've got here]]</includeonly><noinclude> and just add the categories at the end of the page.
What I did like about the layout is the conscious effort to ape the layout of the Wikipedia article that you started to do. Using an infobox similar to this one from Wikipedia would not be a bad idea, and continue to have it so the pages are more similarly inline with each other.
How good an idea
is behind the article?
|6.5||Very close to being a good concept. You've elevated what you have had in previous incarnations of this page to something that is accessible to people who don't know the game, and you've added in a mental link from this to Scientology and a commentary on the US government.
The thing that dropped this down the 0.5 was the excessive inclusion of celebrities/notables. Obama works as a 2-degree separation because of the US government thing, L Ron Hubbard works as a 2-degree separation because of the Scientology thing. But Tom Cruise is a 3rd degree separation and Oprah is a 4th degree separation at the very best. Leave those for the Scientology page itself maybe and keep the focus more upon the game and the game-world.
Again I do like the aping of the Wikipedia article that was started here and forgotten. Looking at your TOC side by side, we have
Yours * 1 Story * 1.1 Final Boss(es) and Ending * 2 Gameplay * 2.1 Basic Gameplay * 2.2 Weapons * 2.3 Mind Fuck Powers * 2.4 Missions * 3 Impact on Humanity * 3.1 Influence on Scientology * 3.2 Mind Control Failure and Sequels * 3.3 Jack Thompson * 3.4 You
Section 1 and 2 are interchangeable in the two different articles, your section 3 could be their section 4. I would be adding in a section 3 in yours, as well as section 5 and 6. Section 5 I would have one reference and cite the game, section 6 I would only link to internal pages like Alien abduction or whatever else suits. I'd also be tempted to link to this article on Wikipedia as it probably the Wiki article with the most bias I have seen, back make sure your link states that the person is going outside of the Unicycle-peddler universe. Of course you could do this more effectively if you aped the style of the Wikipedia article.
How funny is it?
Why is it funny?
How can it be funnier?
|5||Okay, I'll try and keep this brief. HTBFANJS
The do-dos done:
The don't-dos to destroy:
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
|5.5||I had trouble with the score here. I liked the game cover. The second image was dull but from Wiki and the caption brought it around.
That third image gave me trouble though. I love that image, but I don't think it suits the rest of the article. I also think that animated gifs are annoying as part of an article. That can be used to your advantage (self-reference, the "Why.gif" in Lateral Thinking) but usually is just a bit of eye-rapage. Again, ape the style of the Wikipedia article, steal their images, and use captions like you did for the second image (and spend time thinking about them - the funnier the caption the more justified the image) and go from there.
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
|7.5||I've given a higher score here then I have anywhere else in this review as I can see that this does have potential, and is a huge improvement on a previous article that shall remain nameless.
I think the fact that you have started aping the style of the original Wikipedia article has been a huge step towards getting this to VFH status.
How much can it be
improved and what
are the most important
areas to work on.
|29||Did I mention that you should continue to ape the style of the Wikipedia article?|
|Reviewer:||Pup 23:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)|