Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Destroy All Humans!

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Destroy All Humans!

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 hours Pup 04:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Prose and
  Formatting:

The writing style,
spelling, grammar,
layout and overall
appearance.
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 is an evil bastard corporation that 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.

  1. Kill all the infoboxes at the start of the article with the exception of one. My preference would be for {{Familiarity}}. Maybe move the other infoboxes into the end of each section or at the base of the article.
  2. Kill all the lead-in quotes at the start of the article. If you want them in there then (once you've fleshed this out a little) add them as a lead-in to each 2nd level header (which I would also change to third level headers and the current third level to fourth level headers)
  3. Maybe add __NOTOC__ but definitely __NOEDITSECTION__ to your article.
  4. Remove the infobox and add the stuff from there into the body of the article. It is an ugly looking infobox (sorry to whoever designed it) and it dominates the page in a nasty, not-a-good-addition, type of way.
  5. And if it were me, I'd also have {{Title| }}<nowiki> and add an image to the top of "Destroy All Humans!" in a similar style to the font used for the title in the games itself (although confining it to one line and having it straight rather than curved - the objective is to get the feel of the game without sacrificing your page space.) # Change the in-body quotes to ''<nowiki>{{Cquote|blah blah blah}} as this fits in a little nicer and doesn't have that ugly light blue streak across the page.
  6. Kill the exclamation mark from the page name as that will make it a pain in the ass to link to, and if needs be just add it in on the page itself.

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.

Concept:
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
Theirs
* 1 Plot * 1.1 Characters * 1.2 Setting * 2 Gameplay * 2.1 Features * 3 Concept, sequels and spinoffs * 4 Reception * 5 References * 6 External links

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.

Humour:
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:

  • Frame: Yeah
  • Truth: It could be closer to the truth and less nonsense and that would improve. Play on the similarity to "Plan nine" and "Mars attacks" a little more. Maybe even throw in a couple of Bushisms relating to the "war on terror" that are unchanged but in context makes it seem that he's talking about the game. For instance George Bush snr said of "Gulf War I" "We're talking about Good versus Evil, Right versus Wrong." Can't think of any from "Gulf War II:This time it's personal" off the top of my head.
  • Techniques: Misdirection done well - the Scientology thing was a surprise, and US government being controlled by aliens was not how I expected that first paragraph to end (maybe a link here to Conspiracy - would have been better if it wasn't staring me in the face in the TOC. Escalation could be used a little more effectively. Definitely suggest the "being serious about silly things" approach being used a little more,

The don't-dos to destroy:

  • Nonsense: No major issues here that can't be easily fixeded. Try keeping a consistent voice/level of speech throughout. An evil bastard corporation spell check has something called the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level - the higher these numbers the more big words you've used. Having each section have these two numbers fairly close to each other is a quick guide to consistency of voice. Of course. having these increase shows a growing pomposity, and decrease a dumbing down. Dumbing down and eventually becoming thought controlled by the aliens may not be a bad punchline to the article.
  • Time: You already know that you need to spend more time. Research: Read the Wikipedia article ad follow the links from there to really get a broad understanding of your topic.
  • @#$%^&*: Dial it down to about a Julia Roberts movie level. I like the phrase Mind spork but remember what is censored in Mind blown does not have to be the same horse each time.
  • Clichés: Did I mention the overuse of celebrities? You are allowed 2 Paris Hilton's, or 2.5 Kevin Bacons per article. (And I just broke that rule for the review... sigh!)
  • Stagnant jokes/in-jokes:I didn't come across any (with the possible exception of Jack Thompson. In fact that section and the very last destroy the rest of the article.)
Images:
How are the images?
Are they relevant,
with good quality
and formatting?
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.

Miscellaneous:
The article's overall
quality - that indefinable
something.
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.

Final Score:
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)
Personal tools
projects